Questions abound in the wake of the shocking revelations from the forensic audit of CLICO International Life (CIL) and CLICO Holdings Barbados Limited (CHBL).
As Albert Branford, the SUNDAY?SUN’s widely read independent political columnist asserted, the findings have prompted the question “what if David Thompson were alive?”
A Bajan New Yorker in Brooklyn answered Brandford: “It pains me to say this, but unfortunately it could have brought down the government. I am not saying Thompson is guilty of anything, but I doubt he would have been able to withstand the political fallout.”
Then, there is the interesting hypothetical question: what if both companies in Barbados were United States firms?
How would the American authorities react to the findings?
“Chances are the audits would have triggered multiple investigations at the state and federal levels in the United States and . . . lead to civil and criminal legal proceedings,” said a top Wall Street attorney after reading THE NATION’s accounts of the explosive findings by the auditors.
The first set of investigations would be by the US Justice Department, Insurance Commissioner’s offices in the states where CLICO and CHBL would have done business, and offices of state attorneys general. Their essential interests would be to find out which laws, if any, were broken, if the company acted according to regulations and if policyholders and other investors were defrauded.
If anyone was found guilty of criminal charges, prison terms, heavy fines, some form of restitution to policyholders or all of those things would follow as a result.
An essential goal would be to punish wrongdoers and help those who had fallen prey to the machinations of a company which went on selling policies, even after the Supervisor of Insurance had barred it from writing new business.
Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate in Washington would subpoena Leroy Parris in his capacity as chairman and CEO of CLICO and force him to testify under oath about the company’s operations, its retention of attorneys, and how payments were made to a law firm founded by the Prime Minister and still bearing his name.
The House and Senate Committee panel would also make recommendations to the chambers on the best ways to prevent a recurrence of the financial tragedy by strengthening existing laws.
That brings us back to the real world; not to “what if” . . . . Perhaps, a parliamentary committee of the House of Assembly could find out if any of the chamber’s rules were breached by a member and how to prevent a recurrence. That would certainly be in the public interest.