Unibank calls for sanctions against Diaspora plaintiffs’ lawyers for revealing “confidential communication”
While the National Education Fund (FNÉ) file takes a new turn in Haiti with the revelations of lawyer Arnel Rémy which made it possible to lift, somewhat, the veil on this “ mafia system of corruption created by the neo-Duvalierist PHTK” presented in the Linguist-Terminologist article ROBERT Berrouët-Oriol Robert published this week by our newspaper, in the USA the lawyers of the Diaspora plaintiffs accused Joseph Michel Martelly, Jocelerme Privert and companies like Unibank and Digicel of having participated in this fraud linked to money collected in the USA in the name of Free Education for Children in Haiti.
They made accusations and provocative revelations of the reactions of the lawyers of Unibank and Unitransfer in particular.
In fact by letter dated February 27, 2024 addressed to judge LaShann DeArcy Hall, lawyer Marcel Denis notably revealed that Unibank’s lawyers offered him rewaive their legal fees and penalties in exchange for the plaintiffs issuing a letter stating that “Unibank and Unitransfer have done nothing wrong.”
In this correspondence, Mr. Marcel Denis Pierre notes the following points for the American court:
The plaintiffs never took seriously the motion for sanctions against defendants Unibank and Unitransfer. The defendants, through their attorney Oliver Birman, held at least two conference calls with the plaintiffs solely to offer to waive their legal fees and sanctions in exchange for the plaintiffs issuing a letter stating that “Unibank and Unitransfer have done nothing wrong. » Defendants’ allegation that plaintiffs failed to conduct a pretrial investigation is without merit. The defendants mentioned in their memorial letter that the United Nations and the Canadian government conducted an investigation and reached the same conclusion as the plaintiffs as well as a Haitian judge who recently issued an international arrest warrant against the defendants. Joseph Michel Martelly and Jocelerme Privet for fraud, corruption with gang ties in the Port-au-Prince metropolitan area to conduct their criminal enterprise which includes drug trafficking, money laundering, kidnapping, theft, rape and murder. Some of their intended victims are citizens and legal residents of the United States and relatives living in Haiti. The UN investigation also found that in addition to high-profile politicians, Haiti’s economic elites also participate in crime and businesses are linked to gang activities. The genesis of plaintiffs’ claims arose in part from defendant Martelly’s imposition of $1.50. and a $0.05 fee on money sent to Haiti as well as phone calls intended to provide free universal education to some 900,000 street children. It turned out that the funds raised were not used to build classrooms or to buy books and notebooks, but rather to buy weapons, ammunition and to support local gang activities. Defendants Unibank and Unitransfer were two of the parties who aided and abetted the collection of monies under the scheme. Specifically in relation to the former president to whom the defendants referred in their letter, Carl BRAUN, the “President and CEO” of Unibank, SA, the parent company of Unitransfer. The lawyers noted the following:
Mr. Braun submitted a declaration to this honorable Court in favor of Unibank and a Motion by Unitransfer to dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit. Mr. Braun is sanctioned by the Government of Canada for his involvement in cases of fraud, corruption and criminal enterprises linked to local gangs. Mr. Braun issued a letter of apology on October 10, 2023, pretending to distance himself from all companies he is affiliated with following the sanction. Before distancing himself from all affiliated companies, Mr. Braun, knowing that he was about to be sanctioned, resigned as “Chairman and CEO” to become Unibank’s Managing Director and CEO skilled. Also sanctioned by the Government of Canada for fraud, corruption and gang financing activities are the accused Joseph Michel Martelly and Jocelerme Privert. The findings of the United Nations and Government of Canada investigations cited in the CRS report conducted years after the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit demonstrate that the plaintiffs conducted pre-trial investigation. The plaintiffs sued Unibank and Unitransfer as well as other defendants identified as fraudsters involved in criminal enterprises. But for pretrial discovery, the plaintiffs would not have been able to identify the defendants named in the lawsuit or the motives for the suit. The plaintiffs did not bring the action for an improper purpose nor is it “manifestly clear that the claims have absolutely no chance of success.” As mentioned above, Plaintiffs did not respond to Defendants Unibank and Unitransfer’s motion for sanction because Plaintiffs did not believe the motion had merit on the basis of Defendants’ attorneys move to withdraw the motion in exchange of a letter exonerating their clients. Even more serious, Mr. Marcel P. Denis, in this same correspondence, believes that the defendants’ lawyer was essentially trying to use the plaintiffs to give them good publicity, taking into account the issues for the former “President and Director General” of Unibank and Unitransfer who is accused of complicity with gangs in Haiti.
Defendants Unibank and Unitransfer renew their request to intimidate and deter plaintiffs and anyone else who wishes to provide information to support a civil action against them, he wrote in the letter to the US court.
The plaintiffs were warned during the pre-trial investigation to be careful as some of the named defendants are dangerous characters with links to criminal elements known to have committed heinous acts against anyone who challenged them. Hence the reason, several of the people contacted by the plaintiffs during the pre-trial investigation chose not to keep their confirmed appointments, he concludes.
