Moya told us that she was informed, while out of office today, that someone had gone in and paid the $30,000 plus in cash for Fonseca, clearing the amount he had owed for cheques bounced as far back as last October. Still, there is a balance of over $300,000 in dispute.
The Council says it could have pursued both criminal and civil actions against him. Apart from bringing a legal case to recover the money, the BCC could have prosecuted under the charge of ?obtaining property by deception,? law enforcement authorities tell us.
Moya said that while many people are calling for them to pursue the matter in the courts, they don?t know yet whether they would, because the council is ?in a financial crunch? and needs money to pay its employees. She feels Fonseca can afford to pay back the money owing.
We have not gotten an interview with Fonseca. Earlier this week Fonseca granted interviews to other media houses, including Love FM, Channel 5 and Channel 7, but when we contacted him this week, he claimed he was unable to talk with us. When we first spoke with him, he told us to call him back today and when we did, he was again ?not able.? When we asked him when he could do the interview, he said he does not know. He even declined our offer to do a brief interview by phone.
We note that a formal investigation or audit has not been conducted to cover the period in question. We understand that the new BCC was made aware of the magnitude of Fonseca?s outstanding payments when they took office after the March 1 elections.
The very day before the elections, the former mayor wrote a cheque to the City Council for $4,000. The bank returned the rubber cheque on March 3 and billed the Council $21.80 for it. There were at least 11 prior cheques that Fonseca wrote out in favor of the Council between October 7, 2005, and February 28, 2006. Seven of them, amounting to nearly $15,000 were written in February alone. They all bounced.
Was Fonseca trying to repay his debt with the Council? Moya claimed that he got cash from the Council for the cheques. The series of personal cheques were written against a Belize Bank account in favor of the Belize City Council and paid into the Alliance Bank and Atlantic Bank. When the cheques were sent to be cleared at the Belize Bank, the Belize Bank returned them. In some cases the return slip specified a reason for the return: ?NSF,? which means ?not sufficient funds.?
It was the Belize City Council?s account that was charged the respective fees. Each time a cheque bounced, the BCC was charged – $21.80 in the case of Alliance and $16.35 in the case of the Atlantic Bank.
Moya claims that the former mayor also got advances in excess of $200,000. Curiously, two cheques totaling $31,500 were paid to him this January. Of that, $15,000 was paid on January 23. The money was deposited in Fonseca?s Belize Bank account, but cheques written against that same account around that time all bounced like brand new basketballs.
While Fonseca has claimed to other media that he has used the money to help the poor, the cleared cheques indicate that most of the cheques were deposited directly in Fonseca?s bank accounts at Barclays (now First Caribbean), Alliance Bank and Belize Bank. In some instances, his driver, Frederick Michael, cashed cheques on his behalf.
Vouchers specifying the loan approvals, interestingly, noted that they were ?approved by David Fonseca? for David Fonseca. In some cases, payment was made in the name William Fonseca, using his first rather than his middle name.
Indications from the documents are that at least three other people at the Council knew what was happening, because their signatures appeared on the cheques along with Fonseca?s. They are financial manager, Pauline Wade; city manager, Colwin Flowers; and Howard Ramclam – legal officer. All three are still employed with the BCC, we were told today.
Moya said that in addition to the $200,000 plus in advances and loans, plus over $30,000 in bounced cheques, there was also $155,000 taken out of the social assistance vote that has not been properly accounted for.
We understand that only $25,000 had been budgeted for the 2005/2006 financial year for ?social assistance??an increase from $5,000 from the previous year. Moya said that the monies were clearly overspent.