As sole beneficiary, Gammanpila forged Power of Attorney document: Witness
An Australian businessman's wife told the Colombo High Court ( CHC) on Friday that, one has to make the assumption that the allegedly fraudulent document executing a Power of Attorney (PoA) to Pivithuru Hela Urumaya ( PHU) Leader and MP Udaya Gammanpila, had been written by him, as the only person to benefit from such a document was Mr Gammanpila.
When the case was taken up before CHC Judge A.A.R. Heiyanthuduwa, Janet Elizabeth Shaddick ( 69), wife of Australian businessman Brian Shaddick, made the statement during cross- examination in connection with an indictment filed against MP Gammanpila and Sydney Jayasinghe.
The Attorney General’s ( AG) Dept had filed the indictments against the two accused for allegedly misappropriating Rs 21 million, following an allegedly fraudulent Share transaction that took place between September 26, 1996 and October 23, 1997. The AG further charged that the alleged business transaction had taken place using a fraudulent PoA to sell Shares belonging to Brian Shaddick.
During cross-examination by Defence Counsel Shavindra Fernando P. C., Mrs Shaddick was questioned as to how she knows that the allegedly fraudulent PoA given to Udaya Gammanpila, to sell Shares of the company Digital Nominees, was written by the 2nd Respondent, Mr Gammanpila. The witness answered that, one has to make that assumption, as he is the only one to benefit from such a document. She further said she never placed her signature to such a document and that, her signature had been forged. She also said she recognised the handwriting in the allegedly fraudulent document as belonging to Udaya Gammanpila, based on a fax she had earlier received in his handwriting.
Defence Counsel questioned the witness as to what evidence she possessed, other than the evidence of her and her husband, to prove the accused had stolen even one cent. Mrs Shaddick said she was only a witness, that she did not bring the case to court and that, she believes the evidence is in the hands of the police. Defence Counsel put it to the witness that the reason she could not produce a single piece of evidence was because there was none. The witness said she hadn’t brought any evidence with her, as she was a witness, and it was for the Prosecution to decide on bringing evidence against the accused.
The witness claimed she was dumbfounded seeing her signature on the document shown to her by the Sri Lanka Police in 2015 and that, she and her husband had no idea that Udaya Gammanpila had taken all the Shares of their company Digital Nominees and sold them, using the fraudulent PoA document.
Defence Counsel pointed out that, when her husband, Brian Shaddick, gave evidence on an earlier occasion, he had stated that, as a habit, he and his wife had placed each others signatures on documents. The witness said that she did not accept that statement, adding that, her husband should not have been in court to give evidence in the first place, as he was ill at the time and was on medication.
Defence Counsel accused her of giving false evidence to the court. The witness denied the charge, stating she had no reason to lie.
Deputy Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris with Senior State Counsel Nayana Seneviratne appeared for the AG.
Jayantha Weerasinghe P. C. with Shavindra Fernando P. C. and Senior Counsel Nalinda Indatissa appeared for the accused.
Further trial was fixed for June 19.