Carter J
```html 1 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 2 CRIMINAL SIDE 3 4 INDICTMENT NO：69-71/2019 5 6 7 8 THE QUEEN 9 10 v. 11 SANDRA MILENA WOODMAN (nee VASCO PINEDA) 12 ANDRÉ CAROLL WOODMAN 13 14 Appearances： 15 Ms. Toyin Salako for the Crown 16 17 Mr. Oliver Grimwood of Barton Attorneys for the 18 Defendants 19 20 Before： 21 Justice Marlene I. Carter (Actg.) 22 Judge Alone Trial： 23 14th，15th and 17th September 2020 24 Verdict： 25 12th October 2020 26 27 28 29 HEADNOTE 30 Criminal Law-Proceeds of Crime Law (2017 Revision) 31 - Attempting to Remove Criminal Property - Inferences - 32 Trial by Judge Alone 33 34 35 36 37 VERDICT JUDGMENT 42 43 44 45 Verdict Judgment：R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.) Date：12th October 2020 Page 1 of 35 ```
```html 1. The defendants are before the Court on an Indictment that contains one count as follows: 2 Statement of Offence: 3 Attempting to Remove Criminal Property, contrary to s.133(a) of the 4 Proceeds of Crime Law (2017 Revision) 5 Particulars of Offence: 6 Sandra Milena Woodman (nee Vasco Pineda) and Andre Caroll Woodman, 7 on the 3rd day of August 2018, within the jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands, 8 attempted to remove criminal property, namely cash in the approximate 9 amount of US$9,500.00 from the Islands. 10 11. The Defendants elected trial by Judge Alone pursuant to s.129 of the Criminal Procedure 12 Code (CPC) of the Cayman Islands. 13 14. THE LAW ON JUDGE ALONE TRIALS 15 3. The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal (CICA) has given some guidance on the duties of a 16 Judge in a Judge Alone trial. In K. Richards v R' Rowe JA, stated: 17 “When a trial judge sitting alone has advised himself to the applicable 18 principles of law, and given himself any necessary warning, he must indicate 19 clearly in his judgment his reasons for acting as he did in order to 20 demonstrate that he has acted with the requisite degree of caution in mind 21 and has therefore heeded his own warning. No specific form of words is 22 necessary for this demonstration, what is necessary is that the Judge’s mind 23 upon the matter should be clearly revealed.” 24 25. 4. In Randy Martin v R2 Mottley JA stated as follows: 26 “A judge sitting in a criminal case without a jury, in rendering his decision 27 and giving his reasons for so concluding in not required to review every fact 28 and to detail each which the prosecution 29 was summo secution and 30 anch argument defence rely 31 heg up to a on as if 32 points of law has in any way impacted the conclusion that he has reached. 33 12001 CILR 496 2 CICA Crim. Appeal No. 2/2010 (Ind. 27/2009) Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.), Date: 12th October 2020 ```
```html 1 5. As in all criminal trials the burden is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 2 Defendants are guilty of the offence for which they are charged on the Indictment. There is 3 no burden on a Defendant to prove that he or she is innocent. The Defendants have no 4 obligation to prove that they are not guilty, or to explain the evidence offered by the 5 Prosecution. 6 7. I will not review every single detail of the evidence, but I will address my mind to the 8 important or prominent aspects of the evidence in deciding the critical issues in this case. I 9 will not decide every single point that has been raised - only such matters that will enable 10 to determine whether the charges on the indictment have been proved. 11 12 7. I remind myself that I must have regard to the whole of the evidence that has been presented 13 at trial and form my own judgment about that evidence. The questions of fact at issue on this 14 trial are for me to determine. 15 16 8. I must consider all of the evidence in this case against each defendant separately and, if after 17 having done so, I have any reasonable doubt as to whether either of the Defendants is guilty 18 or not, I must resolve that doubt in favour of that Defendant and find him/her not guilty of the 19 offence for which he/she is charged. 20 21 9. On the other hand, if having considered the evidence I am satisfied so that there is no 22 reasonable doubt in my mind, and I am sure of the guilt of either of the Defendants, then it 23 will be equally my duty to find him/her guilty as charged. 24 25 26 27 Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th October 2020 Page 3 of 35 ```
THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL
Section 34(1) of the Evidence Law (2019 Revision) allows for Proof by formal admission and states: ``` "Subject to this section, any fact of which oral evidence may be given in any criminal proceedings may be admitted for the purpose of those proceedings by or on behalf of the prosecutor or defendant, and the admission by any party of such fact under this section is, as against that party, conclusive evidence in those proceedings of the fact so admitted."
Pursuant to s.34(1) of the Evidence Law a Statement of Agreed Facts was introduced into evidence. Within the Statement of Agreed Facts at paragraphs 12 i - xx of this Judgment is a chronology of the relevant facts between the 12th June 2018 and the 2nd August 2018 which led to the defendants being before the Court.
The Statement of Agreed Facts: i. By letter dated 12th June 2018, Andre C Woodman sent a letter to the Visitor’s Visa Department, concerning an application for a visitor’s visa for Enith Yolanda Vasco Pineda. Within the letter Andre C Woodman indicated that he would like to invite Ms. Vasco Pineda for a vacation to the Cayman Islands from the 8th July 2018 through to the 29th July 2018. ii. An application form for a Cayman Islands Visa – General Visitor, was submitted on behalf of Ms. Vasco Pineda, a Colombian national. iii. Ms. Vasco Pineda had not previously travelled outside of Colombia and had not previously visited the Cayman Islands. iv. At the time of submitting the application Ms. Vasco Pineda, intended stay as for 3 weeks.
```markdown # Grand Court of the Cayman Islands Government ## Transcript of the Document ### Question 6.10 Q 6.10: How much money is available to you for your stay in the Cayman Islands? A 6.10: "On my sister & husband expenses" ### Question 6.11 Q 6.11: Who is paying for your trip? A 6.11: "My brother in law and sister" ### vi. A copy of Ms. Vasco-Pineda’s passport was submitted as part of the application. The passport shows the following: | Nationality: | Colombian | | --- | --- | | Date of Birth: | 2 November 1969 | | Date of Issue: | 3 May 2018 | | Date of Expiry: | 2 May 2028 | ### vii. The application is signed Enith Y Vasco and dated the 26th June 2018. ### viii. Ms. Vasco-Pineda arrived in Grand Cayman on the 18th July 2018 and was due to depart on the 17th August 2018. ### 3 August 2018 ### ix. Ms. Vasco Pineda arrived at Owens Roberts International Airport on the 3rd August and checked in with Cayman Airways. Ms. Vasco Pineda was issued with a boarding pass for a flight to Havana, Cuba. ### x. The Customs Narcotics Enforcement Teams ["CNET"] along with the Customs Canine ["K9"] Unit were on patrol in the departure lounge and baggage area of the airport. ### xi. Ms. Vasco-Pineda was paged and asked to attend at the Cayman Airways counter. Upon attendance at the Cayman Airways counter she was informed that the K9 had interest in her person and that Customs Officers were going to conduct a body search. ### xii. Ms. Vasco-Pineda was asked whether she had any contraband on her person to which she replied "No". It was then explained to Ms. Vasco-Pineda that contraband includes firearms, drugs and money. Ms. Vasco-Pineda then indicated that she had money in her possession. When asked where, she stated in her panty. ### xiii. Ms. Vasco-Pineda was asked whether she had any contraband on her person to which she replied "No". It was then explained to Ms. Vasco-Pineda that contraband includes firearms, drugs and money. Ms. Vasco-Pineda then indicated that she had money in her possession. When asked where, she stated in her panty. ### xiv. The cash removed from Ms. Vasco-Pineda’s waist totaled USD9,500. The USD9,500 was made up 66 USD100 bills and 58 USD50 bills. ### Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.), Date: 12th October 2020 Page 5 of 35 ```
```html 1 Police search 2 xvi. Officers attended the home address of Andre and Sandra Woodman’s 3 home address namely 189 Lemuel Circle to execute a search warrant. 4 xvii. During the search the following items were seized: 5 a) 4 glass jars with traces of ganja from the kitchen cupboard; 6 b) 8 empty glass jars; 7 c) Black "Taylor" scale with white residue; 8 d) Black "Weigh Max" scales from the dining room table; 9 e) Small traces of ganja on the inside toilet and floor area of the 10 master bathroom; 11 f) Receipt books. 12 xviii. Photographs were taken of the items seized in situ [Exhibit 2]. 13 xix. The black "Taylor" and the black (Weight Max) scales were forensically 14 examined. Tarces of cocaine were found on both scales. 15 Arrest 16 xx. Sandra Woodman and Andre Woodman were both arrested as a result 17 of the items found at the address. 18 Financial Evidence 19 xxi. By letter dated 26 January 2018 to Cayman National Bank ["CNB"] 20 Andre Woodman stated that he was self-employed earning a salary of 21 USD3,000 per month from his business 'Ride with Us Water Sports.' 22 xxii. Andre Woodman holds two personal accounts with CNB. Between 23 April and August 2018, the total cash deposited into these two accounts 24 was USD1,507 and the total cash withdrawal was USD825. 25 xxiii. On the 26th January 2018, Andre Woodman opened a business account 26 for "Ride With Us Watersports." The Account Opening Form requires 27 estimates of likely account usage and at the time of opening the 28 following information was provided: 29 Total Monthly deposits: Estimated at KYD14,000 30 Total Monthly withdrawals: Estimated at KYD6,000 31 Total Annual D Esti l Business 32 Deposits: 68,000 33 xxiv. Since the opening of the business account the largest cash withdrawal in 34 cash, was for USD1,600. 35 ```
```markdown xxvi. Sandra and Andre Woodman have a mortgage of KYD220,000. Between April 2018 to August 2018 Sandra and Andre Woodman made a total of KYD7,138 towards their mortgage. xxvii. The below table summarises the financial material obtained during the investigation: | Account Name: Andre Woodman T/A Ride With Us Watersports | | --- | | Account No: 02234453 | | Type of account: Commercial Savings USD | | Cash withdrawals from 12 April 18 to 24 September 2018 | USD18,291.71 | | Account No: 02234453 | | Cash deposits | Zero | | Account No: 02234453 | | Merchant Credit 27 March 2018 to 24 September 2018 | USD18,780.71 | | Account Name: Andre Woodman T/A Ride With Us Watersports | | --- | | Account No: 012-55253 | | Type of account: Commercial Savings KYD | | Cash withdrawals 2 February 2018 to 3 August 2018 | KYD 7925 | | Account No: 012-55253 | | Cash deposits | KYD249.75 | | Merchant Credit 2 February 2018 to 3 August 2018 | KYD 3771.89 | | Account Name: Andre Caroll Woodman | | --- | | Account No: 012-55703 | | Type of account: Personal Savings KYD | | Cash withdrawals | KYD825 | | Account No: 012-55703 | | Cash deposits: | KYD1,487 | | Account Name: Andre Caroll Woodman | | --- | | Type of account: Personal Savings USD | | Account No: 022-34696 | | Cash withdrawals | USD100 | | Account No: 022-34696 | | Cash deposits | USD100 | Notebooks of business activity xxviii. Notebook Exhibit DB1d/svp covers the period of 22nd November 2016 to 21st February 2017. This documents USD$47,528 of sales. xxix. Notebook Exhibit DF1d/svp covers the period of 23rd April 2018 to 2nd October 2017. This documents USD$58,331 of sales. xxx. Notebook Exhibit MM2a covers the period of 23rd April 2018 to 2nd August 2018. This documents USD$49,691 of sales. Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th October 2020 Page 7 of 35 ```
```markdown The cumulative total sales documented in these notebooks amounts to USD150,598. **Charges** Ms. Vasco-Pineda was charged with possession, concealing and removing criminal property. On the 19th December 2018, the Crown entered a nolle prossequi, Ms. Vasco Pineda was thereafter discharged. **Character** Miss Sandra Woodman is a woman of good character.” **THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION** The Prosecution’s case is that the Defendants were engaged in criminal activity - the supply of controlled drugs. They attempted to remove criminal property, namely $9,500.00 USD in cash from the Cayman Islands. The prosecution alleges that the Defendants jointly financed a trip to the Cayman Islands for Ms. Enith Yolanda Vasco-Pineda - the sole purpose of which was for her to remove criminal property from the Cayman Islands. The prosecution alleges that it was a calculated effort on the part of both Defendants to ensure that the $9,500.00 was not detected by Customs Officers. This is evident from the following facts: i. Not sending the money through the safest means, namely, via wire transfer; ii. the manner in which the money was concealed; and iii. the denominations of the cash were deliberate and to assist in avoiding detection. ```
```html 1 16. The prosecution does not dispute that the Defendants operated a business at the relevant time. 2 However, the prosecution submits that, derived from the facts of this case, there is an 3 irresistible inference that the $9,500 USD was derived in part or wholly from crime, namely 4 the selling of drugs. 5 6 17. The Prosecution submitted during the course of the trial that: 7 “The items seized are not in dispute. Where the items were found is not in 8 dispute. That the cash originated from these defendants is not in dispute. The 9 manner in which the property was attempted to be removed from the Cayman 10 Islands is not in dispute [and] neither [is] the amount of the money seized [in 11 dispute]. The issue for determination is whether the $9.500.00 USD 12 originated from criminal conduct and was criminal property.” 13 14 18. Much of the factual evidence on which the prosecution relies is set out in the Agreed Facts 15 above. As a result, the only witness called to give evidence at trial on behalf of the prosecution 16 was Officer Khalesiah Barboram. 17 18 EVIDENCE OF OFFICER BARBORAM 19 19. The salient aspects of Officer Barboram’s testimony were as follows. 20 21 20. Officer Barboram is attached to Financial Investigation Unit. She was called to Owen Roberts 22 International Airport on the 3rd of August 2018 in relation to the suspect Enith Yolanda Vasco- 23 Pineda. She was present when Vasco-Pineda was searched, and the $9,500.00 USD recovered. 24 She was also present when a search warrant was executed at the home of the defendants and 25 when the defendants were subsequently arrested. She was present when each 26 defendant was interviewed under caution. Page 9 of 35 Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.), Date: 12th October 2020 ```
```html 1 21. With respect to the second Defendant, Andre Woodman Officer Barboram confirmed that she 2 made checks with various banks to find out whether Mr. Woodman was a client of the banks 3 as he stated in his interview under caution. Officer Barboram’s evidence is: 4 “I made checks with the Credit Union. The account was closed. The 5 account at Scotiabank was only a mortgage account. The account at 6 Royal Bank was closed since 2015.” 7 8 22. Under cross examination Officer Barboram agreed that her investigation focused on the period 9 between April 2018 and August 2018 based on her understanding that April was the start date 10 of the business account and that cash was withdrawn from that account during that period of 11 time. She stated that she understood that the monies $9500.00 USD was stated as being from 12 the business account at CNB. 13 14 23. Counsel for the defendants referred Officer Barboram to a passage in the record of interview 15 of the defendant Sandra Woodman at page 9 of 25: 16 “KB：What can you tell me about the cash that was in her [Vasco-Pineda] 17 possession? 18 SW：It was my cash with my husband that we been saving. From our 19 business on the beach. 20 ... 21 KB：Did you get it from the bank. Did you withdraw it from the bank? 22 SW：Some money we can，we take it from the bank some is from savings 23 that we put up. 24 KB：Where do you store that savings? 25 SW：Home” 26 Goned wheth 27 Counsel quest the office 28 Verdict Judgment：Rv Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date：12th October 2020 ```
```html 1 What it was, was that prior to those questions, prior to the bank 2 account being opened that they would save the monies at home. That 3 was my understanding. I focused on withdrawals from the bank 4 account." 5 6 25. Officer Barboram also stated that she focused on the receipt books seized from the 7 defendants’ home. 8 9 “I did go through the notebooks, but they don’t spell out anything, the receipt 10 books were used for payments received. 11 12 I did go through the notebooks, but I could not say what they were. [There 13 were] no indications of what the numbers were, [whether they were] from 14 receipts issued to persons who would have made payments. I could not 15 interpret the notebooks so I did not add them up because I could not see 16 what they referred to. I did compare the Notebooks to the Receipt books, 17 some of which I saw dates that corresponded to the receipt books. There 18 was some correlation between the two books.” 19 INTERVIEWS UNDER CAUTION 20 26. The defendants were both interviewed under caution and transcripts of those 21 interviews were entered by the prosecution as evidence in this case. During the 22 course of those interviews each of the defendants answered only some of the 23 questions put to them by the officers conducting the interviews. 24 25 27. The defendant Andre Woodman answered only questions relating to his sister in law, 26 her visit to the Cayman Islands and those pertaining to his business. He offered no 27 comment to questions not pertaining to her 28 28. nt Sandra W 29 The defenda 30 sister’s visit, - that is, relating to asking her sister to take the monies to Columbia. Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.), Date: 12th October 2020 Page 11 of 35 ```
```html 1 Defendant Sandra Woodman also answered questions pertaining to the business 2 “Ride with Us Watersports”. 3 4 29. Neither defendant gave an account for the drugs or other details sought by the 5 officers conducting the interviews. 6 7 THE DEFENDANTS 8 30. At the close of the Prosecution’s case each of the defendants elected to give evidence 9 on oath. 10 11 31. I remind myself that I must assess the evidence of each defendant in the same 12 objective and dispassionate manner as I would any witness for the prosecution. I 13 remind myself that if I don’t accept the evidence of either of the defendants that I 14 cannot convict a defendant because I do not believe his account. I must return to the 15 prosecution’s case to look for evidence that the prosecution has proved its case to 16 the requisite standard before I can find a defendant guilty. If the Crown’s evidence 17 does not reach that standard so that I am sure of a defendant’s guilt, then my verdict 18 must be not guilty. 19 20 32. As I assess the evidence presented by the prosecution against defendants, the 21 evidence must be assessed against each defendant separately, the burden being on 22 the prosecution to prove its case to the requisite standard against each defendant. 23 24 33. The Statement of Agreed Facts at paragraph 33 states that the first defendant is a 25 pl character. That good character is not a c 26 person of goodremind myself to the 27 28 into account in her favour when considering whether I accept her evidence. Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th October 2020 Page 12 of 35 ```
```html 1 Secondly, the fact that the Defendant has not offended in the past may make it less 2 likely that she acted as the prosecution alleges in this case. 3 4 THE SALIENT ASPECTS OF THE DEFENDANT SANDRA WOODMAN'S EVIDENCE 5 34. The First Defendant, Sandra Woodman, has worked with her husband in their 6 business, Ride with Us Watersports, for approximately 9 years. The business is 7 concerned with the rental of jet skis, banana boat, snorkeling fins and equipment, 8 chairs & umbrellas to tourists. Mrs. Woodman described that the defendants opened 9 a business account with Cayman National Bank because without it they were unable 10 to accept payment by credit card and they lost sales if customers could only pay with 11 Most of their customers are tourists and payments would be in US dollars. 12 When she was paid in cash, she would save the cash at home. She did not put it in 13 the bank because she preferred to have it at home so “I would know how much I 14 have.” 15 16 17 35. She related that Receipt books and notebooks detailed different activities. The 18 receipt books related to bookings for jet-ski rentals. The notebooks set out the 19 monies received in respect of each of the jet-skis, the periods it was rented for and 20 the dates of the rentals. She stated that the notebooks do not say whether the 21 transaction was cash or card. What she would do at the end of each day was to print 22 a report from the credit card machine and deduct that from the total for the day as 23 set out in the notebook, to account for the amount of cash sales. She stated that the 24 notebook entries were not only in respect of the jet-skis but for payment for the rental 25 of all the oth as well. 26 27 28 Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th October 2020 Page 13 of 35 ```
```html 1 36. Later in cross examination the defendant stated that the note book would not 2 correlate with the bookings in the receipt book because, if a customer sought to rent 3 a jet-ski and there was one immediately available, there was no need to note a 4 booking for a later time in the receipt book. 5 6 37. Mrs. Woodman stated that from the time the business started it was only closed 7 completely on one occasion when the Covid-19 caused them to close. She related 8 that when monies went into the business account from credit card sales, they would 9 withdraw that money from the account and keep it at their home. 10 38. She gave evidence of the household expenses：Mortgage，Electricity，Water， 11 Groceries，Internet and Phone and also monies for maintenance for the 2nd 12 Defendant's son. These totaled CI$2550.00 per month. She stated that she and her 13 husband were planning to buy an apartment in Columbia which cost approximately 14 $35，000.00 USD. 15 16 39. Mrs. Woodman's evidence relating to the money found concealed on the person of 17 Ms. Vasco-Pineda was： 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 39. 28 27 26 uitcase in Coelated： 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 39. 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
```html 1 41. She related that she did not transfer it by the use of MoneyGram or through the bank 2 because MoneyGram had a maximum transfer of $1500.00 USD and she would have 3 had to pay tax on that as well as a transfer fee. Also, she stated that she did not 4 transfer the money via MoneyGram because the exchange rate for a USD to 5 Columbian peso that MoneyGram paid was less than she would receive if she took 6 the money to the bank in Columbia. She said: 7 8 9 10 42. With respect to the items seized at the home of the defendants at Northward the 11 defendant said: 12 13 43. With respect to the ganja on the inside of the toilet bowl the defendant said: 14 15 44. With respect to the scales the defendant said: 16 17 18 19 45. In relation to her No comment answers on interview the defendant said: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667
Cross Examination
The defendant admitted that she takes drugs. She said:
"I smoke ganja and I take cocaine sometimes."
She also admitted that she would store drugs, the ganja, in the jars found at the premises. She related:
"If I buy a portion, I put it there [in the jars] to make it keep fresh and when I want to smoke, I take it up and roll."
She denied that the jars were there because she and her husband were involved in the drug business or that the jars were there to store ganja for onward sale. She denied that she was a drug dealer, sold drugs to a third party, given drugs to a third party or seen her husband sell drugs.
She stated that she knew it was important to tell the Police that she did not sell drugs:
"I did tell them where the money came from. I don’t know how they can suggest I am a drug dealer if they don’t find drugs."
In answer to Crown counsel she maintained that she did not answer certain questions because of advice from her attorney and further stated:
"What was the difference in telling the Police I do not sell drugs. I explained [to the Police] that the money was not from drugs but from the business." Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th October 2020 Page 16 of 35
```html 1 “Because when I buy a dose, I just put it on my scales, either one I find 2 first.” 3 52. She related that the weighing of the drugs was to ensure that the person that she was 4 buying it from was not taking advantage of her. She weighed it to ensure that she 5 got the right value for her purchase. She said: 6 7 8 “The purpose of the scale was to weigh cocaine once I purchased it. 9 When I purchase it, whichever scale is close is what I use.” 10 11 53. She agreed that both scales were on open display when the police searched the 12 premises and stated that this was because she had used drugs like two days before 13 the search. She further related that: 14 15 16 17 “One is for when I buy ganja and one is for cocaine. The larger one is 18 for ganja and the smaller for cocaine. This is how I organize myself. I 19 need to weigh it because I want to know what I buy.” 20 54. When counsel asked why she needed two, the defendant’s response was: 21 19 “Why not I can even have three if I want to put my stuff on scales.” 22 23 24 Vasco-Pineda’s visit 25 26 55. The defendant denied that she attempted to throw or flush ganja down the toilet when 27 she heard that her sister was arrested. 28 passport. 29 30 She describ ties to buy i been 29 57. d that the mc n Columbve 31 32 paid directly to the seller and that the agreement for the sale of that property was he properia v only a verbal agreement. She agreed that the seller could confirm that the agreement Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th October 2020 ```
```html 1 had been entered into for the purchase of the apartment in Columbia. However, she 2 stated that since her sister's arrest she had not spoken to the seller because the seller 3 did not hold the apartment for her. She agreed that she could have related this to the 4 Police but stated: 5 “I did not tell the Police because the Police should not be concerned to 6 know what I am going to do with my money.” 7 58. The defendant agreed, when it was suggested to her that the safest way to transport 9 the monies would have been through the bank but maintained that she would lose a 10 lot of money if she utilized the bank. When it was suggested to the defendant that 11 she deliberately brought her sister to the Cayman Islands in order for her to remove 12 money without declaring it she responded: 13 “No, I invite her so she could have a vacation.” 14 59. She reiterated that she did not answer some of the questions put to her because 16 “I had explained it already. It was not illegal. I made my money from 17 the beach.” 18 60. When it was suggested to the defendant that if the monies were from legal sources, 19 she would not have asked her sister to conceal it she replied: 20 “I would still tell her because I want to save my money. I don't want to 21 get it lost.” 22 Re-Examination 23 24 61. Mrs. Woodman confirmed that the scales were only used to weigh her drugs, no 25 26 other purpose. 27 28 She stated that understandne 29 27 At she did not 30 29 incident to enable her to answer the question posed on interview. 31 Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th October 2020 Page 18 of 35 ```
THE SALIENT ASPECTS OF THE DEFENDANT ANDRE WOODMAN'S EVIDENCE Mr. Woodman testified that he had operated his business *Ride with Us Watersports* since 2015. He confirmed that the business operated between Monday – Thursdays. He stated that the business account was opened because of the number of clients wanting to pay by credit card and that he began to use it for the business in April 2018 when they received it from the bank. He related that the monies from the business account were usually withdrawn and put with the cash that he and his wife kept at home, that is, cash collected from the business at the beach. He stated with regard to the cash: > "The cash from the business, we take it home at the end of every day rather than deposit it because we are saving money and we have bills to pay also." He related a similar reason to that given in evidence by his wife, that they decided that it was best to send the monies to Columbia with his sister-in-law rather than via MoneyGram because MoneyGram could only send up to $1,500 USD per month and there was the difference in interest rates, government taxes and fees to be considered. He related that they would get less via MoneyGram than when they exchanged it in Columbia. He stated in relation to the notebooks that they were not used when he first began the business but when the business expanded from chairs and umbrellas to jet-skis they were used then. He stated that apart from the notebooks in evidence there were other notebooks created triods, however, those notebooks were left in possession because they were no longer in use. Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th October 2020 Page 19 of 35
```html 1 66. With respect to the items seized at the home of the defendants at Northward the 2 defendant said that the 4 jars with traces of ganja material found in them were used 3 by him to store marijuana so that the marijuana would not get dry and remain fresh. 4 67. In answer to question by his counsel whether he could say how ganja traces were 5 found on the rim of the toilet bowl in the master bedroom, Woodman stated that it 6 could have got there when he rolled a spliff and then got up and brushed the sticks 7 and seeds inside the bowl to flush it. 8 10 68. He was aware that cocaine was weighed on the scales found at the premises because 11 he had seen his wife weighing it, “to make sure she was getting her money value.” 12 13 69. He denied that the monies sent with his sister-in-law were the proceeds of selling 14 any form of drugs. He stated that he did not have a lawyer present during his 15 interview by the police, but he had spoken to an attorney prior to the interview. He 16 stated that his attorney instructed him to answer ‘no comment’ to questions about 17 drugs or anything that had nothing to do with the money. He followed as his attorney 18 had instructed. 19 20 Cross Examination 21 22 70. The Defendant Andre Woodman stated that all monies collected from the business 23 would be kept at the home. On Friday they would withdraw the monies that were 24 made on the credit card machine from the bank, and from this they would put aside 25 monies for the apartment in Columbia. He could not recall the exact date that they 26 for that purpose. 27 was aware that speaking ack 28 ut the apar He stated that it eer and forth tm his wife was co im omeone babo 1 year ag ant Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th October 2020 Page 20 of 35 ```
```html 71. He admitted that he had previously sent money via MoneyGram to Columbia and Honduras safely. He said the monies were being sent by his sister-in-law packaged in that way because: “We were worried because if she had a handbag and she comes out of the airport someone could snatch it so my wife suggested if she had it in her waist the money would not get misplaced.” 72. He agreed that the safest way to send money would be via the bank. He stated that it was a legitimate concern in his mind that his sister-in-law could be mugged or robbed on her way to Columbia. He agreed that he could have reduced that risk by not having her travel with the money, however, he disagreed that he was content to transfer the money through her because he knew it was obtained through criminal conduct. 73. In relation to the items found at the defendant’s home Mr. Woodman denied that he bought marijuana in bulk and stated that he would buy $10.00 portions of different varieties and therefore the need for different jars so that they did not get mixed up. He was adamant that “any drugs found in the house was for personal use, in order for me to smoke it.” 74. He stated the scales were not only for weighing cocaine and that one of them was for “when I buy marijuana to weigh it and the next was for my wife to weigh whatever she wants to do with it...I had two sets of scales for weighing of drugs whenever we purchased drugs to make sure we get our money’s worth.” 75. Ms. ant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28. In relation to the monies found on his sister-in-law, the defendant stated 28.</td
```html 1 76. He agreed that the monies [$9,500.00] were all of their savings and that it had taken 2 them some time to save that amount. He said: 3 “I say it was obtained through legitimate business. It take us about a 4 year to save. I would risk sending the money in that way because I 5 trusted my sister-in-law and every dollar counts. I don’t want to send it 6 and lose a penny.” 7 8. 77. He stated that the monies were hidden because the point of sending the money in 9 that way was to keep it safe and avoid someone being able to detect it if they were 10 going to rob her. 11 78. With respect to his responses on interview: When it was suggested to the defendant 12 that if he had provided the police with all the information that they requested the 13 matter could have been cleared up he said: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 79. He stated that the police were directed to the books by him and his wife during the 21 search of the house. 22 23 80. When it was put to him that he did not mention the notebooks during the interview 24 he said: 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 81. “They already had the notebooks. I did not have to mention it. They took them for a reason.” 31 Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th October 2020 ```
```html 1 82. He denied that he did not answer questions in the interview pertaining to the jars 2 because he and his wife had not decided what they were going to say. 3 4 83. He denied that the monies apart from the $9500.00USD given to his sister-in-law 5 was payment for her to act as a money mule. 6 7 84. I have considered all of the defendants evidence. I remind myself that if I do not 8 believe either of the defendants accounts, I cannot convict a defendant simply 9 because I do not believe his account. I must go back to consider the prosecution case 10 in its entirety in order to determine whether I am satisfied of the elements of each 11 offence beyond a reasonable doubt. 12 THE LAW 13 85. The defendants are charged with attempting to remove Criminal Property, contrary 14 to s.133 of the Proceeds of Crime Law (2017 Revision) (“the Law”). This section 15 reads: 16 17 18 19 20 21 “A person commits an offence if he- 22 (a) conceals criminal property; 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 “Criminal Property” has the meaning assigned thereto by s.144 (3) of the Law 30 which reads: 31 32 33 “Property is criminal property if- 34 (a) it constitutes a person's benefit from a criminal conduct or it 35 represents such a benefit (in whole or part and whether 36 directly or indirectly); and 37 the alleged offender knows or suspects that it constitutes or 38 represents such a benefit. Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th October 2020 Page 23 of 35 ```
```html 1 87. I remind myself that I must look to find whether the evidence presented by the Crown 2 proves all the elements of the offence to the requisite standard with respect to each 3 defendant before I can find the defendant guilty of the offences charged on the 4 indictment. I remind myself that a defendant has nothing to prove. 5 6 88. The prosecution must satisfy the court of the following elements of the offence 7 beyond a reasonable doubt. 8 9 i. That the defendants are guilty of criminal conduct, specifically the 10 supply of controlled drugs; 11 ii. That the monies seized are criminal property, being the benefit of that 12 criminal conduct; and 13 iii. That the monies seized, being criminal property, the defendants 14 attempted to remove this criminal property from the Cayman Islands in 15 this case, through Vasco-Pineda. 16 17 18 89. The first element - Are the defendants guilty of criminal conduct, specifically the 19 20 supply of controlled drugs? 21 22 i. The prosecution evidence in support of this element of the offence 23 comes from the items found at the defendants’ residence: 24 (i) 4 glass jars with traces of ganja 25 (ii) 8 empty glass jars 26 (m) 2 in white resin (iii) 2 Black scales with white residue found to be traces of 27 code found to 29 ija master he and floor a 28 the master bedroom. (iv) Tradre inside toihrea 29 the found on let a 30 Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.), Date: 12th October 2020 Page 24 of 35 ```
The prosecution also prays in aid of this element, the manner in which the cash was concealed on the person of Vasco-Pineda. The prosecution alleges that if these monies were from a legitimate source that the defendants would not seek to remove all of their earnings in this manner and that this was an attempt to ensure that the monies were not detected by Customs. The prosecution therefore states that the court can find from this evidence that these actions support their case that the defendants were engaged in criminal conduct, the supply of drugs. The second element - That the monies seized are criminal property, being the benefit of that criminal conduct. The prosecution submits that if the court finds that the evidence establishes that the defendants were involved in the supply of drugs, the court can find that the monies seized are criminal property - being profits from the supply of drugs. The prosecution argues that the monies are the benefit of criminal conduct based upon the inference that they ask the court to draw from the circumstances of the case, the concealment of the monies and the traces of drugs, scales and jars found at the defendants' residence. As stated by the Crown: "... in the circumstances of this case ... there is an irresistible inference that the money was derived in part or wholly from crime, namely the selling of drugs." Counsel for the prosecution submits that "The Court did not find that the evidence established that the defendants had a legitimate business." The evidence does not confirm the following: Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th October 2020 Page 25 of 35
```html 1 a) That the second defendant held two personal accounts at CNB. 2 There were no significant deposits or withdrawals from these 3 account between April and August 2018. 4 5 b) A business account was opened in January 2018 for “Ride with 6 us Watersports” with the source of funds for that account being 7 “Merchant Terminal Business Sales.” No significant monthly 8 cash withdrawals were made from that account. 9 10 c) The notebooks of business activity showed cumulative total 11 sales from these notebooks to amount to USD150,598. The 12 notebooks covered three non-consecutive periods： 22nd 13 November 206 to 21st February 2017， 22nd May to 2nd October 14 2017， and 23rd April to 2nd August 2018. 15 16 91. The third element -That the monies seized， being criminal property， the defendants 17 attempted to remove this criminal property from the Cayman Islands through Vasco- 18 Pineda. 19 i. The evidence in support of this limb， is that Vasco-Pineda was about to 20 leave the jurisdiction when she was stopped by Customs and the 21 indication by Vasco-Pineda that she was given the monies by the 22 defendants to take to Columbia. The defendants have each admitted 23 having knowledge of and asking Vasco-Pineda to take the monies to 24 Columbia 25 COURT'S AN 27 92. Neither of the defendants deny that the items found at the residence were theirs. 28 They both admitted in evidence that they were users of drugs. Mr. Woodman ``` This is a faithful transcription of the provided text, using Markdown for headings and paragraph structure, HTML for tables, and LaTeX for math.
admitted that he used ganja and Mrs. Woodman admitted that she occasionally used both ganja and cocaine.
They both offered explanations for the traces of ganja found in 4 jars at the residence, stating that the jars were used to keep the ganja “fresh” and that they were also used for storing sauces made by Mrs. Woodman.
They both denied being involved in the supply of drugs, insisting that any drugs found was for personal use and that the scales found at the residence were used for weighing the drugs that they purchased. The fact that the amount of each drug found was only traces of ganja and of cocaine does not in itself raise any inference to support the supply of drugs.
The evidence of the defendants when they were cross examined was that they dropped Vasco-Pineda to the airport for her flight to Columbia and had not returned to their home before the Police arrived to execute a search warrant and telephoned them to return to the house. There was no opportunity for concealment. It is therefore of note that although scales and traces were found at the house and prominently so, that is, on the dining table and in the kitchen of the home, there were no other paraphernalia found at the house of the kind that would support the defendants being involved in the supply of drugs, to bolster the prosecution’s case. This is a factor to be considered given the inference that the court is being asked to draw with regard to the defendants and the supply of drugs.
With regard to the concealment of the monies being transported to Columbia in the way in which it was by Vasco-Pineda. Each of the defendants admitted to having full knowledge of the fact of her Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th October 2020 Page 27 of 35
```html 1 concealment of the monies. The first defendant assisted Vasco-Pineda with the 2 concealment. 3 97. The prosecution asks this court to infer that the concealment of the monies was in an 4 effort to conceal the monies from customs because it was inconceivable to suggest 5 that if these funds were from a legitimate source that they would seek to remove all 6 their savings in this way. The prosecution offered in support of this inference the 7 fact that the defendants admitted in evidence that in transferring the monies 8 concealed in Vasco-Pineda's undergarments they were not sending the money 9 through the safest means, namely via wire transfer; that they never had any intention 10 of sending the money to Colombia in any other way and that the denominations of 11 the cash to avoid detection was deliberate. 12 13 98. After careful consideration of all of these factors I do not find that taken as a whole 14 they lead to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution submits. The defendants 15 each offered an explanation for their actions with regard to the monies. Mrs. 16 Woodman stated in evidence that she was concerned that someone may follow Ms. 17 Vasco-Pineda because she was coming from an international flight and grab her bag 18 and suitcase in Columbia. She related: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 99. At she did not use of Money Gram or through the bank byGram had a maximum 50 she would have 26 because MoneyGram had a maximum 50 transfer of $ and through the bank had to pay tax on that as well as a transfer fee. Also, she did not use MoneyGram because of the exchange rate for a USD to Columbian peso that MoneyGram paid 27 28 Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th October 2020 Page 28 of 35
was less than she would receive if she took the money to the bank in Columbia. She
said "I gave her in cash so I could get more money when she exchanged it for me."
100. Mr. Woodman also gave a similar explanation for the concealment of the monies.
He agreed that the safest way to send money would be via the bank. He stated that
it was a legitimate concern in his mind that his sister-in-law could be mugged or
robbed on her way to Columbia. He agreed that he could have reduced that risk by
not having her travel with the money, however, he disagreed that he was content to
transfer the money through her because he knew it was obtained through criminal
conduct.
11
101. I do not find that the explanation from the defendants is implausible. Many
international travelers conceal monies about their person in order to avoid being
robbed. I find that it is a reasonable conclusion which could be drawn from the
account given by the defendants that the monies were concealed in order to avoid
detection, not by Customs but for the reasons offered by the defendants, that is, to
prevent Vasco-Pineda from possibly being mugged or robbed during her journey to
Columbia.
19
102. Significantly, the prosecution has presented no evidence to contradict this
explanation. The defendants first gave this explanation for concealment of the
monies in their records of interview. If there are two reasonable conclusions that
can be drawn from accepted facts and one of these conclusions favors the defendant,
then that is the conclusion that this court must draw. I find that the fact of the
concealment does not
26 were involved
27
28
29
Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th
October 2020
Page 29 of 35 32.
```html 103. With respect to the second element that the prosecution must prove. The prosecution’s case is that the amount of the monies considered together with the drugs and scales found at the defendant’s home and the manner of concealment of the monies lead to an inference that the money was derived in part or wholly from crime, namely the selling of drugs. 104. In order to draw such an inference with regard to the monies, this court must be satisfied of its relevance to that issue [the selling of the drugs]. In order to do so, the court must determine: i. Whether it accepts or rejects any innocent explanation for it [the monies] advanced by the defendants; and ii. if there is any possibility of the money having been in the defendants’ possession for reasons other than drug dealing. 105. The prosecution did not present any evidence to counter the explanations offered by the defendants relating to how they accumulated the monies. The explanation given by the defendants during interview was that the monies were from their business. The defendants have provided notebooks which they allege show their earnings over various periods including the period immediately before their arrest. The bank details for the business account support their evidence that they only used the business account for credit card deposits. 106. The prosecution did not challenge what was set out in the notebooks and what the defendants testified that the figures represented. These appear as part of the Agreed Facts for the prosecution and Statement of While Questioned the defendants about the the prosecution did not provide any evidence to this court that would cause this court to reject the defendants’ accounts altogether about the accumulation and ``` This is a faithful transcription of the page, using Markdown for headings and paragraph structure, HTML for tables, and LaTeX for math. The content is extracted directly from the image provided.
```html 1 source of the monies. There is， on the agreed facts， evidence to support a possibility 2 that the monies were in the defendants’ possession for reasons other than drug 3 dealing. 4 5 107. The explanation offered by the defendants is a reasonable conclusion that can be 6 drawn from the fact that the business was the source of the monies. The inference 7 that the supply of drugs was the source of the monies is weakened by the evidence 8 of the defendants’ earnings from their business. The prosecution submitted that the 9 defendants’ outgoings were approximately $6600.00 per month. Taking the Agreed 10 Factors as stated at paragraph 12-xxviii-xxxi above， the notebook entries document 11 that the defendants earned USD 49， 691.00 of sales over a 3 1/2 month period between 12 23rd April to 2nd August 2018. These earnings would amount to $14， 197.43 per 13 month from which their outgoings could be paid with surplus monies for savings. 14 15 108. The sales recorded in notebook entries between 22nd November 2016 to 21st February 16 2017 was USD$47， 528.00. For the period 22nd May 2017 to 2nd October 2017 the 17 notebooks record USD$53， 379.00 in sales. From these records it appears that the 18 defendants’ earnings from the Ride with us Watersports business were consistently 19 20 21 109. The fact of and amount of the monies do not therefore lend support to the 22 prosecution’s case against these defendants. The prosecution is unable to rule out 23 that the source of the monies was the defendants’ business. The onus is on the 24 prosecution to refute this evidence. On the evidence before the court there is no 25 irresistible inference that the monies were 26 27 28 ```
FURTHER INFERENCES The prosecution alleges that, from the evidence presented, this court can also draw an adverse inference from the failure of the defendants to answer questions put to them when they were interviewed by the Police after arrest. The prosecution submit that the defendants did not provide a full explanation as to the source of the monies found on Ms. Vasco-Pineda during the course of their interviews and therefore invite the court to find that this was because they knew that their answers would not stand up to scrutiny or that they had not yet decided what story they were going to tell. The prosecution’s case is that both Defendants at the time of interview understood why they were arrested, that is, that the police believed that the money seized from Ms. Vasco Pineda was in whole or in part from the proceeds of selling drugs. The prosecution also submit that the defendants both understood that if they provided a full explanation as to the source of the funds not only would that result in the release of Ms. Vasco-Pineda permitting her to travel home to Colombia, but also would result in the release of their ‘savings.’ Notwithstanding this they failed to answer questions that they could properly have answered, namely: Details of their living expenses; details of the apartment they stated the money was for in Columbia; a Denial of dealing drugs, and the use to which the jars were put as well as the scales. The prosecution asks this court to find that it was reasonable for the defendants to have provided an explanation and that the regard to their business, was sufficient. Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th October 2020 Page 32 of 35
```html 1 114. Each of the defendants was cautioned before the interviews were conducted. During 2 the trial each defendant gave evidence of the matters to which the prosecution has 3 referred above which were not mentioned during the interviews. Each of the 4 defendants has stated in evidence that after speaking to their attorney they answered 5 the questions as he directed them. 6 7 115. Mrs. Woodman stated: 8 116. In cross examination she maintained that she did not answer certain questions 9 because of advice from her attorney and further stated: 10 117. The evidence of Mr. Woodman was that he did not have a lawyer present during his 11 interview by the police, but he had spoken to an attorney prior to the interview. He 12 stated that his attorney instructed him to answer ‘no comment’ to questions about 13 drugs or anything that had nothing to do with the money. He followed as his attorney 14 had instructed. 15 16 118. In determining whether to conclude that the only reason that the defendants failed to 17 answer thesesinginterviewanswers would 18 not stand up and/or they 19 expected to mention the facts relating to the three matters above, that the only 20 sensible explanation is the one that the prosecution offers, and that the prosecution’s 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 12th October 2020 Page 33 of 35 ```
```html 1 case was so strong that it clearly called for an answer by each of the defendants. I 2 cannot convict a defendant based on such a conclusion, if I accept it, but I can take 3 it into account as some additional support for the prosecution’s case and when 4 deciding whether the evidence from the defendants about these facts is true. 5 6 119. Where as in this case the defendants have given evidence that he/she did not answer 7 questions on the advice of their attorney, I remind myself that even if I accept this 8 evidence, this does not automatically prevent me from drawing any conclusion from 9 his/her silence, as a person given legal advice still has the choice whether to accept 10 or rejects such advice. In determining whether an adverse inference should be 11 drawn, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances existing at the time that 12 the defendants were questioned. 13 14 120. In this case each of the defendants responded to questions during the interviews to 15 provide information relating to the source of the monies found on Ms. Vasco- 16 Pineda. This was at the heart of the information that the police sought during the 17 interview and what the defendants clearly understood or believed to be the reason 18 that they were being questioned. The interaction between Mr. Woodman and the 19 interviewing officer was as follows: 20 “SA [interviewing officer]: What can you tell me about the circumstances 21 which lead to your arrest? 22 AW: I guess what lead to the search warrant is 23 because I gave my sister-in-law some money to 24 take to Columbia, and she was stopped, and 25 you guys thought it was criminal property...” 26 27 121. In the circumstances of ach reasonab expected the ch of the sho 28 ach reasonab expected the ch of the sho 29 their 30 relating to 31 case that d 32 to, 33 ely have been ea further fa th 34 uld 35 mention icts 36 defendants 37 living expenses, details of their intended purchase in Columbia or their drug use. Verdict Judgment: R v Woodman (Sandra Milena) (nee Vasco Pineda) and Woodman (Andre Caroll) Carter J. (Actg.), Date: 12th October 2020 Page 34 of 35 ```
```html 1 122. I do not find that the prosecution’s case was so strong that it clearly called for an 2 answer by him/her. 3 4 123. I accept their evidence that they took the advice of their attorneys with regard to what 5 questions to answer and which not to during their interviews. 6 7 124. I am not satisfied that any conclusion should be drawn against either of these 8 defendants. Consequently, there is no additional support for the prosecution’s case 9 to be derived from the failure of the defendants to answer questions in interview. 10 11 CONCLUSION 12 13 125. Taking all of the facts and evidence into account, I find that the burden on the 14 prosecution to satisfy this court beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the elements 15 of the offence has not been met. 16 17 126. After full consideration of all of the evidence I am not sure of the prosecution’s case 18 against either of these defendants and I find each of them Not Guilty of the offence 19 of Attempting to Remove Criminal Property. 20 21 Dated this the 12th day of October 2020. 22 Madam Jus I. Carter Judge of thrt (Acting) 23 Justice Marlenc e Grand Cou