SOCU to appeal dismissal of fraud charges amid controversial procedural lapse

Prosecutors attached to the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) were left blindsided on June 27 when they learnt that three criminal charges against convicted fraudster Dave Rajeshwar Persaud were dismissed weeks earlier by Magistrate Delon Bess at the Diamond Magistrate’s Court under controversial circumstances.
Persaud, who is currently serving a three-year sentence imposed in April 2025 for the offence of obtaining by false pretence, had three additional charges pending before Magistrate Bess. The matters were scheduled for continuation of trial but, according to SOCU, were abruptly and irregularly dismissed on May 29, 2025, a date on which the prosecution believed the matters had been adjourned.
SOCU prosecutors stated that at approximately 6:39h on May 29, 2025, they received a WhatsApp message from the court clerk attached to Magistrate Bess, informing them that the Magistrate was scheduled to sit at the Leguan Magistrate’s Court, not at Diamond, and requested an adjournment date. SOCU said that it responded suggesting June 27, and the clerk confirmed that the proposed date was convenient.
However, when prosecutors appeared at the Diamond Magistrate’s Court on June 27, 2025, and waited for hours for the matters to be called, they were informed by the clerk that the cases had already been dismissed on May 29. They were then directed to Magistrate Bess, who explained that although he was sitting in Leguan on the day in question, he had joined the Diamond court virtually and noted that neither the prosecutors nor any witnesses were present during the proceeding, leading him to dismiss the cases.
According to SOCU, one of the matters was actively being heard, and the virtual presence of the accused from prison was not sufficient grounds for dismissal in the absence of the prosecution. The victim in that case was reportedly still under cross-examination when the trial last convened. SOCU noted that the proper course of action would have been for the Magistrate to close the cross-examination, declare the prosecution’s case closed, and proceed with a legal assessment based on the evidence already presented before issuing a ruling. SOCU claimed that no such process was followed, nor is there any record of it in the Magistrate’s case file.
Further, it has pointed out that it is highly unusual for a Magistrate presiding in one magisterial district, in this case, Leguan, to dismiss cases belonging to another jurisdiction, such as Diamond, without proper notice and communication.
SOCU said that subsequent checks into the correspondence between the court and SOCU revealed that the court clerk failed to notify Magistrate Bess of the agreement reached with prosecutors regarding the adjourned date, potentially contributing to the confusion and mismanagement of the case.
SOCU has confirmed its intention to file an appeal in the matter, citing procedural errors and the lack of due process in the dismissal of the charges.