AN accounting expert came under scrutiny for his report on the financial statements of the Sport Company of TT (SporTT) on the third day of the trial against its former CEO and 13 ex-board members.

The cases arises out of the failed LifeSport programme and a $34 million contract to eBeam Interact Ltd.

Dwayne Rodriguez-Seijas, an assurance partner with PriceWaterhouseCoopers, testified at the trial before Justice Ricky Rahim on September 12. Rodriguez-Seijas was deemed an expert witness and had been asked to “read and interpret” SporTT’s financial statements from September 2007-2015.

He admitted that based on his review, SporTT was not a “for-profit company.”

He also said for the entire period under consideration, it never declared a loss or made a profit.

Rodriguez-Seijas had been asked to prepare a report based on five questions relating to SporTT financial statements.

He was asked to say whether the audited statements noted SporTT suffered no loss in respect of any of its activities during the review period and if not, why not.

He was also asked if the company had any financial exposure as a result of the transactions complained of in its lawsuit against the ex-directors; whether the alleged liabilities relating to loans shown in SporTT’s financial statements were a fiction and did not meet the recognition criteria for financial liabilities; and whether two $17 million payments were reflected in the financial statements, and if not, was there any reason why they would not be reflected there.

On September 12, attorneys Anil Maharaj and Jagdeo Singh questioned him for four ex-directors.

In response to questions, Rodriguez-Seijas agreed SporTT relied on a mix of funding from projects and government grants. He said the statements reflected some loans, but a significant contribution of government funding.

“My understanding is that expenses born by the company are funded by direct financing or government grants.”

Asked if SporTT had a “free slate” to use the money it received as it wanted, Rodriguez-Seijas said there were conditions attached to government-funded projects, although from looking at the statements he could not say what the conditions would have been. He said if the government was the guarantor (of a loan facility), then it would set the conditions.

Questioned about the two $17 million payments under the LifeSport programme, he said the financial statements had little information specific to those two payments and he did not do an independent exercise to identify the source.

“I did review the financial information provided to me and the content of the various witness statements.”

He said there were notes on the borrowing for the LifeSport programme.

“I did review the source documents included in the witness statements shared with me. I do not know if the money was paid out of a loan or general subvention to the company.”

Rodriguez-Seijas also admitted he did not have access to all supporting documents or interviews with the company’s management and that his scope of work c