CONVICTED King's Counsel Vincent Nelson is seeking to appeal his conviction and sentence for conspiring to commit money laundering, misbehaviour in public office and conspiracy to commit an act of corruption relating to a legal-fee kickback conspiracy.
A notice of appeal was filed on October 31.
It said it was premised on events leading up to a plea agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
These events, the appeal alleged, were an abuse of power and a breach of a promise not to prosecute.
In May 2019, Nelson, a tax attorney who lives in the UK, was indicted on three charges. Nelson entered a plea deal with the Office of the DPP which included an agreement that he would testify against former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, and ex-UNC senator Gerald Ramdeen.
Nelson was convicted on June 4, 2019, sentenced on March 2, 2020, and ordered to pay $2.25 million in fines, which he also wants the State to pay.
In October 2022, DPP Roger Gaspard made the shocking announcement of the decision to discontinue the case against Ramlogan and Ramdeen because Nelson refused to testify against them.
In March, Nelson's attorneys wrote to Gaspard asking him to appeal his conviction and sentence but the DPP refused, saying he believed the grounds set out by Nelson were not justified or factually well founded.
Four years, four months and 13 days after his conviction, Nelson filed his appeal and has also asked the court for an extension of time to do so.
Nelson's application sets out the events leading to the indemnity deal he entered with then attorney general Faris Al-Rawi and the Government.
In 2021, Gaspard told Newsday the only discussion or agreement he had had with Nelson was the plea deal that was in place. He said he would not have been privy to any discussions which had taken place before the criminal investigations.
Asked about the indemnity, Gaspard referred Newsday to the then Attorney General, again saying he was not 'privy to any discussions.'
'Those may relate to civil matters since the AG has no purview with criminal matters,' he said then.
Much of what is contained in the appeal application is also the basis behind his civil case against the State for over $96 million for loss of earnings after being expelled from a prestigious UK firm; loss of insurance benefits; the $2.5 million fine he was ordered to pay when he pleaded guilty; and additional sums if the UK authorities make demands on him for alleged unpaid taxes.
Nelson's appeal application admitted he had not paid his fines but contends it falls within the terms of the indemnity agreement.
Al-Rawi, however, has denied liability under the indemnity agreement. Nelson says his application should be set aside as he was induced to provide a notarised statement and enter into a plea agreement with the State.
'A government minister inducing someone to provide evidence and to enter into a plea agreement in exchange for promised protections, which protections are subsequently repudiated as contrary to public policy a
