Appeals court upholds conviction of former Wyndham employee

Appeals court upholds conviction of former Wyndham employee

Appellant Alexander Johnson was ordered to begin his 35-month prison sentence today

NASSAU, BAHAMAS — The appellate court has upheld the conviction and sentencing of a former Wyndham Nassau Resort and Crystal Palace Casino employee who used his position in the resort’s casino to steal from the casino safe.

Court of Appeals Justices John Isaacs, Stella Crane-Scott and Roy Jones ruled on the matter on Thursday.

The court ordered Alexander Johnson, the named appellant, to present himself to the Central Police Station by 8am Friday for transportation to the Bahamas Department of Correctional Services to commence his 35-month sentence.

Johnson was employed as a cashier and main banker at the resort in December 2008.

He had access to the casino main bank located in the casino cage and access to cash and the safe where cash was kept.

Video surveillance footage showed Johnson acting in what court documents said was a “strange and unusual manner” on December 14, 2008.

An investigation was launched and Johnson was found with several forged $100 American notes, which the appellant was accused of knowing to be fraudulent.

During trial, a US government secret service federal law enforcement officer and expert witness testified he received a request to examine some monetary notes on December 14, 2008, and said several US one hundred dollar bills examined had identical serial numbers, which totaled $19,400 counterfeit American dollar bills.

He was charged and convicted with possession of forged currency and stealing by reason of employment. He was sentenced to 35 months imprisonment.

However, Johnson appealed on the basis that the magistrate erred when she conviction him of theft by the using the intent to defraud element of the offence of theft and that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory in the circumstances of the case.

In denying the appeal and reaffirming the conviction, the appellate justices said: “There is nothing disclosed on the record that would cause any lurking doubt about the safety of the appellant’s conviction.

“There is nothing disclosed that makes the convictions unsatisfactory or the trial itself unfair.

“There is no merit to the ground that the magistrate erred in convicting the appellant of theft by using intent to defraud as an element of the offence of theft.

“Thus, there is no need for the court to insert itself in the sentences imposed by the magistrate.”