Log In

Reset Password
BERMUDA | RSS PODCAST

Book-keeper in theft charge was ‘set up’ by company owner

Lawyers for a book-keeper charged with stealing more than $700,000 from a company she worked for have claimed that the firm’s owner was trying to “set up” the defendant.

However, the court heard from two witnesses who said she had called them and admitted she had taken money from the company with the intention of later returning it.

Bambi Pimental has pleaded not guilty to three counts of theft, fraudulent false accounting, and using criminal property, while subcontracted by roofing firm J W Gray and Company between June 29, 2016 and June 2020.

The court heard that the company’s owner, Jonathan Gray, confronted Ms Pimental on June 9, 2020 after discovering that about $180,000 had been transferred from the company’s bank account to her personal account over the four-year period.

Mr Gray said further inquiries had revealed that an additional sum in excess of $500,000 had also been transferred.

Victoria Greening, counsel for Ms Pimental, suggested to Mr Gray that he had “maliciously set up” Ms Pimental because he wanted to seize the deeds to her house.

Ms Greening also suggested that, on the day after Mr Gray had confronted Ms Pimental about the accounting abnormalities he telephoned her and “instructed her not to speak to anyone in the company”.

“You called and asked for the deeds to her house or condo,” she added.

Mr Gray flatly denied the allegations, stating: “That did not happen.”

Ms Greening also claimed that her client would occasionally have to pay company fees “out of pocket” and then reimburse herself from the company’s account.

She then went through a list of 19 bills that Ms Pimental claimed to have paid using her own money between April 2016 and February 2020. The total value of those purchases came to around $6,600.

Again, Mr Gray disputed the claims, saying: “It wouldn’t have happened. The company pays for its own bills.”

He went on to say that Ms Pimental had access to the company’s bank account, credit cards, petty cash and vendor credit accounts and would not have needed to use her own money for company expenses.

Ms Greening also questioned Mr Gray about a recorded June 9 meeting he had with Ms Pimental in which he quizzed her about the accounting discrepancies.

When Ms Greening suggested to Mr Gray that Ms Pimental was “trying to explain” the anomalies, Mr Gray replied: “She was blathering.”

Ms Greening went on to claim that Mr Gray had “shut down” Ms Pimental during the conversation.

Mr Gray replied: “I gave her ample opportunity to deny the [allegations] during the 16 minutes we spoke.”

Mr Gray’s wife, Susan, later told the court she performed bookkeeping and other administrative duties for the firm before being replaced by Ms Pimental, although she remained a company director.

Questioned by Crown Counsel Shaunté Simons-Fox, Mrs Gray said that Ms Pimental was in charge of the company’s finances and that her work was never checked.

She said: “We felt we could trust her. It was a positive relationship. It was a friendship. We exchanged gifts and talked about different things in life.”

Asked what her reaction was when she discovered the accounting irregularities, an emotional Mrs Gray replied: “Disbelief.

“This had been going on for a long time — every month.

“We were angry and upset that a person we had trusted was doing this to us — someone we considered a friend.

“It is a very hard thing to swallow when you let people into your home and trust them with everything and they do this to you.

“Jonathan and I had such a hard time. We were hurt, we were angry and didn’t know how to proceed with our lives. It was a very, very difficult time, and unfortunately it is all coming back now, after four years.”

Shown a 2016 e-mail chain, Mrs Gray accepted that Ms Pimental had said she would bill the company just under $40 and hour, which the defendant said was half her usual rate.

Mrs Gray said she did not recall the e-mail, but her rates remained the same throughout her time at the company.

“She never asked for and I never agreed to any other rates,“ she said.

Questioned about a number of payments, Ms Pimental said she had made out of her own account, Mrs Gray said there was no need for her to have done so.

“We had a chequebook,” she said. “There was no need.”

Jordan Gunter, the operations manager at JW Gray and Company, said he received a phone call from Ms Pimental in June 2020 in which she said she had been fired and that she had “f***ed up”.

“She then said she had taken some money,” he added. “ I wasn’t sure what to think. I was confused at the time. I didn’t know what the situation was.

“She proceeded to say that she had taken some money and that it was a lot of money and that Jonathan was angry.

“She apologised to me and thought it was best that she called me and told me.”

Mr Gunter recalled that there was an employee who had difficulty with his bank account and it was possible that money had been transferred into his account so he could pay the worker in cash.

“That would all be documented in statements,” Mr Gunter added.

Anthony Cupidor, another operations manager at the company, said he received a similar phone call from the defendant.

“The first thing she said to me was ‘Church, I f***ed up’,” he said.

He said Ms Pimental told her that she had borrowed money from the company with the intent of returning it but that it “got away” from her so she intended to work without paying herself.

“She sounded upset and distraught,” Mr Cupidor said. “She kept repeating herself more or less. It was the same sentences in different words and her apologising saying she was sorry.”

He told the court that while he was aware of the situation, he acted like he did not know what she was talking about.

Asked in cross-examination if he recalled that Ms Pimental had asked him in June of 2016 for permission to pay herself $6,200 in advance, Mr Cupidor said such a conversation “never took place”.

•It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case