A detective has refuted suggestions that the theft case against Nelson Bascome was his own interpretation of events and not that of the alleged victim.

Bascome, 52, is accused of stealing $40,080.52 from a loan entrusted to him by the Bank of Bermuda for business purposes between September 24, 2003 and February 19, 2004.

According to the case for the prosecution, he used the funds for his own benefit instead of for a business set up with Robert Smith to market a water filter Mr. Smith invented.

It is further alleged that the MP stole $20,000 from that company, called the Natural Business Company, in March 2004. The prosecution alleges that Bascome received $20,000 on behalf of it relating to contracts of repair issued by the Government of Bermuda but again used the monies for his own benefit, not that of the company.

Mr. Smith complained to the Police in May 2005, resulting in an investigation by the Fraud Unit.

Bascome denies wrongdoing, and is currently on trial at Magistrates' Court before Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner.

In evidence yesterday, Detective Constable Paul Ridley, the officer who investigated, continued to be cross examined by defence lawyer Victoria Pearman.

"I'm suggesting to you that this was really Detective Ridley's interpretation of the financials," she asked.

To which the officer replied: "No, absolutely not."

He explained that he went through banking documents pertaining to the case with Mr. Smith, and where there was any doubt the benefit of it was given to Bascome.

"But you've already accepted that Mr. Smith never came to you and said as part of this complaint 'I believe this man is taking money out of this account or that account or any account', did he?" persisted Ms Pearman.

"That's correct," replied the officer.

"He never made the complaint to you that he believed he was taking company money and putting it in his own personal account?" she asked.

"He wasn't that specific," replied the witness.

After repeated questions along the same lines that the charges were founded on the suspicions of the Police, not Mr. Smith, Mr. Warner interjected to say that the case should be decided purely on the evidence.

"That's what Police do all the time. What he thought or why the person was arrested is neither here nor there," he remarked.

The case continues.