A couple accused of stealing $300,000 from elderly clients were heavily criticised in the Supreme Court yesterday.

Forensic accountant Todd Boyd was giving his second day of evidence from the witness box and after taking the jury through extensive financial records following his investigation he said: “This was not a proper way to run a business — using another person’s money.”

The couple, the Reverend Jaymo Durham, 52, and Keiva Maronie Durham, 44, are charged with stealing credit balances from four women plus allegations that they made and used false statements.

The alleged thefts are claimed to have happened over a seven-year period.

The duo, who deny the charges, are representing themselves in court.

It is alleged that the offences took place between February 23, 2012 and July 31, 2019, and the four victims are: Doreen Stevens, Nancy Locke plus Muriel and Loretta Smith, all clients with Ageing and Disability Services.

Mr Boyd told earlier how he had been asked by the Bermuda Police Service to examine Mr and Mrs Durham’s financial affairs from January 1, 2012 until July 31, 2019.

He produced stacks of exhibits over the past two days and on the first day Mr Boyd required a metal, two-tier trolley to bring his evidence into the courtroom.

The forensic accountant, described in court as an expert witness, has been called upon by police for several cases in the past for his expertise.

Following lengthy explanations to the jury members, who studied his evidence on iPads, Mr Boyd insisted that the figures from bank accounts showed Mr Durham, who was receiver for Ms Stevens, had taken large chunks of money from the alleged victim and transferred them into his own personal account.

Mr Boyd remarked: “As receiver for Ms Stevens’s bank account he’s controlling her money. He’s the one transferring the money.”

He added: “What I would not expect is Ms Stevens’s funds to be transferred by Mr Durham from her bank account directly towards [his] personal and business expenses.

“What I would not expect with Ms Stevens’s funds is that they would be transferred to Mr Durham’s personal bank account.

“I cannot reconcile a reason for that. What I would not expect is Ms Stevens’s funds would be transferred to Mr Durham’s personal credit card.

“If a credit card was needed, I would have expected a business to have a credit card.

“What I would not expect is Mr Durham would withdraw cash from Ms Stevens’s bank account. There is no ability to account for those.

“I would not expect Ms Stevens’s funds to pay rent directly into Mr Durham’s personal bank account.”

Asked by Crown counsel Paul Tyndale what his understanding was of the transferring of funds, Mr Boyd replied: “Primarily for the care of the patient’s needs.

“So we would have expected it to be funds removed from Ms Stevens’s personal bank account and the guardian and to be dispersed from there for her care and needs.”

However, he told the court that the money transferred to Mr Durham’s account appeared to be used in transactions to pay for renovations of an office among other items including payments to a table tennis club called Smash, which Mr Boyd said was “associated and operated” by the couple, in addition to a car rental in the United States.

He also disclosed that after his scope of the seven year period covering the allegations it was collectively totalled that $1,077,590.40 in funds were transferred by Mr Durham to and from Ms Stevens’s various bank accounts.

Mr Boyd also said that there was “no particular pattern” to the withdrawals and described it as “haphazard”.

He added: “It would indicate it’s for some purpose which I would not necessarily know.”

The trial continues before Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers