Joey Ebanks busted

 Updated 5pm Thursday: Joey Ebanks was released from police custody on bail Thursday afternoon, according to the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service. 

Mr. Ebanks is due to report back to police in early April. Police did not state whether he was charged with any offences at this time. 

Five days after being suspended as head of the Electricity Regulatory Authority over concerns about financial irregularities, police arrested Joey Ebanks on suspicion of theft and fraud at his home Wednesday morning. 

Police did not officially identify Mr. Ebanks as the person who had been arrested, but confirmed that a man had been arrested at Doubloon Drive in Lower Valley at 7am Wednesday in connection with allegations of fraud and theft. 

A police press release issued late Wednesday also added that the suspect had been arrested on suspicion of possession of a drug utensil. 

Several police cars were seen outside Mr. Ebanks’ Doubloon Drive home during the morning. 

Mr. Ebanks, who could not be reached for comment by press time Wednesday, had posted on his Facebook page that he had received a letter of suspension Saturday.  

On Monday, the Electricity Regulatory Authority confirmed that Cabinet had suspended Mr. Ebanks, 49, as managing director of the ERA and relieved him of all his regulatory-related duties. His suspension followed the receipt by the ERA Board of a preliminary report by Auditor General Alastair into what was described in a press release Monday as “inappropriate financial transactions”. 

The report on the questionable transactions was passed to the police’s Financial Crime Unit for further investigation. 

Another press release, issued by the Office of the Auditor General Monday, revealed that the alleged financial irregularities came to light during an audit of the financial statements of the ERA for the current fiscal year, which ends 30 June. 

“The board of directors was notified of the findings on 28 February, 2013, and action was taken to protect the assets of the ERA,” the release from the auditor general’s office read. 

Officials in the Office of the Auditor General said they were aware of the arrest Wednesday, but would not comment further. 

No charges had been laid against Mr. Ebanks by press time. 

If you value our service, if you have turned to us in the past few days or weeks for verified, factual updates, if you have watched our live streaming of press conferences or sent an article to a friend... please consider a donation. Quality local journalism was at risk before the coronavirus crisis. It is now deeply threatened. Even a small amount can go a long way to sustaining our mission of informing the public. We need our readers’ financial support now more than ever.



  1. Joey iam sorry for you, because in Cayman, when they are out to get you they will get you well. Turn over every stone using a spy glass.
    My suggestions on this is, if you personally know you are guilty of these accusations, then hold your two hands up and say dont shoot If you are not, then I support you give them a run for their money.

  2. Very 3rd world mindset.


    Are you sure that you understand the laws of the country in which you are living, assuming that you live in the Cayman Islands, Great Britain…or any other territory of the United Kingdom ?

    If you count Great Britain as a 3rd world country you would not be far off from the truth but don’t try telling any Brit that to their face…you might not like or appreciate their reaction at all.

    The truth is…this is British law…all the way…no 3rd world, banana republic law…just pure British law across the board.

    Any suspect of any crime is first arrested on ‘suspicion’ of having committed that crime upon initial complaint and investigation, bailed under a suspicion arrest…until the investigation concludes whether charges will be laid or not…and that decision does not rest with the police…at that stage the decision to charge a person is totally out of the police’s hands.

    To Joey Ebanks’s case specifically…it is the work of Cayman’s auditor general that is turning up evidence after evidence of financial wrongdoings within Cayman’s government institutions.

    And this auditor general is no pushover; he will not be threatened or intimidated.

    Any wonder then, that Cayman’s most corrupt and intimidating political bully is now on the sidelines…awaiting his own fate…

    And that his closest henchmen are being taken down one by one ?

    And we all know who that corrupt political bully is, don’t we ?

  3. @fiery, my goodness it is surprising that even though you know that any criminal case stats from suspicion and then the police goes on to establish the evidence to charge the suspect,it seems that the person you termed cayman most corrupt and political bully” you seems to have already convicted that person in your mind already. Let justice take its course.wait for the outcome.

  4. If you haven’t understood my comments, you need to go speak to lawyer in Cayman…and they will explain how British law works for you…even though it would be like teaching an adult person their ABCs.

    But then again, many adults can’t read and write…and definitely don’t understand the laws that they’re living under.

    And pray, don’t ever fall afoul of the law in Cayman…you would certainly be a lamb to the slaughter in their hands.

    And don’t feel too much pity for your heroes either…

    They can well look after themselves, as they’ve proven time and time again.

  5. Drug utensil? I have one just like that I bought it in Cayman for a souvenir cause I collect pipes, and this is a real pretty one.
    It must have been a foreign cop from God knows where to arrest him for that. Se what I tell you, Spme Cayman police? I do not know where they are getting advice from.

  6. Firery:

    A cornerstone of UK Law (and if you really want to be correct, it is England and Wales law as Scottish law is fundamentally different) is that you are innocent until proved guilty.

    Your comment Any wonder then, that Cayman’s most corrupt and intimidating political bully is now on the sidelines…awaiting his own fate… betrays your view that a certain someone is guilty. And because of that I will side, on this occasion with Mr Islander.

  7. I know Joey quiet well and it is sad for me to see how he went on facebook. When you are wrong admit it and move on. I am sorry that this has come to him. But you work for Government and you bad mouth the same Government it cant be good. I hope he has learnt from this experience and keep his cool. Joey my advise is 1. forget about politics it is not for you. 2. If you cause is to cease corruption in the Cayman Islands work on that but in a diplomatic manner, bring anyone that is being corrupt to justice.

    I wish you all the best on this battle that you are now in I pray that it turns out the best for you.

  8. Beachbum…

    My close protection (bodyguarding) instructor told me…always leave a place for ‘Murphy’ at the table…he’s going to show up, uninvited…and at the worse possible time.

    Well, I always leave a place at the table for you, my friend.

    Should I have needed to add ‘of the outcome of his own investigations for which he has been arrested and bailed’…to my statement, ‘awaiting his own fate’ as to whether he will eventually charged or not ?

    Do I really need to point out to YOU that that is what I meant ?

    If I do, you disappoint me, really.

    As you would have been trained to think…assumptions is the mother of all major mess-ups.

    I expected better than that from you.

  9. Beachbum…

    Maybe you can answer this question for me, from your expertise and experience.

    When did this ‘suspicion of having committed a crime’ become a law under which arrests are made in Britain ?

    I became aware of it only in the late 80s to early 90s in Cayman, and for sure it would have been a law in the UK before it came onto the lawbooks in the Cayman Islands.

    In the USA a person is arrested for having committed a crime and then a grand jury examines the evidence to see whether it goes to trial.

    The very concept of arresting someone on mere suspicion raises doubts and concerns regarding this fundamental right of being presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law…an arrest carries with it, in some people’s minds a presumption of guilt already although, technically, it shouldn’t but…

    As you and I well know…that IS the law of arrest in both Britain and Cayman so…

    Shed some light on this issue for us, please.

  10. I normally receive a substantial hourly rate for legal advice but on this occasion I will indulge the readers of the Compass:

    Section 110 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, in the UK, subsection 1 states: (2)If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it.

    Therefore, the Constable ONLY has to suspect a crime has been committed and needs ONLY to suspect that person committed it (known as the ‘double suspicion’ rule).

    The issue you raise, quite correctly, is that the arrest is taken by some people as an indication of some element of guilt – no smoke without fire syndrome – and it serves both justice and, importantly, the public confidence in justice for those who assume culpability from the act of arrest to wait until decisions are made by the courts.

    I trust this helps your understanding of the law in England and Wales. Section 60 of The Police Law 2010 provides similar powers for Constables in the Cayman Islands.

  11. BTW Firery, if one is to avoid ANY suspicion of maligning someone in print, it is advisable to EXPRESSLY adding any conditions pertaining to the allegations you might make. Therefore I would urge you to add your comment

    Of the outcome of his own investigations for which he has been arrested and bailed

    To avoid anyone who, ALLEGEDLY, is corrupt and a bully come knocking on your door with a civil writ for defamation.

    My, more free legal advice. I must go and lie down now!

  12. Beachbum – One is guilty when one commits the offence. However, I think what you mean is that the law presumes you innocent until you are proven guilty, i.e. that you will not be subject to any penal sanctions until you have been proven guilty in a court of law. Do you see the difference?

    But that is not the whole of the story. The Police Law says that you can draw such inferences as may reasonable (including adverse inferences as to guilt or innocence) from a failure to respond to questioning. We have also been exposed to a substantial amount of evidence and heard the attempts to explain away the evidence. We can judge whether those explanations are credible or not.

  13. Speaker

    Firstly, do you know if, during any interviews, silence was maintained?

    Secondly, the inferences are only relevant IF the suspect fails to answer when questioned something they later rely on in court or where there is a clear need to explain some damning evidence (eg: fingerprints found at scene).

    The ‘evidence’ and ‘explanations’ we have heard mean absolutely nothing until it is introduced in court, as SWORN testimony and complying with the rules of evidence.

  14. Beachbum…

    Here we go again, this mental sparring about legalities, you and me.

    I know very well exactly what this law says and what it is meant to do but because, at times, you attempt to speak from the side of the civilian being arrested, rather from your own background as a law-enforcement officer…

    I’ve requested that YOU explain this law for those who might not fully understand it.

    I called no names in mentioning a corrupt political bully…

    So tell me now, which corrupt political bully could sue me for libel ?

    After all, that could fit many more corrupt political bullies than just one.

    There are many to take your pick from…wink wink !

  15. Speaker…

    What country are you living in ?

    I’m assuming its the Cayman Islands and that you’ve never been arrested or questioned by any police officer for any offenses or allegations of offenses, have you ?

    Being guilty in actuality of committing an offense…and having that proven in a court of law is two entirely different things; a very basic point that you seemed to have missed.

    Luckily for us living in a supposedly democratic system that is the case as…

    In our system of law enforcement and legal justice…

    There are as many police officers who will plant, manufacture or trick you into providing evidence of your own guilt, even when you were innocent of THEIR charges against you (read very carefully Beachbum’s answer to my question on the ‘arrest on suspicion’ law)…

    As there are honest, hard-working police officers who will use legal investigative means to seek out the evidence that PROVES you quilty of the crime that THEY are accusing you of having committed…

    And again, luckily, we have judges and juries to decide who is actually telling the truth when your version of events differs significantly from theirs.

    Whew….and Beachbum thinks he’s hard pressed providing free legal advice !!!

  16. Beachbum – what I have been trying to explain to you is that there is a difference between a court of law and the court of public opinion. All of these matters, especially one’s explanations, are relevant in the latter.

    Hunter – You made the peculiar comment that you have a drug utensil just like Ebanks’s which you picked up from a souvenier store. I was hoping would provide an explanation as to how you would know what Ebanks’s utensil looked like. My guess is that you have no idea and were going out on a limb to help Ebanks.

  17. The ‘evidence’ and ‘explanations’ we have heard mean absolutely nothing until it is introduced in court, as SWORN testimony and complying with the rules of evidence.


    As does the ‘arrest on suspicion’ mean absolutely nothing until that evidence is provided and adjudged by an independent body (in Britain, the Crown Prosecution Service; in Cayman, the Director of Public Prosecutions)as to be of sufficient legal value on which to bring charges before a court of law.

    And luckily, especially in Cayman’s case, a judgement by the court of public opinion counts absolutely for nothing in a court of law as well…

    Or else, there would be very few people in Cayman walking around…most would already be confined to prison cells if Cayman’s public opinions had any say in the matter.

    Why Speaker even raised the issue is beyond my comprehension.

  18. Speaker…

    I’ve read and understood your comments very well actually…

    And, as you can tell from my own…I don’t hold Cayman’s court of public opinion in very high regard.

    As a matter of fact…I don’t regard it at all, as you obviously do, or else you would not have referred to it.

    Is the fact that I have such disrespect and no regard for Cayman’s court of public opinion what has upset you so much ?

    Don’t worry, you’ll soon get over it…sucking an egg might help.

  19. Firery. You do like an argument don’t you.

    You didn’t ask me to explain the law for everyone else, you said … and I quote … ‘Maybe you can answer this question for me, from your expertise and experience.’ The key word here is ‘ME’. You asked me to explain it for you!

    Anyway, that little matter aside, I actually agree with you on a number of issues particularly around the insidious public mutterings, many on here, from people who do not know all the facts and simply listen to either what they want to listen to or are sucked in my the pre trial sparring that inevitably goes on during that period between an arrest or an allegation being made and charges being laid when all public comment must cease. We do not have a legal system where there is trial in the media although I sometimes suspect the media, and I include the Compass in that, might want that to happen.

    One of the problems of living in a very small place is that some of those who make comments and presume guilt (or innocence) do so based on half truths, rumour and innuendo, none of which is evidence in a court of law.

    You might also read my reply (3.39) and see I did not suggest you named anyone in particular, it was a general warning about adding the usual riders to comments – if you watch any satirical TV shows (Try ‘Have I got News for You’ on BBC TV in the UK) you will see they litter their comments with ‘allegedly’ etc.

    I know this will never happen, but I’ll bet you are a decent sparring partner over a pint or two in a local bar – although if its loser pays you will be skint and I will be merry!

  20. Beachbum…

    You’re a funny guy…no doubt.

    For the amount of times that you’ve had to agree with me, even when you qualify your agreement…

    metaphorically speaking, you’ve already had to buy me so many drinks….

    I’m rocking at the bar on your tab, mate.

    But not to worry, I’m sure you’ve got deep pockets…

    And I’m not a heavy drinker anyway…

    ha ha ha !

    The problem with you cops (oops, ex-cops in your case) is that you cannot think outside the little box of law that you DO know…

    I’d have you for lunch on any witness stand, given the slightest chance, mate.

  21. For clarity, the Cayman Free Press does not support ‘trial by the media’ as suggested by the one commenter, but we are on record in numerous instances asking the attorney general for clear directions regarding what matters are considered sub judice and what matters are not. To date, this has never been forthcoming.

  22. Speaker…

    Exactly…that’s why politicians do not judge or decide issues in any court of law.

    And that is why, at least up until now we are living in a system that blocks and denies them any influence over the criminal justice system and the proceedings and decisions in any court of law.

    If you would have it any other way, you’re free to go live in any 3rd world dictatorship or banana republic in the world…

    There’s many to choose from, take your pick.

  23. Firery – You don’t seem to be understanding my posts. You are all over the place.
    I have not suggested that politicians should judge or decide issues in any court of law. My point was that public opinion has a direct impact on politicians and is important generally. E.g. in the jury in the murder case against O.J. Simpson acquitted him but the public did not not buy into his innocence based on their assessment of the case. That obviously impacted O.J. Simpson negatively.

    You are naive if you believe that politicians have no influence over the criminal justice system, or indeed that the criminal justice system always gets it right. Obviously politicians are elected by registered voters and jurors are drawn from the same pool of registered voters. Jurors will either be biassed for or against any politician who stands trial.