Got TIPS or BREAKING NEWS? Please call 1-284-442-8000 direct/can also WhatsApp same number or Email ALL news to:newsvino@outlook.com;                               ads call 1-284-440-6666

UPDATE: Sasha Hodge acquitted on criminal proceeds charge

- forfeiture hearing set for money allegedly discovered during raid
Sasha Hodge at the Magistrate's Court on May 17, 2013. Photo: VINO
ROAD TOWN, Tortola, VI – The Court dismissed charges against Sasha Hodge today, May 17, 2013 and Senior Magistrate Tamia Richards instructed that the defendant was free to go after several delays occurred in delivering the decision in her trial.

The accused was charged with the alleged acquisition, possession and use of proceeds of criminal conduct after $427,313 in cash was allegedly discovered at her Towers, West End home. According to court records, Hodge was found asleep at the time of the raid conducted at her home.

The defendant told the court during her testimony that both her parents as well as her sister had access to her home. She also repeatedly denied ownership of a multi-coloured bag allegedly found with money in a black knapsack that she had in a room at her home.

Among other things, the defence argued that there was no evidence that the cash found amounted to the proceeds of criminal conduct or that the defendant even had any knowledge that the cash existed.

Magistrate Richards said the burden of proof was on the Crown to prove that there was a nexus that existed between the knapsack, the bag and the money that was allegedly discovered.

The prosecution argued that the bag was found at the very location the defendant had related that it was last used and the said the defendant indicated that her home was never broken into. Further, it was argued that the bag was never even moved at any time.

Simply put, Magistrate Richards said, the defendant’s case was that she did not put the money there, did not have knowledge of the money or who may have put it there.

She disclosed that the court was not impressed that, while offering testimony, Hodge could be believed as a credible witness. Magistrate Richards stated that evidence was given in a cold and calculating manner and the witness (Hodge) was measured in delivering her testimony. As a result of this, the court did not believe her testimony and felt that something wasn’t being told.

She said the court was not satisfied, however, that there was sufficient evidence that the Crown had proven that the witness had possession of the proceeds of criminal conduct as was charged. Mere ownership of an item was not sufficient grounds to prove possession of an item, according to the court’s ruling.

Following the acquittal, Senior Crown Counsel Valston Graham stated that he was serving notice to the court that the Crown intends to have the money forfeited. The money remains detained and a forfeiture hearing has been set for May 22, 2013.

See previous story psoted May 17, 2013:

Acquitted: Sasha Hodge case dismissed!

ROAD TOWN, Tortola, VI - The Court dismissed charges against Sasha Hodge today, May 17, 2013 and instructed that she was free to go.

Senior Magistrate Tamia Richards stated in her ruling that there was insufficient evidence put forward by the prosecution to prove that the defendant had possession of the money that was allegedly found in a bag owned by the defendant. 

Hodge was charged with the alleged acquisition, possession and use of proceeds of criminal conduct.

More details to come.

See previous story posted October 29, 2012:

Court rejects no case submission for Sasha Hodge 

ROAD TOWN, Tortola, VI - Magistrate Tamia Richards’ rejection of a no case submission put forward by defence attorney, Herbert McKenzie, on behalf of Sasha Hodge on October 26, 2012 has allowed for the introduction of circumstantial evidence in the hearing of her trial.

Sasha Hodge is charged with the alleged acquisition, possession and use of proceeds of criminal conduct.

After hearing arguments submitted by McKenzie and listening to the rebuttal by Crown Counsel Valston Graham, Magistrate Richards said she was satisfied that the Crown has a case for the defence to answer.

McKenzie had argued in his no case submission, that the charges were drawn up against the wrong section of the law and stated that the original section was repealed and substituted indicating that the new section required proof of knowing.

The defence further argued that mere occupancy of the home was not enough to infer proof of knowing or possession. He told the court that there was no evidence of knowledge on the part of the defendant with regard to the knapsack allegedly discovered at her home.

The defence attorney also stated that there was no proof that the monies that were allegedly found were proceeds of criminal conduct. In addition, he noted that the quantity of cash did not prove that it was proceeds of criminal conduct.

The Crown agreed with the defence’s point with reference to the incorrect section of the law being drawn up and tendered an amendment to that effect.

Crown Counsel Graham in his rebuttal noted that there were both direct and indirect evidence in the case that suggested it should proceed.

The court was told that the direct evidence included the alleged discovery of the money in a bag owned by the defendant and also the alleged absence of a proper explanation.

Graham indicated that other direct evidence included the alleged discovery of the money in the home packaged in a manner that showed it may have had illegitimate origin. The Crown reasoned that, on the defendant’s own alleged admission, she was responsible for the upkeep and occupancy of the premises.

The Crown relied on the defendant’s admission of occupancy of the property and her responsibility for its upkeep and proposed that circumstantial evidence can prove that there was proceed of criminality.

In giving her decision, Magistrate Richards said that the court looked at the evidence of the Crown and noted that there was no evidence of knowledge on the part of the defence. She also said that the Crown argued that the defendant was in possession of the suitcase and therefore the knapsack while the defence claimed that something more was required to prove possession.

The court, she said, accepts that the evidence of the cash being proceeds of criminal conduct may be proven by circumstantial evidence.

Hodge, who allegedly had $427,313 in cash at her Towers, West End home, denied knowing the money was there when interviewed by police. This is according to one of the investigating officers.

Hodge’s trial began on March 2, 2012 in the Magistrate’s Court with Detective Constable (DC) Elvis Richards being called as the first witness for the Crown.

Under examination, DC Richards told the court that he was one of the officers that visited Hodge’s home at Towers, West End on August 24, 2011 at about 5:30 A.M.

According to him, Hodge was "summoned to her front door with a knock from officers." He recalled that he had introduced himself as an officer in plain clothes and told her there was a warrant for her home to be searched, which she complied.

The officer testified that the police searched several rooms in Hodge’s home and a black locked bag was found in a storeroom/office. Hodge was asked to open the bag but allegedly responded that she did not have the key, DC Richards stated.

This prompted officers to break the lock and inside the bag officers found a knapsack that allegedly contained a quantity of US currency. When questioned about it, Hodge allegedly admitted that the black bag belonged to her but denied knowing about the knapsack. Hodge is currently on $250,000 bail.

The case is scheduled to resume on November 1, 2012.

24 Responses to “UPDATE: Sasha Hodge acquitted on criminal proceeds charge”

  • polo (29/10/2012, 07:19) Like (2) Dislike (0) Reply
    i am realy sick of this case
  • one eye roster (29/10/2012, 08:10) Like (2) Dislike (18) Reply
    Like this damn Trini DPP trying to reach the level where he locks up all locals..tis sad demam
    • trergdffdg (22/05/2013, 07:49) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
      so what if locals get lockup, what you think, locals imune from lockup?.
  • DADDY FRIDAY (29/10/2012, 10:15) Like (2) Dislike (3) Reply
    To all the narrow minded people, "THIS IS MORE WITCH HUNT AGAIN?"
  • Dude (29/10/2012, 11:21) Like (6) Dislike (3) Reply
    U think she didn't know what was going on all these yrs? Or that she was holding drug $$ in her apt? There's definitely a case.
  • LEGAL TEAM (29/10/2012, 20:29) Like (5) Dislike (100) Reply
    Attorney-at-law,Mr Herbert Mckenzie sir! You have presented a marvelous submission on a point of law:However,you will realize by now that the entire magistracy and judiciary are all filled with partiality for the crown and the Governor.Magistrates today,do not look at law;they look at their image! Magistrates in the BVI are not going to rule in favour of the defense.They will say"Let the defense appeal my decision"That's it:They dont care about justice for all under the law.If The lady was charged under a section of law that was repealed,then the case should be dismissed! The no case submission was on a point of law:Wrong charge-No case to answer.That is how a justice system should operate in a democratic society under our Constitution,but what you have,are a set of judicial people appointed by the Governor;so anything to do with big cases of Public Interest,they will never rule against the Governor's Crown! CORRUPTION? I dont know:
  • paul (17/05/2013, 12:09) Like (8) Dislike (0) Reply
    god is good
  • Juelz (17/05/2013, 12:25) Like (6) Dislike (3) Reply
    Good goin sasha...Now you can continue with your life!!!
  • ReX FeRal (17/05/2013, 12:36) Like (2) Dislike (0) Reply
    To Legal Team, what the hell are you arguing?/ Who the hell the Magistrate ruled for in this case???

    To Paul: All the time He is Good
    • ReX FeRal (19/05/2013, 19:49) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
      you jack axxxx:Can't you see the date 29th October 2012;when the blogger blogged? He gave his views as he knows it in the BVI court system.It look like he was part of the system..If today the magistrate rule in favour of the defendant,that does not mean what the blogger said does not mean it does not happen
  • dem say (17/05/2013, 12:44) Like (4) Dislike (3) Reply
    CONGRATULATIONS MEH GAYL...MEH A LUV YUR!!!
  • BROWNIE (17/05/2013, 13:21) Like (3) Dislike (4) Reply
    GOOD TING!
  • Maxwell (17/05/2013, 13:44) Like (6) Dislike (3) Reply
    Schupps. Lots of people here in the BVI benfitting from Drug trafficking. The lucky ones get off scott free but that don't mean they were not living high of the hog.
  • out (17/05/2013, 13:57) Like (4) Dislike (6) Reply
    Now let bob and chad out
  • rock man (17/05/2013, 14:26) Like (5) Dislike (28) Reply
    Yeah Sasha!!. Congrats!.. You Is Good People,Really!.. Alota Yo Own People Them Is Haters,I Can See That From All Down Here. But Wa Da Rass,Leave Them Hate. Tha Should Hold Them,.. You Jus Keep On Keeping On Hun. Stay Strong!.. Stay Sweet!.. & Be Safe!.. .. P.s. You Jus Do You,& Take Great Care Of Tha Little Girl of Yours Hun,She's a Real Doll. Trus!.. ;)
  • . (17/05/2013, 15:10) Like (3) Dislike (2) Reply
    Its about time
    • OJ (18/05/2013, 07:34) Like (0) Dislike (1) Reply
      Having addressed questions on Sasha now its time to move on to her dad and others for god will help them too
  • Well Sah (17/05/2013, 16:14) Like (15) Dislike (4) Reply
    I like to hear how people seemingly idolizes wrong doing. Criminals are treated as heroes by some in Tola.
  • free at last (17/05/2013, 16:44) Like (2) Dislike (242) Reply
    free our people they did nothing wrong!!
  • BVI Keep Calm (17/05/2013, 19:08) Like (1) Dislike (3) Reply
    Money Forfeited??? Well what a Thing!!
  • Lucky for some (17/05/2013, 21:18) Like (8) Dislike (5) Reply
    I woke up today and found 427,000 dollars in my room. I have never seen it before, and I suspect the tooth fairy must have left it there. Or perhaps the tooth fairy is actually a drug dealer who lived with his friends in a castle in America happily ever after.


Create a comment


Create a comment

Disclaimer: Virgin Islands News Online (VINO) welcomes your thoughts, feedback, views, bloggs and opinions. However, by posting a blogg you are agreeing to post comments or bloggs that are relevant to the topic, and that are not defamatory, liable, obscene, racist, abusive, sexist, anti-Semitic, threatening, hateful or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be excluded permanently from making contributions. Please view our declaimer above this article. We thank you in advance for complying with VINO's policy.

Follow Us On

Disclaimer: All comments posted on Virgin Islands News Online (VINO) are the sole views and opinions of the commentators and or bloggers and do not in anyway represent the views and opinions of the Board of Directors, Management and Staff of Virgin Islands News Online and its parent company.