Man Sentenced To Six Months’ Imprisonment For Obtaining Fraudulent Vehicle Roadworthiness Certificates. Sentence Suspended For 18 Months.
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
Ricardo Nathaniel Roach appeared in the Grand Court today, September 12, 2025, to face multiple fraud and bribery offences related to obtaining fraudulent vehicle roadworthiness certificates. The Honourable Justice Peters sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment; however, he will not go to prison today as the sentence was suspended for eighteen months. The Honourable Justice Peters added that Roach must complete 200 hours of unpaid community service as an act to repay the community for the crimes committed.
Background
Based on facts discussed in court, Roach faced sentencing for engaging in a scheme to bypass official vehicle inspections by bribing Mark Chin, a former public officer at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Department (DVDL), to issue fraudulent roadworthiness certificates.
Reportedly, Roach pleaded guilty to four offences across two indictments, comprising three counts of fraud on the government and one count of bribery of a public officer.
The offences were summarised as follows:
February 2018: It was alleged that Chin charged $75 (plus legitimate DVDL fees) to fraudulently pass Roach’s sister’s vehicle. Records falsely indicated that an unauthorised individual conducted the inspection.
February 2019: It was alleged that Chin quoted $350 to pass Roach’s sister’s vehicle for transfer of ownership, again without inspection.
February 2018: It was alleged that Roach facilitated the issuance of a fraudulent certificate for a friend. Records falsely indicated an inspection at GT Automotive.
March 2018: It was alleged that Roach paid Chin an unknown cash amount for a “side pass” for his own vehicle. Records falsely indicated an inspection by Vamp Motors.
Roach admitted to all four instances of fraudulent certificate issuance without physical inspection.
Crown Counsel for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions assessed Roach’s culpability as “medium” due to his significant role as a go-between in a group activity, involving planning (cash transfers) and awareness that vehicles would pass without inspection. As a public officer, he should have been acutely aware of his responsibilities.
Regarding harm, DPP Crown Counsel assessed this as “Category 3” (lowest category) based on the following:
**Risk to the public from uninspected vehicles on the roads.
**Undermining government function and public trust.
**Financial gain for Roach’s sister and friend by avoiding costs associated with legitimate inspections (e.g., repairs or purchasing new vehicles if they failed).
Concerning applicable sentences, it was noted that, in the case of the three offences of fraud on the Government, the starting point was 18 months’ imprisonment, with a sentencing range of 26 weeks to 3 years.
For the one offence of bribery, the starting point was 39 weeks with a sentencing range of a community order to 18 months in prison.
Arguing on Roach’s behalf, Defence Counsel Dennis Brady indicated that Roach initially viewed his actions as merely “saving time” or “skipping the queue” and did not fully grasp the extent of their criminality until his interrogation. Notwithstanding this, Roach eventually admitted guilt.
Brady pleaded on Roach’s behalf that no conviction be recorded, given that he has a previous good character, shown leadership among youth, and represented the Cayman Islands.
After hearing from counsels, the Honourable Justice Peters noted that Roach’s actions went beyond “skipping the queue” and involved “fraudulent activity” and “getting false certificates by bribing,” which is unlawful.
She added that she held a consistent view that bribery and fraud by public officers are serious offences that do not typically justify exercising discretion to avoid recording a conviction, with only one exceptional case having been granted this.
She emphasised that in Roach’s case, he was a civil servant who enlisted another civil servant, undermining public trust and confidence in government and public services.
Turning to Roach’s sentence, the Honourable Justice Peters said Roach would get credit for full admissions made during the interview and for making a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity.
Relevant matters having been considered, the Honourable Justice Peters imposed a total sentence of six months imprisonment, wholly suspended for 18 months. This means Roach will not go to prison if he complies with the conditions.
In addition, the Honourable Justice Peters made a Community Service Order requiring Roach to complete 200 hours of unpaid work.
The Honourable Justice Peters did not agree with Defence Counsel’s suggestion that no conviction be recorded. Instead, she noted that the court determined the offences were too serious to avoid recording a conviction, emphasising the public’s right to expect accountability for such actions. Accordingly, a conviction was recorded, and Roach was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs within three months, considering he was on paid suspension from the government.
Roach must comply with the Department of Community Rehabilitation’s requirements for 18 months and refrain from reoffending; otherwise, the suspended sentence may be activated.
