EZjet boss guilty of ‘obstruction of justice’

…prison sentence could be increased

Embattled EZjet Boss, Sonny Ramdeo’s legal woes continue to escalate as a New York Judge on Tuesday last denied his petition to withdraw his guilty plea.

EZjet Boss,
Sonny Ramdeo

According to Justice Kenneth Marra, the Presiding Judge, Ramdeo has not carried his burden to show a fair and just reason to allow him to withdraw his plea of guilty and as a result his motion is denied.
Ramdeo’s troubles were escalated further as he was put on notice that at sentencing he should be prepared to address the questions of whether his advisory guideline sentencing range should be increased for obstruction of justice based upon false testimony he presented.
Ramdeo was found to have lied to the court about representation provided to him by court appointed lawyers.
According to Justice Marra, Ramdeo had the assistance of extremely competent counsel.
He said in his ruling too, that Ramdeo was advised of the options available to him, and he chose the course of action to be taken, namely pleading guilty.
Justice Marra ruled that Ramdeo’s decision to plead guilty was made knowingly and voluntarily after being fully advised of his options.
The US Government had objected to Ramdeo’s attempt to withdraw his guilty plea.
The prosecutors argued that Ramdeo lied in his motion and further, that he only attempted to change his plea when he learnt of the length of time he would have to serve in prison.
Ramdeo, who was behind the failed low cost carrier EZjet, was charged in the US with embezzling millions from the hospital chain with which he had been employed.
Ramdeo had initially pleaded not guilty, then changed his plea to guilty, and in February last filed another motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Wifredo Ferrer, the United States Prosecutor handling the case, had filed a motion with the court asking that Ramdeo’s attempt to change his guilty plea be refused.
According to the Attorney, Ramdeo’s motion to change his plea alleges contradictions to his sworn testimony.
The US Government, through Ferrer, noted that in Ramdeo’s motion, he said that counsel had not reviewed the evidence that the government would present at trial and that he had been coerced and threatened resulting in his entry of pleas of guilty.
Ramdeo further alleged that counsel did not meet with him during the recess granted by the court to discuss the plea and the factual proffer.
The US Government contends that the Court should not permit Ramdeo to withdraw his guilty plea, for he has shown no legally cognizable reason to do so.
According to the US Prosecutor, a defendant may withdraw his plea before sentencing if he “can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.”
He noted, further, that the defendant bears the burden of showing that he is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea.
“A mere declaration of innocence does not entitle a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea…Guilty pleas would be of little value to the judicial system if a defendant’s later conclusory assertion of innocence automatically negated his plea,” Ferrer successfully argued.
Ramdeo faces upward of 40 years in prison having been charged with embezzlement, fraud and money laundering.