Anti-Money Laundering Act needs radical changes – Gaskin

Nov 01, 2013 News

---

 

 
Stakeholders in the business community, inclusive of the Insurance, Bankers and the Manufacturers Associations, are very selfish and hypocritical, and have no idea what they are actually agreeing to in relation to amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act 2009, which needs radical changes.

This is the opinion of Financial Analyst Ramon Gaskin, who believes that the community is only seeing the consequences, and that is just a part of the bigger picture.
Gaskin says that the representatives who are speaking out through paid advertisements are only seeing the tree – that is, the consequences – and not the forest, which would be the Principal Act.
“When the Principal Act is placed under a microscope, it clearly shows how it violates the rights of the citizens. Before one can even get to the merits of the amendments, we must pay attention to the roles, functions and powers of the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General (AG) as stipulated in the Act.”
“One of the main problems with the Act is Section 2, wherein the AG based merely on his “reasonable grounds to believe” that an entity has actually committed or attempted a terrorist act or is knowingly acting on behalf of someone, recommends to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, to make an order to declare the entity, a “specified” issue and to publish same in the Gazette if he so agrees and after consultation with the said AG who initiated the process in the first place.”
“As far as I am aware, this is the first piece of legislation that creates a “blacklist” of entities based exclusively on some unknown “reasonable grounds” that only the AG and the Finance Minister are aware of.”
“A further complication is that the legislation requires the blacklisted entity to appeal to the Minister himself for the revocation of the order. The blacklisted entity may then apply to a Judge for a judicial review, who may, at the request of the AG, “hear all or part of the evidence or information in the absence of the applicant or any counsel representing the applicant” on the grounds of “national security or endangering the safety of any person.”
“But the ordeal of the blacklisting based on the so called unknown “reasonable grounds” of the politicians who are now apparently exercising judicial review functions (including appeals) plus the indignity of being pushed around by the AG and the Minister doesn’t end there.”
“The Judge, if satisfied that the original order of the minister deserves to be revoked, (in Section2 d of the Act) then makes an order, which can be appealed by the Minister of Finance for him to revoke his order.”
“Section 8 of the Act provides that the Judge may receive in evidence anything which in his opinion is “reliable and relevant” even if the “thing would not otherwise be admissible in law and may base the Court’s decision on that evidence.” First of all, the AG and the Finance Minister appear to be vested with a role in law enforcement under Section 2…and this is illegal.”
Gaskin says, “In our system of law enforcement and justice, where any person has “reasonable grounds” concerning criminal activity, then the proper agencies to contact are the Guyana Police Force for further investigation and garnering of evidence and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions “to institute and undertake proceedings” where she considers it desirable (Article 187 of the Constitution).
He highlighted too, that every citizen has a duty, “to combat and prevent crime and other violations of the law” (Article 32 of the Constitution) and only as a citizen can the AG and Minister, like other citizens, involve themselves in assisting in law enforcement.
Incidentally, the constitution in Article 112 declares that the AG “shall be the principal legal advisor to the Government.” And that is his role.
Gaskin added, “While the AG has other duties in addition to being the legal advisor since he oversees the work of the Ministry of Legal Affairs, the constitution is pellucid on the question of the responsibility “to institute and undertake criminal proceeding. Therefore, to the extent that Section 2 purports to vest a role for the AG and the Minister of Finance, is inconsistent with the Constitution and is void (Article 8).”
Gaskin also noted that the ability to blacklist entities and place them in the Gazette is utterly illegal as there is no authority in the Constitution for blacklisting anyone without due process.
This in particular, Gaskin says, is something the members of the Opposition and especially the business community at large should pay attention to.

---

---