There is more monitoring of money laundering now than ever before

Feb 13, 2014 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
For those unfamiliar of how leaders steal from the people and try to hide and launder their ill-gotten gains, read the indictment of former Guatemalan President, Alphonso Portillo, that led to his extradition to the US to face charges of money laundering. See it here: http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/May13/PortilloAlfonsoExtraditionPR/U.S.%20v.%20Alfonso%20Portillo%20Indictment.pdf.
The scale and extent of the embezzlement and theft was shocking to read. There are lessons in that indictment for those in power in Guyana who steal from the people. If nothing else, Portillo’s case reveals the US has been monitoring money laundering since the 1990s and has mountains of evidence sitting there ready to use. The Americans and Europeans already have files on those Guyanese who are laundering money. For those who don’t know, Guyana already has money laundering laws.
The PPP has simply made them toothless and useless. The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) has been a worthless entity for many years, failing to produce evidence to convict one single money launderer. Now that Guyana is blacklisted and the world is mandated to closely examine this country’s financial transactions, you can bet more evidence of money laundering has been unearthed than the FIU collected in the many years since its creation.
If we want a better country, without drug trafficking and other illegal activities and the laundering of the proceeds of those illegalities, we cannot expect the PPP to provide it, even with a new AML legislation. Look at what the PPP did with the last and still current AML legislation! Absolutely nothing. It was rendered pointless with the party’s shameful inaction.
The PPP has proved it will not monitor and act upon money laundering in Guyana. A new anti-money laundering law will not change this misconduct. Therefore, it is time Guyana gets sanctioned just so the world can monitor the scourge of money laundering afflicting Guyana, and collect evidence for prosecution of those engaged in it.
The ABC embassies want the AML legislation passed to provide legal cover for future prosecution, but it must recognize the truth that occurs in Guyana. That truth is that as long as the PPP remains in office, it will continue to pull out the teeth of any anti-money laundering action. Guyana is not Guatemala. The fortitude and moral direction to do what the Guatemalan government did with Alphonso Portillo simply does not exist in the PPP. So, someone else must act for that reluctant party.
If we cannot monitor ourselves, we need others with better systems to do it for us. If the opposition passes the AML legislation in the form the PPP drafted, it will be a repeat of the same nauseating failure and a disaster for Guyana. To pass this law without changes will provide the PPP the relief from sanctions and foreign monitoring of suspicious local transactions.
The Western countries have proven surveillance, monitoring and intelligence capabilities to monitor every single transaction occurring in Guyana. The FIU cannot even do so for a handful of transactions. Yes, legitimate business will experience a slowing down of transactions, but they must make adjustments, and they can adjust and survive. They will profit and benefit the most if this current increased monitoring by Western countries results in expected arrests, prosecutions and targeting of Guyanese money launderers, for legitimate business will have a chance to flourish again, rather than compete with those washing cheap and illegal money.
I agree that the AML legislation should only be passed with the amendments proposed by the opposition. Political parties, which could be funded by drug dealers and drug cartels and money launderers, must come under the ambit of the AML legislation. There is nothing wrong with the opposition’s demand for the director of the FIU to be appointed by Parliament, particularly when it has been so useless since its formation. The US equivalent of the FIU is the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The director of FinCEN is appointed by the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, a position appointed by the US President and confirmed by the Senate, the upper house of the US equivalent of our Parliament. If the Senate does not confirm the Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, that individual is not appointed.
So, there is nothing wrong with the director of the FIU being confirmed by Parliament. A compromise would be for the President to present three candidates for FIU Director to Parliament, with Parliament voting by simple majority on those candidates. Further, the opposition needs to demand that the FIU publish regular public reports and that the Director can be called into Parliament to explain concerns or can be removed by a majority of Parliament with a replacement to be proposed by the President within 30 days of such removal.
Similarly, the USA has strict laws regarding the carriage of large sums of money. Why is it in a poor country like Guyana US $10,000, a fortune to most, should not trigger action by the police and Customs? At a minimum, that should be reported to the FIU and an investigation launched.
A number of Guyanese who are now in American jails, laundered billions in illegal drug trafficking proceeds right here in Guyana and not a single peep or squeak was heard from the PPP. There is wholesale thieving every single day right here in Guyana, where the people’s money is stolen and handed through all manner of shenanigans to a handful of vagabonds who then launder that money. Not a single charge of money laundering has been brought against these rogues. It is time to end this wilful PPP impotence.
M. Maxwell

---

---