The closure of bank accounts of WIN party candidates

Aug 10, 2025 Letters

Dear Editor,

I found the topic sanctions of interest so I decided to do some research. Of course, this is subject to discussion and I hope others would join in the discussion. I read sanctions can apply to those who, “materially assist, sponsor or provide support for the (sanctioned) activities. This includes individuals who associate politically with sanctioned persons IF THEIR ASSOCIATION FACILITATES OR SUPPORT THE SANCTIONED ACTIVITIES”.

The Magnitsky Act targets not only those who commit the acts but those who facilitate, to benefit from these actions. Could be business partners, individuals assisting in the cover up. For further clarifications this act is to punish perpetrators without affecting the wider people of a country.

The United Kingdom also passed a similar act.

These acts provide the legal framework for a government to act. My question is, does Guyana have any such laws that targets such offenders and associates?

My understanding is that it is the USA which has laws that permits them to do this. In Guyana, our laws are clear. A person is charged, put through the legal system which decides guilt or into and if guilty then punishment is meted out.

From my understanding and information, it is the government of the USA which will decide if associates of a sanctioned individual should be sanctioned and not anyone else.

The example I have is, lets say a Russian is sanctioned and Indian companies purchase Oil from Russia. The government or the banks of India cannot and have not penalised such companies. Recent events indicate that it is the USA which would impose secondary sanctions against those as they have done in the case of India. I emphasise the banks of India are not penalised in any way and only the countries with the laws to do so can do so. This is why the USA threatens secondary sanctions, Guyana does not have such laws. In Guyana, a person has to be processed through the courts and found guilty before being penalised.

The Magnitsky Act covers foreigners it does not cover those in the USA as those are governed by their own constitution and laws same as it should be in Guyana.

So I come to the Azruddin Mohamed matter. He is sanctioned by the USA. As far as I am aware, this covers dealings with US companies, citizens and transactions that transit or terminates in the USA. This is why I cannot comprehend why our local banks would close his accounts. I can understand them cancelling credit and international debit cards or the wiring of money as these are transactions more or less involves the USA.

I cannot understand how just holding an account would be in contravention of the sanctions or endanger the banks. Timothy Jonas spoke on Globe span about the use of credit cards but he has to explain why just having an account endangers the bank when the Magnitsky Act spells out the offences.

Fact to be considered is that the alleged smuggling is not going on at present. The Act is not designed to punish an individual forever but tries to curb the negative behaviour and or activities. The bank or anyone else cannot be accused of aiding and benefitting. The fact is that the USA has not sanctioned any one in this regard. Which opens the question as to why the banks are doing so.

Fact is that those who had nothing to do with Azzruddin Mohamed before and is only associated with him now as political colleagues and are on the list of a political party of which he is the presidential candidate cannot be accused of aiding or benefitting. The Magnitsky Act does not recognise them as offenders as the Act is clear under what conditions associates etc. can be sanctioned.

Timothy Jonas on Globe Span tries to justify the actions of the bank and even arguing that it has a right to penalise associates of Azzruddin Mohamed when clearly the Act does not permit this. I would like him to explain why being on a list of a political party is not entitled to a job in our bank.

Nohar Singh was correct to disagree with Timothy Jonas . Nohar argues that the bank used a very broad brush. I say the bank took actions against individuals who are not sanctioned by the USA and who had no connection with the Mohameds before and who did not benefit or participate in any corrupt deals and who have not been sanctioned by the USA.

I need Mr. Jonas to inform the Guyanese under what laws the bank acted to exact punishment on those associates of Azzruddin. My position is they acted without justification and support of any of our laws.

The dismissal of a staff by GBTI is illegal and should be challenged. Our termination and Severance Pay Act definitely does not justify his termination and I am certain it allows for a prima facie case of wrongful dismissal. I believe also that those who have been victimised by the unjustifiable closure of their accounts have a case against the banks.

We would like to know whether others sanctioned by the USA or are associates of those sanctioned by the USA have been penalised by the bank or this was reserved for the associates of the WIN Presidential candidate.

Rajendra Bisessar

BSc Sociology, LLB

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

One thought on “The closure of bank accounts of WIN party candidates”

habeeb August 10, 2025 at 3:25 pm

It shouldn’t be a mystery why the Banks in Guyana have done what they did-
closing accounts of WIN party members and sanctioned leader, Azruddin
Mohamed. They must have been directed this way by higher Govt. officials of
Guyana, even, the Bank of Guyana.
When records at Guyana Gold Board, showed miniscule quantity of gold came
into the House, at same time, lots of gold showed up in America under the
business of Mohamed, as documented by US authorities ? Meanwhile, somehow,
Ali and Jagdeo didn’t know a thing what happening in the “backyard ” ?
America had to tell them and they act like “surprise “?

Comments are closed.

Latest News