AN UNMERITORIOUS PROPOSAL
The last-minute proposals tabled by APNU should not be taken seriously. On merit, they are highly deficient proposals and only lend credibility to the view that their belated submission was to deflect the criticisms made by the government that APNU had not tabled any proposals.
One of the proposals would actually, in the words of the Attorney General, turn cash above a certain amount into contraband. The proposals aimed at giving the police powers to search and detain any sum in excess of two million dollars, which is equivalent to around ten thousand United States dollars.
The proposal by APNU would have the effect for any person or entity having in excess of two million dollars in cash of triggering an immediate criminal suspicion of money laundering. Why else would the police be given power to search and detain in respect to such currency?
The proposal by APNU places under criminal suspicion, persons holding more than two million dollars in cash. This is ridiculous, because the laws of most countries do not do this. The laws of most countries, including the United States of America, require that you declare all cash in excess of ten thousand US dollars or its equivalent.
It is not a crime to have such sums. It is only a crime to enter and leave the jurisdiction without declaring the currency. The currency can be forfeited if not declared, but the mere fact that currency is being brought in or taken out of a jurisdiction does not create any suspicion of a criminal offence and so long as there is not this suspicion, the police have no grounds on which to detain it.
APNU’s proposal is draconian. The existing laws do not grant to the police any such powers and to vest them with such arbitrary powers would lead to tremendous abuse of the rights of citizens.
APNU’s proposal would also have the effect of raising criminal suspicion, so long as someone has two million Guyana dollars or its equivalent on them. The detaining of this sum without just cause, however temporary, constitutes a deprivation of property. Such deprivation is ultra vires of the Constitution of Guyana.
APNU’s proposal is not practical. It cannot be implemented without causing a major disruption to the entire economy of this country.
It will create untenable situations. Two million dollars is chicken feed for most businesses in Guyana. There are cakes shops in Guyana which keep more than this sum because they use it for stocks from various sales trucks. The shopkeepers cannot go to the bank every time a different sales truck is due, because they make multiple purchases. As such, most of them have considerable cash in hand to pay the sales trucks.
If these shopkeepers have to stop keeping cash in hand they will have to have an alternative means of paying. Beginning to pay with cheque they will not get their goods right away, because the sales company will want to first verify that the funds are available before they release the goods.
When persons are building their homes, they are required to purchase materials for construction. These materials are not cheap. Persons also shop around for bargains. This means that when someone is purchasing building materials, they usually take a drawdown from the bank to buy their materials. These materials cost millions of dollars and the disbursements from the banks usually reflect such large sums at any one instant.
If APNU’s ridiculous proposal is accepted, it would mean that almost every person building a home could be liable to be searched by the police and the millions they have in their possession seized.
Businesses will also be affected. There are some nightclubs in Guyana whose turnover on weekends amounts to millions. If APNU’s proposals are accepted, it will place these businesses in serious jeopardy, because how will they transport this sum on weekends for the banks and what happens if when they are transporting it they are stopped by the police.
Apart from creating criminal suspicion and apart from being impractical, there is more terminal defect in APNU’s proposal. APNU seems to be concentrating on cash transactions.
Any schoolchild would however advise that the bulk of laundered funds are not held in cash. The bulk of funds laundered are held in other assets, including fixed assets.
APNU is therefore in the wide outfield, it is way off-mark with its thinking on money laundering. The least of its worries should be cash transactions. It should be more concerned with businesses which are fronts for laundering, including businesses which are being established using funds stolen or obtained via corrupt transactions from the public treasury.
APNU has seriously undermined its credibility by the proposal that it has made. It cannot and should not be taken seriously.
