The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2013, proposes to amend the existing Act and related legislation by strengthening the mechanism to combat money laundering, financing of terrorism.
Recently, President Ramotar referred to the new legislation as part of efforts to address corruption.
“We do have issues and we have to try to work on them to eradicate some of the weaknesses in our system,” Ramotar stated.
He said that he hopes for a “unanimous support” when the Bill is debated in the National Assembly.

The Act adds a new offence – assisting a person to escape legal consequences of specified money laundering offences. In addition, fines for certain money laundering offences are proposed to move from $1 million to $5 million.
Clause 2 of the Act defines the concept of beneficial ownership of legal entities and requires the identification of the natural persons who ultimately exercise ownership of legal entities. It expands the meaning of negotiable instruments in the definition of currency.
Under the new Act, driver’s licences would no longer be used as part of identification records.
The definition of ‘terrorist financing’ is expanded to include fun
Clause 4 includes telecommunication providers among the agencies from which the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) may request information. It also authorizes the FIU to provide feedback to a greater number of reporting entities according to international best practices. Further, it increases the FIU’s research obligations to assess risks arising from new products, practices and technologies.
Clause 5 amends the Act by providing that professionals who transmit information or submit suspicious transaction reports in good faith remain free of liability for breach of confidentiality or professional sanction even if they did not know what the underlying criminal activity was and regardless of whether the illegal activity actually occurred.
Clause 6 amends the Act by requiring reporting entities not to open new accounts, commence business relationships or perform the intended or desired transaction and make a suspicious transaction report.
It advances the requirements for reporting entities to make deliberate decisions in continuing relations with politically exposed persons. It expands the due diligence obligations of reporting entities.
Clause 7 amends the Act by requiring the reporting entities to conduct enhanced due diligence measures for higher risk categories of customers or where the Financial Intelligence Unit is aware that another country does not apply or insufficiently applies the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force.
Clause 8 amends the Act to ensure that reporting entities also make records available to the competent authority and duly authorized auditors. It expands reporting entities obligations to report possible terrorist financing offences to include activities involving funds suspected of being linked, or related to or to be used for terrorism, terrorist acts or by terrorist organisations.
Clause 9 amends the Act by requiring reporting entities to ensure that their Anti Money Laundering and Countering the Financing for Terrorism compliance offices are equipped with adequate resources and independent personnel and that training is conducted on an on-going basis.
It also requires reporting agencies to assess risks and manage them before launching new products, business practices and new technologies.
The Bill gives sanctioning powers to supervisory authorities for breach of obligations by reporting entities, including the power to impose administrative penalties.
Clause 13 amends the Act to include the requirement for international travelers to declare bearer negotiable instruments.
The Schedule of the Act includes amendments to the Gambling Prevention Act to require the Gaming Authority to assess persons involved with an applicant for a license under the Act on the basis of “fit and proper” criteria and have them certified by the Bank of Guyana following the criteria under the Financial Institutions Act.
The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act is also being amended to provide for mutual legal assistance to be granted if the central authority considers it fit, notwithstanding that there may be preconditions that the request be related to circumstances which would be offences in both Guyana and another country.
The amendment also removes any technical differences in the categorization or denomination of offences which may otherwise prove a barrier for providing mutual legal assistance.
In addition, the Securities Industries Act is being amended to give explicit powers to the regulator under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act, including expanded powers to prevent criminals and their associates from holding or being the beneficial owners of an interest in or holding management functions in companies regulated under the Act.
The regulator has clear authority to compel the production of records to ensure compliance in relation to money laundering, terrorist financing and proceeds of crime laws.
The Money Transfer Agencies (Licensing) Act is being amended to make dissuasive the penalties relating to failing to produce hooks for examination or obstructing an officer of the Bank of Guyana in carrying out his duties.
Other Acts which would be amended are the Foreign Exchange (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act; the Co-operative Societies Act; the Companies Act; and the Insurance Act, which is being amended to require the Commissioner of Insurance to ensure that criminals are prevented from being the holders of interests or management in insurance companies.

excerpts from KN

Jalil, What is the Fiscal management and accountability bill about? A quick internet search did not reveal anything about it.

APNU re-opens bid to change money laws

The Fiscal Management and Accountability (Amendment) Bill 2013 is piloted by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Member of Parliament and Shadow Minister of Finance, Carl Greenidge.

LAWLESSNESS IN HIGH PLACES: ACCOUNTING AND FIREARMS

An examination of the 2008 Report of the Auditor General and a review of the recently Gazetted Regulations made by Minister Rohee under the Firearms Act, demonstrate that with every passing day the Jagdeo Administration continues to demonstrate a total disregard for the laws of Guyana.

The Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 (FMAA), provides “… for the regulation of the preparation and execution of the annual budget; the receipt, control and disbursement of public moneys; the accounting for public moneys; and such other matters connected with or incidental to the transparent and efficient management of the finances of Guyana.”

The Annual Report of the Auditor General must be examined in the context of this Act which confers wide responsibilities on the Minister of Finance for the management and accounting for “public moneys”.

Therefore, it is in this context that the PNCR, after conducting our review of the 2008 Report of the Auditor General, call on the Minister of Finance to ensure that, all levels of the PPP/C Jagdeo Administration, treat his responses to the following issues with the seriousness and commitment to transparency and accountability that is the rightful expectations of the Guyanese people: The continued abuse of the Consolidated Fund; Overpayment to Contractors; Breaches of Tender Board Procedures; The abuse of extra-Budgetary funds; The disposal and accounting for public assets; and Breaches of Stores Regulations.

These issues represent a critical sample of the continuing breaches of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act which have been repeatedly reported on by the Public Accounts Committee, in its Reports to the National Assembly.

Unfortunately, the 2008 Report of the Auditor General indicates that despite the previous Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, nothing has changed. Therefore, the same issues continue to be sighted by the Auditor General.

ABUSE OF THE CONSOLIDATED FUND

A perusal, of the last two Treasury Memoranda, from the Minister of Finance, revealed that the responses remain exactly the same. The PNCR can, therefore, only conclude that there is no commitment, by the Minister of Finance and, perhaps, the entire Cabinet, to correct the continued blatant abuses of the Consolidated Fund.

With respect to the proceeds from the Guyana Lotteries, the response by the Minister of Finance, in paragraph 20 of the Treasury Memorandum of 26 April, 2006 and paragraph 24 of the Treasury Memorandum of 7th November, 2008 is exactly the same.

This response constitutes a knowing breach of the Constitution which clearly indicates that these proceeds should be placed in the Consolidated Fund. The Minister’s argument that the funds are properly accounted for, outside of depositing same into the Consolidated Fund, confirms the view that the Administration is contemptuous of the Laws of Guyana.

TRANSPARENCY

Good Governance requires transparency and accountability for public moneys and assets. It should be evident to all that the members of the Administration consider themselves to be above the Law.

Therefore, the responses, of the Minister of Finance, to the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, and the, seemingly, boundless environment of corrupt practices, at all levels, demonstrate the arrogant belief that they could continue to treat the Public Accounts and Public assets in a cavalier and disdainful manner.

The PNCR wishes to notify members of the public that the Report of the Auditor General is a public document. Accordingly, we urge citizens to avail themselves of the opportunity to be informed about the malfeasance of the Administration.

The people of Guyana must demand that the Minister of Finance efficiently and effectively discharges his responsibilities under the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act.

Resolution No. 48, dated 8 July 2004, RESOLVED, “That this National Assembly refers the Reports of the Disciplined Services Commission to a Special Select Committee for review within a period of four months, and thereafter to report to this National Assembly as to the manner in which such of the recommendations which are accepted, ought to be implemented including which Committee of this National Assembly will monitor such implementation.”

The work of the Special Select Committee was not completed when the National Assembly was dissolved in preparation for the 2006 National and Regional Elections. Therefore, Resolution No. 33, dated 26 July 2007, FURTHER RESOLVED, “That the newly established Special Select Committee of the Ninth Parliament take cognizance of the work done by the Special Select Committee of the Eight Parliament that considered the Report and its recommendations.”

The mandate of the present Special Select Committee remain unchanged and the Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Clement Rohee, who is a member of the Committee is fully cognizant of the status of the work of the Committee.

The Minister is aware that Recommendations 62-66 of the Disciplined Services Commission (DFC) clarifies that, under the Firearm Act Chapter 16:05, the Minister of Home Affairs was not intended by Parliament to have the direct statutory function of granting firearms licences himself, but rather should be statutorily responsible for appointing a fit and proper person to do so [S. 45(1)].

Those Recommendations further clarified that Standing Order No. 91 of 1964 of the Guyana Police Force, which purported to provide the procedure to be applied for the assessment of Firearms Licence applications, spawned the practice for a firearm licence to be granted by Divisional Commanders, only if the Commissioner of Police and/or the Minister approves the grant of the application.

The DFC felt that Standing Order 91/64 was due to the misapplication of Section 7 (1) of the Police Act which confers on the Commissioner of Police that overall function of command and superintendence of the entire Guyana Police Force (GPF), subject to the general orders and directions of the Minister.

The DFC felt that Standing Order 91/64 cannot be lawfully substituted for the provisions of section 18 of the Firearms Act, and Regulation 3 of Firearms Regulations, which provide that applications for a firearm licence must be made in the prescribed form to the prescribed officer for the area in which the applicant resides and that the Prescribed officer is to make a grant of a firearm licence only if he is satisfied that the applicant had good reasons for having in his possession such firearm. The prescribed officer would be the Divisional Commanders of the GPF.

The DFC further recommended that Regulatory amendments should be made to the Firearms Act to give the Commissioner of Police supervisory control over Divisional Commander with regard to the granting of firearm licences.

It is, therefore, a matter for deep concern that the Minister of Home Affairs has surreptitiously Gazetted, dated 10 April 2010, Regulations Made Under THE FIREARMS ACT Chapter 16:05 which state the following: “Notwithstanding the provisions of these Regulations, the Minister shall have the power to disregard the recommendations of the Firearms Licensing Approval Board and arrive at his decision to grant or refuse the certificate of registration in accordance with his own deliberate judgement.”

The PNCR objects to the pre-emptive action of the Minister of Home Affairs which is in bad faith and contemptuous of the ongoing deliberations, on the very subject of the authority for the granting of Firearms Licenses, that is now before the Special Select Committee of the National Assembly.