Skip to main content

Government not serious about passing AML Bill

June 15, 2014 | By | Filed Under AFC Column, Features / Columnists 

It is now more than a year since the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2013 was tabled in the National Assembly. Since then there has been a lot of political posturing by the government but little evidence to support its claim that it wants to have the Bill passed. The Government has turned the AML/CFT Bill into a talking point but contrary to its expectations, it failed to score the political mileage it had hoped for. This is typical of the general approach of the PPP to addressing corruption and the flow of illicit funds. History shows that anti-money laundering legislation was first introduced as Bill No 10 of 1998. It took two years to be approved by the National Assembly and assented to by the then President in March 2000. After 2000, it was not until 2007, that the Government introduced the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Finance of Terrorism Bill. It took another two years for that Bill to be passed and one hundred and seven days before it could be assented to and another 87 days before the 2009 Act could be brought into force. It must be noted that during this time, the PPPC had the majority in the House. When AML legislation was finally in place, the implementation left much to be desired. One may recall that back in 2011 then President, Bharrat Jagdeo, publicly criticized the Financial Intelligence Unit that was created under the legislation; albeit as a one-man show, for its inability to meet even basic annual reporting obligations to the National Assembly. One must also recall that for nearly four years the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) has been working with Guyana and making recommendations for the strengthening of our Anti-Money Laundering mechanisms. Over that period the Government implemented the very minimum to get by and the country was being listed as either non-compliant or partially compliant on most of the measures required by the Regional body. It was not until May 2013 when CFATF’s patience ran out and it threatened Guyana with black-listing that the PPPC Government hastily and awkwardly sought to table the amendments to the original AML/CFT Bill. We say awkwardly because the Government failed to share a very important letter from CFATF with the Opposition as it was specifically asked to do by CFATF. Following the tabling of the amendments, the Alliance For Change immediately made known the conditions under which it would lend its support. The AFC also shared with the Government and published publicly its ‘Road Map’ for moving the process forward.  In a spirit of compromise, the AFC made a proposal to the Government for Cabinet to retain a role in the award of contracts. The role of Cabinet is being used as a sticking point by the government in its refusal to set up the Procurement Commission despite what it agreed to and signed up for in the Procurement Act of 2009. Section 54 of the Act deals with review by Cabinet (no objection) of procurements in excess of fifteen million Guyana dollars, and states explicitly that ”Cabinet’s involvement under this section shall cease upon the constitution of the Public Procurement Commission”, except in relation to certain pending matters. Let it be known that the proposal from the AFC was viewed favorably by Ministers but still the Government refuses to move forward on the operationalization of the Public Procurement Commission. The PPPC Government sees the Public Procurement Commission as the guillotine that would kill its fattened cow and it is fabricating excuses to delay its establishment. The Procurement Commission is a provision in our Constitution (Article 212 W), reinforced by way of the Public Procurement Act, and designed to lend confidence to the procurement process and ensure no government gets fat on bribes and kick-backs from contractors/suppliers. In this regard, the Procurement Commission buttresses Anti-Money Laundering legislation, in that it effectively addresses the flow of bribes and other forms of illegal money. It is highly suspicious that Guyana does not have in place mechanisms that meet the requirement of CFATF or even surpass them. In the meantime, we continue to hear of illicit drugs being found in shipments from Guyana; Guyanese with strong linkages to persons in Government being implicated in fraudulent activities; we see millionaires cropping up overnight and unexplainable wealth being flaunted by Government officials whose income does not lend to their demonstrated extravagances. So while the PPPC government continues to make noises about the non-passage of the AML/CFT Bill, the people of Guyana and the international community continue to monitor the non-implementation of existing legislation, the profusion of mansions owned by government functionaries and their friends, and the flaunting by Guyana’s nouveau wealthy.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Private sector ‘fed up’ of Opposition’s shifting positions : –PSC Chair, Ramesh Persaud

 

HEAD of the Private Sector Commission (PSC), Mr Ramesh Persaud, yesterday weighed in on the main Opposition’s dismissal of the importance of complying with the regulations set out by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and by extension, those of the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF).

“The PSC’s position is that we are fed up of the shifting positions on this matter. We believe that it is highly irresponsible to write off FATF and CFATF,” he told the Guyana Chronicle.

After the Parliamentary Special Select Committee’s last meeting to review the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) (Amendment) Bill last Wednesday, the Committee Chair, Gail Teixiera, told the Guyana Chronicle that A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) “scoffed” at the necessity of Guyana meeting the requirements set out by the financial regulatory bodies.

Persaud underscored the fact that while Guyana has felt the impacts of being blacklisted regionally by CFATF last November, risking official blacklisting from FATF will be disastrous for the local economy.

“CFATF’s membership is about 34 countries. If you look at FATF, what we have is major countries like the US (United States of America), Canada and Europe, all of which are major trading partners. To dismiss such a huge organisation is nothing short of irresponsible,” the PSC Chair said.

As it stands, the Parliamentary Special Select Committee is caught in a deadlock with no progress on the following issues: agreement on the passage of the AML/CFT (Amendment) Bill; agreement on APNU’s proposals to amend the AML/CFT Principal Act; and agreement on the counter-proposals offered by the Attorney-General (AG) to address what are viewed as problematic areas of APNU’s amendments.

The Committee meeting last Wednesday (June 11) was adjourned indefinitely.

PASS THE BILL
Persaud said the stalemate is frustrating the private sector.
“The PSC, at this point, is very much frustrated at the non-movement of the Bill,” he said, particularly given that the nation is grappling with the beginning of the implementation of counter-measures advised by CFATF when it referred Guyana to FATF on May 29.

The counter-measures against Guyana that were advised by CFATF in a missive to its members include the following: the requirement of enhanced due diligence measures; introducing enhanced reporting mechanisms, or systematic reporting of financial transactions; refusing the establishment of subsidiaries, or branches, or representative offices in Guyana; and taking into account the fact that financial institutions from Guyana do not have adequate AML/CFT systems and limit the business relationships or financial transactions with the country.

Had the AML/CFT (Amendment) Bill been enacted in May before the CFATF had held its plenary session, Guyana could, in all probability, have avoided being referred to the FATF, particularly since the CFATF noted that 90 per cent of the deficiencies identified in the country’s draft are legislative in nature.

“The world at large, all the stakeholders on this issue, must be aware that the private sector is in total support (of) passage of the AML/CFT (Amendment) Bill,” the PSC Chair stressed.

In a bid to meet the CFATF’s requirements, the bill was tabled in the National Assembly in April 2013, but was referred to a Parliamentary Special Select Committee, and was eventually voted down by the combined Opposition in November 2013.

The Bill was re-tabled in December 2013, and was again referred to the Parliamentary Special Select Committee, where it has been languishing ever since, its passage attached to several other conditions being called for by the combined Opposition.

APNU, for instance, has proposed three amendments; but given that the APNU proposals have been viewed as problematic, the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Government, offered them counter-proposals in the interest of ensuring that the amendments made are CFATF-compliant. These counter-proposals were considered by the Parliamentary Select Committee and were rejected by APNU.

The main Opposition is also calling for the President to given his assent to several Bills passed in the National Assembly, including the Local Authorities (Elections) (Amendment) Bill 2013, which states that elections must be held on or before August 1, 2014. The Head of State has already forwarded to the National Assembly his explanation for his non-assent.

On the other hand, the AFC, having fully thrown its support behind the APNU position, is demanding establishment of the Public Procurement Commission (PPC), which the government has agreed to, provided that Cabinet retains its no-objection role in the process. This position has been rejected by the AFC.

However, after the CFATF announcement had been made by May 29, the AFC noted in a statement that it is now willing to amend its position and support Cabinet’s retention of its no-objection role.

FATF’s next plenary meeting is slated for the period June 23 to 25, 2014 in Paris, France, at which time the international body is likely to put Guyana up for review by its International Cooperation Review Group (ICRG).

PULL QUOTE: ‘The PSC’s position is that we are fed up of the shifting positions on this matter. We believe that it is highly irresponsible to write off FATF and CFATF’
Written By Vanessa Narine

 

extracted from the Guyana Chronicle

FM

Time for Government to cut the chat

 

Despite all the rhetoric coming from the PPP-C Government on the Anti-Money
Laundering Bill, It is now quite clear that they have no real interest in the
passage of the Bill.  The issue of the AML Bill is just an opportunity for
the government to make appropriate noises designed to fool the Regional and
International communities about their commitment to the fight against financial
crimes.  Their unwillingness to  deal with corruption and to stem the
flow of illicit money is evident in their refusal to yield to the establishment
of the Public Procurement Commission and their sloth in implementing the
provisions of the existing AML/CFT Act. In an economy awash with illicit money,
there has only ever been one prosecution for offences under this Act.

 

The public needs to understand that the Procurement Commission is a provision
in our Constitution (Article 212 W), reinforced by way of the Public
Procurement Act, and is intended to ensure that citizens get value for their
tax dollars. It was designed to lend confidence to the procurement process and
limit opportunities for government officials to demand bribes and kick-backs
from contractors/ suppliers. A functioning Public Procurement Commission would
also reduce the fear of contractors/suppliers that they could be discriminated
against if they do not support the government of the day.

 

One would have thought that these would have been good enough reasons for the
government to hastily establish the Commission, especially as they were the
ones who spearheaded the passage of legislation for its creation. However, they
continue to make lame excuses while maintaining full control over a process
that sees billions of tax payers’ dollars squandered each year.

 

International bodies estimate that some 20 per cent of the money for all
contracts goes towards bribes and kick-backs for high placed public officials.
This is public money, money that rightfully ought to go towards improving the
quality of life of the Guyanese people and not into the hands of corrupt
government officials.

If the PPPC government was serious about addressing money laundering, they
would have made robust efforts to strengthen the Financial Intelligence Unit
without having to be forced to do so by an external body. They would have
established the Public Procurement Commission, ensured that there was a
properly constituted Integrity Commission, taken steps to encourage the
establishment of a DEA office in Guyana, ensured the extradition of drug lords
to the US among other measures. It is clear that the PPPC government is only
interested in noise making. It is time to cut the chat and start implementing.



Mitwah

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×