SARU probes local Bank accused of money laundering
By Kiana Wilburg
One of the largest commercial banks in Guyana is currently under the microscope of the State Asset
SARU Head, Dr. Clive Thomas
Recovery Unit (SARU), regarding documents which implicate it in money laundering activities.
Kaieteur News understands that documents reaching SARU show that a huge deposit of $82,068,617 was effected to the bank account of a sitting Government Minister on June 16, 2011. It is being alleged that the transaction was done without the knowledge of the account holder.
Documents show that the Minister inquired about this strange development in 2011, but was told by one of the Bank managers that the deposit was an “internal transaction that went through” and that he “should not have been told about it.”
On June 20, 2014 Republic Bank’s External Auditor, Christopher Ram, was written to by the account holder, informing him that he was in possession of information which could prove that the deposit of $82,068,617 was effected by Haresh Narine ‘Chinee’ Sugrim, the proprietor of Guy-trac.
The Governor of the Bank of Guyana, Dr. Gobind Ganga was on four occasions written to about the case. A request was also made to Dr. Ganga for the said bank to be prosecuted under Section 60 of the Financial Institutions Act, but to no avail.
Ganga, in his response, said that since the issue is part of a case which is engaging the attention of the Commercial Court, his actions would be guided by the outcome of the proceedings. He made this remark even though it was pointed out to him that in relation to the provenance of the deposit referred to, the court can only be guided by the Central Bank.
Some four years and three months later, Sugrim was accused of laundering over US$400,000 and
Central Bank Governor, Dr. Gobind Ganga
charged before a New York court.
Asked to comment on the matter yesterday, SARU Head, Dr. Clive Thomas, said that indeed the matter has engaged the attention of his department and it is “worrying.” He preferred not to divulge a detailed opinion on the matter, especially at the preliminary stage of the investigation.
The matter is expected to be brought to the attention of certain international bodies which have recently partnered with SARU in the fight against corruption in Guyana.
With assistance being rendered by the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK), Dr. Thomas insists that justice will be served.
He said that he is also appalled at “how deep money laundering connections ran under the People’s Progressive Party (PPP).”
Dr. Thomas had said that the UK and the USA have pledged their support to ensure that the fight against corruption under the Granger-led administration goes beyond mere talk.
Thomas noted that both the US and the UK have told him on various occasions that they are indeed concerned about the level of corruption in Guyana hence “their readiness to assist wherever and whenever they can.”
Dr. Thomas said, “There are intense investigations going on right now and believe me, we here at SARU intend to see that justice is served. I wish to repeat President David Granger’s statement that those who did the crime will definitely do the time. We are building some irrefutable cases.
“We have some evidence on certain officials within the PPP who have been involved in serious money laundering activities and these will be revealed in due time. We are receiving the help of the USA and the UK on these matters and their support to us has been tremendously helpful.”
“They see the importance of Guyana having an anti-corruption unit and they are also working along with us to provide legal support as well. They are worried about the level of corruption that has occurred over the years.
Both countries have presented us with damning evidence that showed that the resources of this country were leaving left, right and centre under the PPP. They couldn’t care less, because they were simply drunk, drunk with greed.”
“When I look at some of these documents it is astonishing. I just can’t understand how people who call themselves leaders could act so callously. It’s inhumane what they did. We were being ruled by a set of people who had no conscience.”
The economist added, “But while the USA and the UK are readily assisting us, they have also insisted on the importance of getting our legislation in order. We are hoping for this to be done by year end.”
While these moves are being made, Government must also place emphasis on modernizing Guyana’s anti-corruption laws and seeking to expeditiously, prosecute various cases.
“The issue of corruption and how devastating it can be to the economy cannot be underestimated. It’s an epidemic in Guyana and the task is now up to the new government to rectify this. But stopping corruption won’t be easy. It requires modernizing our legislation, because what corruption has now evolved to today is not covered in some of our laws.”
The economist had said that for the time being, the law provides for criminal penalties for official corruption. Several laws cover various aspects of corruption, including the Integrity Commission Act, the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act, the Audit Act and the Criminal Law Enforcement Act.
He said that for too long, “Many engaged in corrupt activities and are yet to do the time. That should not be. We need to get serious. We need to be resolute and practical about our approach to the matter.”
A UK expert on Asset Recovery is in the process of gathering information on Guyana’s systems for thwarting corruption as well as examining how much use law enforcement agencies have made of its legislation in this regard.
Mr. Brian Horne is appalled at his findings with regard to money laundering. He said, “I don’t think at the moment there has been any prosecution or use of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Legislation (AML/CFT). My understanding is that there hasn’t been a case using those provisions which are in place.”
“Now I would ask myself in this regard why not? The legislation has been in place since 2009 and there hasn’t been any prosecution. Why? It might be a rhetorical question but it is still curious to know that you have the legislation but have not used it.
“Mr. Horne, who is a Guyanese by birth, and has worked in more than 22 countries in the field of State Assets Recovery, and the successful prosecution of the defaulters said, that he found such a situation to be “alarming.”
“The reason for passing legislation is because you think there are matters you need to tend to, and you need the legislation in order to deal with the issues as you saw it. But if you have the legislation and you don’t utilize it, it makes people think why not?”
“With my background in the UK, if a piece of legislation is implemented, it is because it is relevant to something that needs to be dealt with and it needs to be used. Perhaps one of the reasons it wasn’t used, was the lack of skills and technical staff to implement the work the legislation was intended to do, but that is just speculation on my part.”
The UK expert emphasized that an anticorruption body is a “positive move” as it will not only thwart corruption, but also “strip illegal assets from those who are involved in it.”
He noted however that it will take time, “so the people must have patience and not expect results tomorrow.”
Horne explained that he will be focused on examining Guyana’s systems in place for fighting corruption and gathering other information. At the end of this exercise, he will make recommendation for Guyana’s State Asset Recovery Unit’s (SARU) transition to being the country’s formal anticorruption body.