Finance Minister says AFC’s position on money laundering bill is shamelessly irresponsible THE act of one political party to withdraw support for the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, unless President Donald Ramotar assents to the two Opposition pieces of legislation and establishes the Public Procurement Commission, has been regarded by Minister of Finance Dr Ashni Singh as a shamelessly irresponsible position.

In a comment to the Government Information Agency (GINA) yesterday on the move by the Alliance For Change (AFC), the Finance Minister said he was shocked and horrified that the party would “hold the nation as hostage by using support for this bill as leverage to extract political concessions. “What the AFC is essentially saying is that, irrespective of how important this Bill is, or what the consequences of its non-approval would be, they are not prepared to support it because there are other political issues on which they wish to extract concessions from the Government,” Minister Singh said. The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (Amendment) Bill was on May 7, referred to a Parliamentary Select Committee after A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) argued that its passage was ill-timed. The select committee has apparently not been moving with any sense of urgency, according to Presidential Adviser on Governance, Gail Teixeira, who also commented on the AFC’s position yesterday. “The opposition in the committee insisted that we advertise and invite written submissions…were in the newspapers last Sunday (May 12). The deadline is May 17, Friday and therefore…if we look at those events, there seems to be little haste on the part of the Opposition,” Teixeira said. The passage of the amended legislation is aimed at bringing Guyana in conformity with certain international standards that would have spared the country from being blacklisted or excluded from important activities. If the bill is not passed, Guyana will be placed on a list with other non-conforming countries, and would be visited with a regime of sanctions which will include restrictions in the manner in which business is done internationally, especially involving wire transfers of funds. Once placed on that list, it takes an average of approximately seven years to come off, during which time the country would have to go through   stringent scrutiny of its procedures used when transacting business across the borders. Teixeira in explaining the dire consequences for countries not in compliance with conventions and treaty obligations on money laundering, pointed out the amendments that were made to redress ambiguities in the current laws, and its correlation to other laws such as on gambling, mutual assistance on criminal matters (extradition), and money transfer licensing agencies among others. “The impact of that is that it will impact on the financial system and sector of Guyana… other banks could decide how they are going to treat with you as a country,” Teixeira explained President Donald Ramotar has called on the political Opposition to put aside partisan interests in dealing with such an important piece of legislation and support its passage. Guyana has up until May 27 to subscribe to the international criteria. The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is demanding that Guyana tighten its anti-money laundering Act by the stipulated timeline so as to comply with the recommendation of the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force, (CFATF), a move which the ruling administration is keen to implement. This latest position by the AFC is a clear retaliation to President Ramotar’s refusal to sign into law the Fiscal Management and Accountability (Amendment) Bill and the Former President’s bills, after citing evidence that they were unconstitutional. The bills will require a two-thirds majority before they are returned to the President’s desk. Teixeira is peeved that the AFC is bargaining through the press and not at the table as mature politicians do. The party’s other demand, the establishment of the Public Procurement Commission, has been an age-old argument supporting a claim that the national procurement process  lacks transparency.