Leader of the Opposition David Granger in a letter to the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) says that while the parliamentary majority stands ready to consider improvements to Guyana’s anti-money laundering legislation, the lack of Government’s commitment towards transparency must be taken into account.
The move by Granger comes after intense efforts by the government to blame the opposition for Guyana failing to meet a May 27, 2013 deadline for the amendments to be in place. Guyana’s case is presently under review at a CFATF meeting in Nicaragua.
The letter dated May 25, 2013 and addressed to co-chairs Sherene Murray-Bailey and Glenford Malone, states too that the Opposi-tion was committed to working to ensure a strong and comprehensive Bill is enacted and enforced but that the Government must fulfil constitutional obligations.
“We have many times observed that the Government has had legislation on the statute books only to fail to enforce the same. It is worthy of note that anti-money laundering legislation itself has been on our books for the last 13 years and yet the administration has not had the will to bring a single charge against any major operator in all of that time. Even the FIU has been unable to submit to the House a single report in the last four years.
“Clearly therefore, the matter is not simply one of weak, or non-existent, legislation. What is required is a balanced approach to the review exercise on which the Task Force is about to embark. The question of efforts in implementation, enforcement and training also need to be examined and weighed in the course of the review,” Granger said in the letter.
The Opposition Leader also provided a chronology of events leading up to the impasse between the government and the opposition on the bill. He also cited the withholding by President Donald Ramotar, until a late stage, of a letter which the CFATF had recommended be shared with the opposition and other stakeholders. The withholding of the letter prompted Granger’s party to pull out of the committee but it later returned after Ramotar provided an explanation of his actions on the letter.
Granger added that “We wish to make it clear that while the Opposition is committed to working to ensure that a strong and comprehensive bill is enacted and enforced, it would be most inappropriate to expect us to treat this matter as being the most critical issue before the country, especially in the face of the constitutional crisis currently facing us, the source of which is the same cavalier attitude (on) the part of the government towards legal and constitutional obligations”.
Attorney-General Anil Nandlall yesterday declined to comment on Guyana’s presentation to the 37th Plenary Meeting of the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) currently ongoing in Managua where the country’s progress was evaluated.
The meeting ends today with Guyana likely to come under increased scrutiny because of the country’s failure to implement recommendations of the task force. When contacted by Stabroek News, Nandlall said that he was in a meeting and could not speak. He declined to confirm that Guyana had presented and said that upon his return, he would speak.
Guyana received a stark warning last month about missed deadlines and the need for a serious approach to addressing deficiencies in its anti-money laundering legislation, ahead of the Plenary Meeting of the CFATF. The CFATF warned government in the April 10, 2013 letter that its International Co-operation Review Group (ICRG) is adopting a very serious approach to ensuring that jurisdictions under its review including Guyana are equally serious in addressing Anti-Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) deficiencies in their Third Mutual Evaluation Report. The last evaluation of Guyana found that while authorities have started to comply with some of the body’s recommendations, the measures taken remained minimal.
Guyana was listed as the second poorest performing jurisdiction in the Americas and it could be poised to face “significa
nt financial cost” because it has failed to comply with the recommendations unless Nandlall makes a successful appeal for an extension for implementation. Belize and Dominica faced similar reviews like Guyana and it was unclear whether Guyana can gain any concessions, particularly if those countries have managed to make progress.
The CFATF had directed government’s attention to the FATF ICRG document ‘Jurisdictions Meeting The Reference Criteria Not Yet Reviewed’ which states that Guyana is the second of the top two jurisdictions in the Americas Region and is a potential candidate for prima facie review if the FATF ICRG agrees that there are particular risks such that a prima facie review should proceed.
“We would like to further impress upon the Government of Guyana that any action taken by the CFATF Plenary in May 2013 would be a significant factor that could be taken into account by the FATF ICRG when it next meets in June 2013 and the outcome could be of considerable importance to the regional and international reputation of Guyana and the operations of its financial sector,” the body declared.
“Furthermore, there will be significant financial cost to the country once Guyana is chosen for prima facie review by FATF ICRG,” it declared. The CFATF had urged Guyana to engage in dialogue with other CAFTF members who have undergone or are currently in the FATF ICRG process such as Trinidad who are willing to share their experiences having been subject to both prima facie and targeted review by the FATF ICRG.
