Anti-money laundering specialist Toussant Boyce says stakeholders should be hesitant to describe the posture taken by CFATF to Guyana as a blacklisting and should stick to the language the body used in outlining its position.
On Thursday, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF), after assessing Guyana during its 38th Plenary in The Bahamas, decided that the country is insufficiently compliant with prescribed anti- money laundering and terrorism financing requirements and therefore called on its member countries to consider taking measures to protect themselves from risks emanating from Guyana. CFATF has also decided to give Guyana until next May to correct the existing deficiencies in its financial architecture by May 2014 or be referred to the global body, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
Following this release, government officials, including Prime Minister Samuel Hinds and Government Chief Whip Gail Teixeira, said that CFATF’s decision is indicative of a blacklisting. Government Ministers Anil Nandlall, Ashni Singh, and Juan Edghill, during the November 14th sitting of the National Assembly had also said that Guyana would be blacklisted without a doubt if the Alliance for Change (AFC) and A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) did not lend their support towards passing the Anti-Money Launder-ing and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (Amendment) Bill proposed by the government in April of this year.
Blacklisted?
But Boyce, a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) and an attorney-at-law with over 15 years’ expertise in corporate banking and international financial law and regulation, says that all stakeholders have an ethical obligation to describe Guyana’s condition in the same manner it has been described by the CFATF. He made these statements yesterday while speaking to reporters after making a presentation to lawyers in Guyana on the implications of money laundering on their profession at the High Court Conference Room.
Boyce said that the use of the term “blacklist” has been adopted from the period when the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) used to have a colour-coded list for countries that were not completely compliant.
He said that the term is colloquial, and has somehow found itself into this jurisdiction. Furthermore, he said there should be reservations on the part of all stakeholders with regards to saying that Guyana has been blacklisted.
Weighing in on this matter, chartered accounting firm Ram &McRae yesterday said in a press release that though “sentiment seemed in favour of blacklisting Guyana, the language from the meeting was more measured and fell short of the predictions.”
“You should use the language that CFATF uses and track that as closely as possible because it is very carefully worded, nuanced language, and it really has implications above and beyond whatever people say, politicians say, what lawyers and what reporters say,” Boyce contended.
“We should be very careful of that because of the implications involved. It’s not that I’m saying if someone uses it its illegal or nonsensical, it’s just that having an ethical obligation requires us to be very careful with how we describe the condition of a country, in terms of describing it in generalized colloquial terms,” he added.
There will be “some implications” resulting from CFATF’s decision, Boyce told lawyers as he briefly spoke on the matter, stating that the implications can “bite as bad as it barks.”
“There will be effects, but the scaremongering going on is unfounded,” he said, explaining that it will be left to the member states party to CFATF to decide how they will approach their financial relationship with Guyana.
Boyce holds a Bachelors of Law Degree (LLB) with distinction from the University of Guyana and Graduated with a Legal Education Certificate (LEC) from the Hugh Wooding Law School in Trinidad. He also graduated with a distinction from the American Bankers Association, Georgetown University, and holds double masters degrees (LLM), first class, in Commercial Law and International Financial Law from the University of Cambridge and Harvard School respectively. He is also currently reading for his PhD in International Financial regulation at Cambridge University.
Implications
In relation to the possible implications from CFATF’s decision on Guyana, Ram & McRae is of the opinion that Caribbean Basin countries will not cease to do business with Guyana, rather, and on an individual basis, there may be “significant impact on time-sensitive transactions as more questions are raised about the source and destination of funds and the purpose and the validity of transactions which could ultimately translate into increased costs and the possibility of lost business opportunities.”
The firm therefore recommends that businesses and individuals make allowances for “some delays in the processing of both inbound and outbound transactions. We further recommend that an additional period of one week be allowed for any additional inquiries and investigations. In particular businesses and individuals must maintain adequate records and a reliable paper trail of their transactions.”
Ram & McRae however cautioned against “falling victim to, or creating panic and alarm over the decision made by CFATF.”
The firm further called on Guyana’s political leaders to address the country’s money laundering issues as failure to do this will continue to “undermine the integrity of Guyana’s financial system, fair trading and public trust and international confidence.”
Solving the problem
If Guyana is to be found sufficiently compliant by CFATF by the May 2014 Plenary, the amendment bill must first be brought back to the National Assembly so that it can be approved. It is however unclear which political party intends to bring the bill back.
The events of the November 14th sitting of the National Assembly saw the Bill being voted down, but both the House Speaker Raphael Trotman and Clerk Sherlock Isaacs have said that there are provisions in the Standing Orders that allow the government or either the AFC or APNU to bring the legislation back to the house.
But both opposition parties were adamant yesterday they will not be initiating any such actions. During APNU’s weekly press briefing yesterday, Opposition Leader David Granger said that the bill is a government bill and must therefore be brought back by government.
APNU Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister and Deputy Speaker Deborah Backer, who was also at the press briefing, said that though the Speaker is right about the Standing Orders, the fact that the bill was brought by the government places all responsibility on it to bring the bill back.
In essence, “the ball is in their court,” Granger argued. He went on to say that the government could have brought the bill back during Thursday’s sitting of the National Assembly, and, noting that the next sitting will be held on December 12th, said that time is going.
AFC leader Khemraj Ramjattan also told Stabroek News yesterday that government must be the one to bring the bill back to the house.
The government’s Chief Whip, Teixeira, when asked if and when the government plans to retable the bill, said on Thursday, “You’re assuming we are. When we are? We’ll see. Things are now in the political realm. Let’s see now what the opposition will say about this. The ball is in their court.”
