Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall has said that the government will be intensifying its campaign to go after assets implicated in drug-related offences and others believed to be the proceeds from organised crime.
He said that the move is as a matter of policy, in the public interest and the pursuit of public order. Nandlall further stated that the government would be seizing both moveable and immoveable properties in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and the Anti-Money Laundering Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act.
Section 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act states: “(1) Any machinery, equipment, implement, pipe, utensil or other article used for the commission of any offence under this Act shall be forfeited to the state. (2) Every conveyance used for the commission of any offence under this Act or for carrying any machinery, equipment, implement, pipe, utensil or other article used for the commission of any offence under this Act, or any narcotic shall be forfeited to the state…”
The AG’s Chambers in a statement on Saturday said that studies have shown moves to seize assets have had significant impacts in combatting organised crime and the State has every confidence that such actions will have similar results in Guyana. It added that it is the intention of the state to work closely with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Guyana Police Force, the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), the Customs and Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU), the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA), and other law enforcement agencies in Guyana in the execution of this policy.
The State will also work with international law enforcement agencies as well as local law enforcement agencies in jurisdictions to which impugned assets can be traced.
“In execution of this policy, the recent efforts of the State to detain an expensive motor vehicle used in the trafficking of narcotics pending efforts to have the motor vehicle forfeited to the State was upheld by the High Court in a recent decision,” Nandlall said in a statement.
He detailed that on February 12, 2021, Troy Jacobs was driving motor vehicle PZZ 3304, a white Mercedes Benz convertible C2000 when he and others were arrested by agents of CANU for alleged possession of 3.156 kilogrammes of cannabis. Jacobs 46, a businessman of Penny Lane, South Ruimveldt, Georgetown, Ivor Anderson, 75, a visually impaired man of Region Eight, and Perez Cush, 43, a barber of Newton Kitty, Georgetown, were arrested and subsequently charged.
They are out on $500,000 bail each while another man, Micheal Solomon, called ‘Sono’ and ‘Skinny,’ admitted to giving Anderson the drugs. He has been sentenced to four years in jail and slapped with a $2.3 million fine.
The AG’s Chambers said that the car was detained by CANU pending the hearing and determination of the charges against the occupants but on November 22, 2021, Godfrey George Osborne, through his attorney-at-law, Lester Caesar, filed a Fixed Date Application in the High Court. His application which named the Attorney General as one of the respondents sought, among other things, an order that the respondents release the car into the possession of the Applicant Godfrey Osborne trading under the name and style as UK Auto Parts.”
The AG’s Chambers added that Osborne claimed to be the owner of the vehicle but contended that he has no knowledge of what it was involved in and therefore cannot be implicated in the incident.
“Counsel for Godfrey George Osborne submitted to the Court that the vehicle was forfeited by CANU and that he, as owner, without any involvement in the offence, or knowledge of the same, has a statutory right pursuant to section 51 and 52 of the Narcotics Act to apply for the release of the vehicle,” the statement said.
Nandlall and his team, however, argued that forfeiture of the vehicle had not yet taken place and that it was being lawfully kept in custody by CANU to permit the Magistrate to determine whether the vehicle is liable for forfeiture under the Narcotic Drugs Act upon conviction.
“Therefore, the State argued, the Application was premature, unwarranted, and an abusive of process. The Court accepted these arguments and found that the Applicant had not submitted any evidence that the said vehicle was forfeited; the said vehicle was lawfully seized by CANU and not forfeited, and it has not reached the stage to deal with third-party rights and that there is no basis to release the vehicle to the Applicant,” the statement read.
On those grounds, Justice Jo-Ann Barlow awarded costs to the state in the sum of $50,000.
