On September 20, the public was made aware of a spectacular crime. Several men were charged with the theft of 1,000 ounces of gold which had been hidden away in a Mahaica house. The house had been under repairs and it was alleged that those undertaking the task had stumbled upon the horde and helped themselves to much of the gold.
Some of the gold has been recovered along with reputed purchases from the proceeds of the stolen metal. Charges have been laid against some persons under Section 164 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act Chapter 8:01 and a number of suspects are still being sought.
The circumstances of this case could undoubtedly lead to an outpouring of proverbs and adages, none flattering of the alleged owner of the gold or the criminal justice system. The salient principle which must govern this case is the rule of law. Whoever the owner of the gold is – that has not been established beyond a shadow of doubt – was entitled to enjoy the proceeds of their toil. However, this could not be in contravention of the law.
The Gold Board Act Chapter 66:01 makes it an offence to be in possession of metal which had not been declared to the board in the prescribed period.
Section 6 (2) of the Act says “Every producer who wins or obtains gold during operations as a producer, shall within twenty-eight days after his winning or obtaining such gold and within twenty-four hours of conveying such gold to Georgetown or any other such place determined by the Minister by notice in the Gazette, or such longer period as the Board may allow, sell such gold to the Board or to any agent authorised in writing by the Board in that behalf”.
Section 7 (1) of the Act says “Every person, not being a producer, who has gold in his possession shall, within twenty-eight days after the coming into operation of this Act sell such gold to the Board or to any agent authorised in writing by the Board in that behalf. (2) It shall be unlawful for any person, not being a producer, to have any quantity of gold in his possession. (3) Every person, not being a producer, who has any quantity of gold in his possession on the date of the coming into operation of the Guyana Gold Board (Amendment) Act shall, within twenty-eight days of the said date, sell such gold to the Board or to any agent authorised in writing by the Board in that behalf”.
It is nearing one month since the first charges were brought against those who allegedly stole the gold – the value of which has been pegged at $400m – and yet there is no word on what charges the hoarder of the gold will face. In any jurisdiction, the discovery that 1,000 ounces of raw gold had been hidden in contravention of the law would trigger consternation.
All of the agencies and regulators who would be expected to have some say in this matter have maintained stony silence: the Guyana Police Force, the Criminal Investigation Department, the Special Organised Crime Unit, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Ministry of Finance, the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission, the Ministry of Natural Resources and, of course, the Guyana Gold Board.
The collective and studied silence is usually the clearest sign that the likely subject of a criminal probe is a protected species and in high favour with the authorities or that any real investigation of the matter could possibly unravel even bigger crimes and more sacred cows. The authorities must provide answers or it would mean that the law functions for only some persons and elaborately crafted legislation such as the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism are simply shams.
The narrative of the horde of gold adds substantially to the ongoing reports of high crimes in this industry and wanton smuggling. It provides further insight into the 2012 heist in Curacao of 476 pounds of gold valued at US$11.5m. All of the available evidence points to the gold originating in Guyana but there has never been a claim of loss from a producer here.
Amid concerns that Venezuelan gold was filtering into the local market in 2019, the FIU had recommended that a high-level team be established to do a comprehensive review of the trading of the precious metal. The FIU report in the second half of 2019 posited a number of questions and recommended that “a high-level team be established to complete a more comprehensive review of the gold trading and Foreign Exchange trading markets to better understand its inner workings and implications. Action needs to be taken at addressing the issue of illegal Cambios including `roadside cambios’”.
The FIU further recommended that the Central Bank and Law Enforcement should become “more proactively involved in addressing the various issues including undertaking of undercover operations to ensure all completed transactions are being declared/ reported by Licensed Cambios”.
These recommendations by the FIU were completely ignored by two administrations.
While silence pervades here it is more than likely that the relevant regulatory agencies abroad have taken notice and that is where the real sting may lie.
