-required by Anti-Money Laundering Act
Republic Bank (Guyana) yesterday in a notice to its customers said it would be forced to close their accounts if they do not produce proof of their addresses – a new requirement under the Anti Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 – by early next month.
The bank in an advertisement carried in all the newspapers yesterday said the information is needed by
May 9.
“In addition to producing an official identification document, all account holders are required to provide proof of their address when maintaining accounts,” the bank said in the advertisement.
It said for those customers who never provided proof of their address they are now asked that they visit the nearest branch with their official identification document and proof of their address.
“Please note that if we are not in receipt of the required documentation by May 9, 2010 we are required by law to terminate the business relationship (close the account). In an effort to avoid this inconvenience, we ask that you visit us soon,” the bank said.
Customers are asked to contact any of the bank’s branches or email them at email@republicguyana.com.
The new money laundering act was passed with the full support of the National Assembly on April 30 last year after spending almost two years in a Special Select Committee.
President Bharrat Jagdeo assented to it months later, in August of the same year, and this delay had seen the government being heavily criticized for not having such a law in place many years ago.
A less severe law was on the books for years, but no charge was ever brought under it. During this period Roger Khan, David Narine, David Clarke and Peter Morgan, who have all pleaded guilty to drug charges in the US, operated here. None of them was charged with any type of money laundering or drug offence here.
Just recently the President had levelled criticism at the head of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) Paul Geer for not taking anyone to court under the act.
Attorney General Charles Ramson had later told Stabroek News that they had moved against the assets of some persons who were convicted of trafficking in narcotics in the UK.
Stabroek News later learnt that the authorities had moved against a bank account believed to be connected to two of several Guyanese that were convicted in the UK, all of whom were part of the ‘Bling Bling’ drug gang. That case wrapped up in 2006 where 14 members of the British segment of an international cocaine smuggling network were jailed for between five and 27 years.
Police in the UK had said the group, which acquired its ‘Bling Bling’ moniker because of its members’ high-living lifestyles, comprised one of the biggest drug rackets ever brought to justice in that country.
The gang, whose members were mostly of Guyanese and Caribbean descent, had bases in London, Paris and New York and made huge profits.
According to reports, local authorities had moved against a bank account held at a bank here by someone living here, but which was connected to Bernard ‘Kofi’ Clarke, 31. Clarke was described in court as a “principal player” in the gang and was jailed for 18 years and recommended for deportation after pleading guilty to importing cocaine, and manufacturing and supplying crack.
Clarke’s partner, Lisa Bennett, 39, was also sentenced to 18 years imprisonment and recommended for deportation. The court had heard that Clarke and Bennett had acted as the “cooks” to produce the crack.
The bank account, which was in the name of a Guyanese woman living here, was ordered frozen even before the two were jailed. But following an application by attorney-at-law Nigel Hughes, Justice Brassington Reynolds ordered that the woman have access to the bank account. The order was made on September 3, 2008.
While commending the authorities for making the move, observers have pointed out that the ‘Bling Bling’ gang members did not operate out of Guyana yet the authorities found enough evidence to move to the local courts.
Observers further pointed out that Khan, Morgan and others did operate in Guyana and to date no charge under the new money laundering law had been brought against them.
The new law provides for oversight of the export and insurance industries, real estate, and alternative remittance systems, and sets forth the penalties for non-compliance. It also establishes the FIU as an independent body that answers only to the President, and defines in detail its role and powers. The new law is believed to be a significant improvement on previous anti-money laundering legislation and covers, among other things, the freezing and forfeiture of assets owned or controlled by persons suspected of engaging in money-laundering activities.
It provides for the unlawful proceeds of all serious offences to be identified, traced, frozen, and forfeited. It also provides for comprehensive powers for the prosecution of money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes and the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime and terrorist property. Included in the act are provisions requiring reporting entities to take preventative measures to help combat money laundering and terrorist financing, and for the civil forfeiture of assets and “for matters connected therewith.”
Clause 110 of the act states that as soon as practicable but not later than six months after the expiry of the financial year, the Director (of the FIU) shall submit to the Minister responsible for Finance, an annual report by the FIU for that financial year. It says that the report shall comprise information on the financial affairs, operations and performance of the FIU including the amounts paid into the Consolidated Fund under the act. The Minister responsible for Finance shall cause a copy of the report together with the annual statements of accounts and the Auditor General’s report to be laid before the National Assembly within one month of receiving it, the legislation stipulates.
