By SEAN DOUGLAS Thursday, June 4 2009

click on pic to zoom in

Commonwealth ties: Minister of Trade and Industry Mariano Browne (from left) greets Manoah Esipisu, deputy director, Communications and Public Affairs...

TABAQUITE MP Ramesh Maharaj wondered if a new Bill to stop money laundering would be used to harass the heads of CL Financial and the Hindu Credit Union (HCU) and trace their assets held abroad.

The House of Representatives passed a Bill to tackle money-laundering, despite the Opposition’s abstention after Maharaj’s warning. By 26 votes in favour, and 12 votes for abstention, the House yesterday passed the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill 2009.

Maharaj’s concerns in the Bill’s committee stage were met by assurances by Attorney General John Jeremie and House Leader Colm Imbert. Maharaj asked if the Bill was aimed at Clico and HCU, saying, “I want to know if that is the intention.”

Imbert replied that it was wrong to talk about specific credit unions, because the Bill would apply to all. When Maharaj asked if the Bill would apply retroactively, Imbert said only if a clause specifically said so, with Jeremie adding that such a clause would need a very high special majority of House votes. Maharaj said: “It seems to me, I may be totally wrong, but it seems to me that this is geared for a particular purpose.”

He asked why the Bill was adding to the original Act any indictable offence done outside of Trinidad and Tobago, which he said would unusually give local courts jurisdiction over crimes done abroad. “Why is it necessary...? Since the Proceeds of Crime Act was passed, is there any matter which arose which the Government could not have prosecuted?” asked Maharaj. He asked how many prosecutions had been made under the Act, and why was this current change needed.

Maharaj said: “I have a feeling — I may be totally wrong — that this Act is being passed for the Hindu Credit Union and Clico, in order to get at some of the assets. Therefore I want to be satisfied in my mind, because I think the public would want to be satisfied, that this amendment is not being passed for specific matters.”

Jeremie replied. “The problem is no different to what we encountered in relation to the airport matter, you know about. CL Financial has its primary place of business in Trinidad and Tobago so that it is covered under (subsection) (e), whether it does wrong in Miami, Liechenstein or the Bahamas, as we had in the airport matter, the fact that they are covered in Trinidad and Tobago allows us to make MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) requests of the US authorities and cooperate with them.”

Jeremie said US law courts were quicker than in this country. “There are people in jail in the US. There are forfeiture orders in the US. Last week we made a forfeiture order for $2.5 million against Birk Hilman in the US, based on conduct which started in Trinidad and Tobago,” he said.

Maharaj replied that he was not talking about mutual legal assistance. “It seems to me money-laundering charges could now be used as a basis to go into all the assets of an individual, trace them — I’m not saying harass them — trace them, and get at them, if you couldn’t get at them before. All I want is some explanation from you, guarantee, that this is not the case.” Jeremie replied: “Once those institutions to which you refer — the Hindu Credit Union and CL Financial both have a presence in Trinidad and Tobago, so they are caught under part (e).”

(See Page 14A)