IF there is any criminal act committed in any jurisdiction which evinces great anger and opprobrium from citizens, it is the one that surrounds the theft of state finances and other related assets. That such a reaction is expected, is because the persons involved are persons who are entrusted as custodians of state funds, which are primarily the hard-earned taxpayers’ money.

These people being placed in such important positions of being accounting officers and gate-keepers of state resources means a high level of public trust and responsibility have been reposed in them.

This situation has become a traditionally marked occurrence, a culture in many countries, particularly those where checks and balances and financial procedures have been constantly ignored and by-passed, and where wholesale state theft is deliberately orchestrated; the former being the precursor for the latter.

It is well known that this scenario is inherent in that type of country where an incumbent government occupies the seat of power for multiple terms. Guyana has been in such a category, where, after 23 years of People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) government which ended in its defeat in 2015, the aftermath of which has been the unearthing of numerous frauds via audits. From the detailed reports, and ensuing police investigations, it can only be concluded that Guyana has been the victim of massive theft and transferal of state resources unheard of in our 50 years of independence.

Although some of the accused are already before the courts, it is well known that financial crimes of the nature and magnitude committed on the people of this nation, have been very challenging to investigate, not because of the thieves not being known, but because of the lengthy paper trail that has to be traced and collated, for final charges to be made. We refer to former Charges d’ Affaires at the United States embassy in Georgetown, Bryan Hunte, advising patience because of the investigative aspect of finding the paper trail. He said that such cases do take years.
Of course, expectations have been uppermost as Guyanese expect these perpetrators, many of whom have stolen and laundered hundreds of millions of dollars, with an instance of an alleged $14B suspected to be part of a money-laundering scheme. This situation has grown to the point of impatience and criticism of the authorities not doing enough to accelerate the judicial process.

However, recent revelations of the Guyana Bank for Trade Industry (GBTI) refusing the Special Organised Crime Unit(SOCU) of the Guyana Police Force(GPF) access to information that relates to charges brought against former senior officials of the Guyana Rice Development Board(GRDB), and the probe into money transfers of hundreds of millions of dollars to a prominent Essequibo rice farmer, does shed light on the investigative obstacles.

This is at the heart of a wider investigation of US$500M from the PetroCaribe Fund which passed through accounts of the GRDB. Audit reports have given shocking details of funds being given as loans without proper documentation; and also for trading in foreign currency. What a free-for-all with state funds!

It is unbelievable that such a blunt refusal of cooperation can occur, even after months of refusal by the bank, for information, and SOCU being forced to take the latter to the High Court for its uncooperativeness. This resulted in a judge issuing Productive Orders, compelling the GBTI to give whatever information on the banking accounts of certain former senior officials of the entity, and a rice farmer, as requested by SOCU.

It is well known that banking confidential laws govern the protection of information to third parties, concerning account holders. However, these are known to be set aside, in cases of criminal complaints being filed. Given the pervasiveness of especially international money laundering, terrorism financing, and tax evasion, a few of the well-known serious financial transgressions, banks throughout the international financial system have been forced to comply with enacted laws, that have since compelled the accessing of information of suspect account holders by financial crimes investigators. Even Switzerland, once known for its strict adherence to confidentiality, has had to comply with a changed international legal landscape.

If this is the current given with this particular bank in relation to this instance of SOCU investigation, then it suggests strongly as to similar positions with the general banking system in its future engagements with this investigative arm for financial crimes. And we say this without apologies, since given the massive scale of financial theft and of other state assets, it is quite obvious that the banking system would have been used to hide such proceeds.

But we say to them, that it is against modern laws to harbour account holders whose finances are gained from illicit activities that include money laundering and those stolen from the state. GBTI, is no exception to this rule. They should be reminded that the Anti- Money Laundering and Combating Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) legislation, requires all financial houses to report all suspicious transactions to the relevant authorities. It constitutes an offence not to do so.

Its continuous refusal to cooperate with SOCU, even now, despite a productive order, reeks of contempt for the law. In doing so, it is harbouring very serious criminality, even colluding with same.
We note the deafening silence of the private sector.