GUYANA has taken her rightful place among member states that are compliant with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) regulatory institution and though much more work is still to be done, one cannot help but notice the high commendation this country has been receiving for its success thus far.

The passage and assent last year of the AML/CFT (Amendment) Bill has seen Guyana being removed from the monitoring categories of the international Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) last month and this month respectively.

At the FATF’s website, it was stated Guyana’s removal had to do with the significant progress the country made in improving its regime to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. Guyana has, since 2009, been recalcitrant in complying with the regulatory institution, and was, in 2013, placed on the CFATF’s monitoring list.

In February 2014, when CFATF’s Financial Advisor, Roger Hernandes visited Guyana, he informed that the country’s status was likely to remain for a minimum of two years, with removal contingent on implementation of AML/CFT laws. When countries become members of international organisations, it is incumbent upon them to adhere to the agreements they have signed on to. That the Government in 2009 felt it could have gotten away with not honouring its commitment to these international organisations, it hurt the society.

When the proverbial hammer hit, in 2014, and the business community reacted out of concern as to the additional requirements needed to trade at the international level, Guyana was four years behind in honouring its obligation. What this highlights is that political grandstanding and inaction carry with them dire implications.

It is reasonable to think that the government of any country whose formal economy was moving in parallel with the underground/narco economy, which world governments would have been aware of, would be mindful of the security implications such would have on the people and the state, and its international integrity would move it to correct that situation. According to renowned economist, Professor Clive Thomas, in a study done between 2001 and 2008, the underground economy was worth approximately $188B (US$940M).

The society was also aware that persons of questionable character interfaced with officialdom, of which the most notorious was Roger Khan, who in 2009 was jailed in the US. He took out a full page newspaper advertisement claiming that he helped the Government in crime-fighting. The Government never refuted this assertion.

It would also be recalled then Cabinet Secretary, Dr. Roger Luncheon was the first person to qualify the wanton shootings and mayhem across the country as that of phantom or death squads operating.

In 2004, a presidential inquiry was commissioned into the role, if any, of the then Minister of Home Affairs, Ronald Gajraj, in the phantom squad. Although he was vindicated, a minority report submitted by commission member, Justice Keith Massiah brought into the public domain evidence that gave rise to a conclusion that was contrary to the findings of the official commission of inquiry.

The aforementioned happenings would aid in arriving at an understanding of why international organisations are determined to have Guyana, as a member state, conform to international standards, once it remains in these associations. The financial integrity of a country and those who do business within and with it has a significant part to do with the legitimacy of its money.

Last year also the United States Ambassador to Guyana, Perry Holloway, and Finance Minister Winston Jordan signed an agreement to implement the U.S Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). Minster Jordan advised that the agreement would help combat money laundering and tax evasion and avoidance. This is another step in ensuring the integrity of the movement of money.

Local banks are also expected to modify their policies in dealing with customers, to ensure both the integrity of money passing through them and the person or persons engaged in the transaction. This is a feature the banking institutions of all FATF and CFATF member states, and those who entered into FATCA agreement, would have to conform to.