In today’s global economy, organised criminals generate huge sums of money through various illicit activities including

drug-trafficking, arms smuggling and financial crime. But “dirty” money is of little use to the sophisticated criminal, because it raises the suspicions of law enforcement and leaves a trail of incriminating evidence.

According to the United Nations, criminals are taking advantage of the globalisation of the world economy by transferring funds quickly across international borders. The rapid developments in financial information, technology and communication allow money to move anywhere in the world with speed and ease. “Megabyte money” (in the form of symbols on a computer screen) operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and may be shifted dozens of times to prevent law-enforcement officials from tracking it down.
Since many of the world’s financial centres have now established anti-money laundering measures, criminals seek out states where controls are weak or non-existent. The major money laundering cases that have been exposed in recent years share a common feature: criminal organisations are making wide use of the opportunities offered by financial havens and offshore centres to launder assets, thereby creating roadblocks to law-enforcement organisations.
Money-laundering is a serious problem worldwide and according to experts, the global volume of money laundering is equivalent to between two percent and five percent of global gross domestic product. Estimates have ranged as high as $300 billion to $500 billion a year. Law-enforcement authorities recover about $500 million in a good year, roughly a quarter of one per cent.
Increased regulatory scrutiny and compliance demands have made developing and maintaining an effective AML programme more critical than ever. The risks of non-compliance include civil, monetary and criminal penalties, increased regulatory attention, and reputational damage. Many of these threats, excluding regulatory pressures, extend to companies outside the scope of the USA Patriot Act, regardless of size and holding status.
Money-laundering can have devastating economic effects as it distorts the functioning of markets: money laundering transactions can increase the demand for cash, create exchange rate volatility and generate unfair competition.
It damages credibility and therefore the stability of financial markets: bank collapses related to organised criminal activities can have a domino effect on the financial system of individual countries or regions.
Small states are particularly vulnerable to money-laundering. The economic power generated by outlawed activities provides criminal organisations with leverage on small economies. The absence of appropriate controls, or of the capacity to enforce them, provides de facto impunity to criminals.
In our country, as elsewhere, the growing illegal drug trade has given rise to money-laundering, consequently, the government has been working consistently and persistently to modernise ant-money laundering laws and regulations in accordance with international best practices. However, most unfortunately in its latest bid to further bring our anti-money laundering laws in tune with international requirements, the political opposition has stymied the process, withholding support for the bill brought before the National Assembly, despite the fact that there is a time limit for passing the new legislation. Failing to meet the deadline for passing of the bill could result in sanctions which could have dire consequences on our thriving economy.
It is ironic that the opposition accuses the government of not doing anything to combat money-laundering and in the same breath refuses to support measures being introduced by the government, offering a series of puerile excuses.
Therefore, Dr Ashni Singh’s description of the opposition’s actions as unconscionable is a most apt one..
He further correctly noted that the government has exerted every effort to ensure timely passage of these amendments, but the opposition has frustrated this objective at every available opportunity, the worst example being on Monday,when it used its majority on the committee to refuse to consider the committee’s report, and instead to adjourn the committee to October.
It should be clear to all and sundry by now that the agenda of the opposition is to stall progress and therefore the government may be forced to take a drastic measure. Something which most Guyanese would not want to happen at this time, but it may become inevitable because we cannot allow the opposition to continue to hold progress to ransom.