ATTORNEY General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr Anil Nandlall, flayed APNU’s front bencher and Shadow Finance Minister, Mr Carl Greenidge, for his recent comments on consideration of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Bill at the Select Committee.

In a January 26th Kaieteur News publication headlined ‘Anti Money laundering discussions…Gail Teixeira is being malicious’, Greenidge contended that consideration of the AML/CFT Bill needs to be done clause by clause before the APNU proposes any amendments. He said, “It needs to be made clear that there is a process in doing this, and we are currently still debating that process on whether stakeholders can be present or not at the meetings of the Select Committee.
“We are discussing the Bill in a systematic way. When we discuss it clause by clause, as we get to one where we have a problem, we will table our amendments; but we are not at that stage right now.
“…when we arrive at that stage where it is required of us to do so, then we will submit our proposals; and Teixeira should not be spewing a position that suggests otherwise.”

DELAY TACTIC
However, the AG stressed that the Bill is “essentially” the same. He said, “The bill is no different. It is exceedingly similar to what was voted down last year. The changes that were made are minor and few, and reflect the recommendations made by CFATF (Caribbean Financial Action Task Force) at their meeting in November.”
Nandlall stressed that Greenidge is “disguising” the Opposition’s delay tactics by implying that the bill is very different and hence needs to have detailed review, clause by clause.
“Is he saying that in nine months he has not one recommendation for an amendment?” the AG asked.
The AG added that the Government’s position is that the bill should not be substantially changed, since in its current form it has already secured approval from CFATF.
Nandlall restated to the opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) the caution he had expressed when the bill was re-tabled in the National Assembly this year and returned to Select Committee. “We have to be careful with what we are titillating with. What is there is what CFTST wants, and any changes must be in those parameters (recommendations), or else we run the risk of the bill now being non-compliant with the recommendations which have already been made,” he said.
The Attorney-General said that on insisting on the need for amendments to the bill, it is the Opposition who should “state clearly” what those amendments are.

PIGGY-BACKING
Nandlall charged that the Opposition seems to be relying on the recommendations of stakeholders to propose changes. “They are relying on stakeholders to come in and tell them what to change. They should be frank and say that they don’t know what to change…. They want to piggy-back on the recommendations of stakeholders,” the AG opined.
He explained that at meetings of the last Select Committee, several stakeholders had made presentations, some of which were included in the bill, while other proposals were incapable of being reduced into recommendations for inclusion because they were commentaries on the ills of money laundering. “The stakeholders who will make presentations this time around are not very different,” the AG opined.
In line with the request of the Opposition, persons who had made written submissions during the last committee’s consideration of the bill are expected to be given opportunity to appear before the Committee. Among those expected to appear before the committee are Professor Clive Thomas, Attorney Christopher Ram, the Bar Association and the Bankers’ Association.
Nandlall reiterated that the committee is facing a time constraint, with the French-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF) expected to meet on February 13. The FATF is expected to hold a review in February, in which Guyana could be included following CFATF’s designation of Guyana as a country with strategic anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism deficiencies, and has not made sufficient progress in addressing the deficiencies, and has not complied with its Action Plan developed with CFATF to address these deficiencies.
In addition to its deadline, CFATF itself is expected to review Guyana’s position at its next meeting in May 2014. If Guyana is unable to meet the May 2014 deadline, the body is expected to hand Guyana over to the Financial Action Task Force for the International Cooperation Review Group’s (ICRG) evaluation to begin.
Guyana has already been blacklisted by CFATF. The body, at its 38th plenary meeting this week, called for its members to “consider implementing counter measures to their financial systems from the ongoing money laundering and terrorist financing risks” emanating from Guyana.