Dear Editor,
PERMIT me to respond to Demerarawaves’ March 20, 2019 report headlined, ‘‘GBTI claims victims of abuse of power in SOCU probe’’.

Immediately, I totally disagree with such a claim as offered by the Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry (GBTI), after the contempt action brought by the Special Organised Crimes Unit (SOCU) against this institution had been dismissed in the Magistrates’ Court.

Editor, for this Bank to make such a claim, is an attempt to obfuscate, in the first instance, what forced SOCU to seek court action, compelling the handing over of extremely vital records requested, to aid in the investigation of suspected money laundering activities that involved former senior Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB) officials.

That SOCU decided on court action was after their many requests were either refused initially, or partially honoured. This in not only my view, but also the view of the wider public, particularly against the background of the reported destruction of documents by the Bank.

The fact that the High Court had ordered that productive orders be served on the Bank, even though it subsequently granted, what in my layman’s interpretation and understanding were extensions on request by the Bank, pointed to a reason – refusal by the bank to comply with SOCU’s request and its cooperation for access to requested records.

Editor, the GBTI’s action in its entirety, can only be described as uncooperative and disrespectful, perhaps still seeking to claim archaic confidentiality to internal records, which privilege no longer exists, given the pervasiveness of money laundering, and the enactment of modern laws which make it mandatory for every financial house, in whatever jurisdiction to cooperate with authorities investigating such a criminal plague.

No one, irrespective of who and what kind of reputation they seek to extoll, dare doubt that the existence of the criminality of money laundering in Guyana, and its endemic presence in the financial-economic fabric of the nation. This has been underlined by many multi-lateral agencies, that has not only given credit to the current government, but also technical assistance to aid its efforts in combatting this financial evil; for example, the passage into law of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Bill(AML/CTF) which deliberate non-finalisation for legislation during the tenure of PPP/C governance resulted in Guyana being blacklisted.

I have always contended that the case of SOCU and the GBTI is akin to big money versus the law; thus, a bad example of non-cooperation in a very grave issue that undermines any country’s financial architecture, including Guyana’s. It is doubtful that given the cancer of corruption that has been the sordid experience of Guyana, any financial institution can escape scrutiny/investigation by SOCU.

All that SOCU did was to have exercised an option that is its lawful remit for assisting in its probe into a multi-billion-dollar case. In doing so, it cannot be accused of “abuse of power”, and “unnecessarily” targeting the bank – not when the latter so clearly had refused to cooperate in the first instance, even when productive orders were granted. Banks are now known in other jurisdictions to comply immediately in such matters. It is mandatory, since it means upholding and enhancing their probity and reputation; a fact which the “distinguished directors and staff of GBTI” should understand.
Regards
Earl Hamilton