http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commentaries/A_script_to_scrap-129701198.htmlA script to scrap
By Clarence Rambharat
Story Created: Sep 12, 2011 at 11:50 PM ECT
Story Updated: Sep 12, 2011 at 11:50 PM ECT
Forget the Prime Minister's Veto: Reloaded starring the veto of the choice for Director of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). It's just a distracting sequel to Mr Manning's veto of appointments to the High Commission in London and the Commissioner of State Lands, both recently considered by the Privy Council.
It follows an old script, but one which still ratchets up combatants already on political and ethnic high alert. In our embryonic war against crime there are more important matters for our big screen.
This is the sort of script to which the Minister of Finance will not be drawn, yet he landed the lackey's role. He failed to help the PM redraw constitutional lines on the nature of the veto. The July 2011 Privy Council decisions on the Manning vetoes explained the narrow nature of the limitations on the power of veto once the objection was of a general nature.
What the Constitution and Privy Council decisions do not offer the PM is the power to supplant the Public Service Commission's (PSC) choice with a personal preference. It is the current Government which gave the PSC the power to select the FIU's executive, only for the PM to turn around, undermine the PSC and disturb the separation of powers.
The real questions ought to be whether in the first place we had attracted the best skills for these Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) jobs and if the FIU in its current form will put a kink in the cash flow in and out of criminal organisations. Crippling criminal organisations is not a direct objective of the FIU but it is the obvious goal.
It is not coincidental that the country has been a point of significance in the movement of narcotics through the region and it was one of only 20 countries cited for strategic deficiencies in a 2010 Financial Action Task Force (FATF) report.
Making the country unattractive to criminal cash makes the FIU significant in the battle against crime; it started a decade too late and is desperate for big strikes. It makes the design of the FIU and quality of its leadership a matter of national interest, especially after the SSA/SIA scandal.
The first step in staffing the FIU was bad. The December 2010 advertisement for the three top FIU positions significantly under-represented the unit's vital local role and its global responsibility in the fight against money laundering and terrorism. The advertisement did not emphasise the core strategic work aimed at dismantling criminal infrastructure sunk deep as politicians played catch me if you can with the FATF. The FIU design is flawed as the legislation opted for an administrative-type FIU and not the other options of a prosecutorial, law enforcement or a hybrid organisation.
In its current design the FIU is meant to evaluate and analyse suspicious transactions reported to it and relies on the existing law enforcement bodies to investigate and prosecute if necessary. Needless to say we are back to square one if the FIU is paced by law enforcement snails.
With the country playing catch up, FIU executives should be experts in the interplay between weak financial institutions, slow law enforcement bodies and a new entity set up to choke the flow of criminal cash. The advertisement understated the requirements for the role of Director in particular, demanding a mere "five years of experience in a managerial position" and just knowledge of anti-money laundering and combating terrorism financing. Absent were words like "expertise", "previous related experience gained from working with an FIU or similar institution", "strategic expertise" and "leadership".
Whoever prepared the wish list for the country's FIU Director, Deputy Director and Director, Outreach and Supervision either had not read the FIU legislation or had been goaded into setting the bar in a particular way. The FIU should work in tandem with the SSA/SIA and elite crime-fighting entities, casting a wide net over the movement of cash in and out of the country and the accumulation of assets. It should be integrated with law enforcement and prosecution instead of being a research outpost. Unfortunately, in the post-veto political and ethnic ruction the country has not wondered if the choices include the best persons to pick the pockets of criminal organisations. Without a workable design and international advertising we are not there yet.
In that February 2010 report the FATF cited the country's strategic deficiencies as its failure to implement adequate resources to identify and freeze terrorist assets without delay; confiscate funds related to money laundering and ensure that the country had a fully operational and effectively functioning FIU. Even as billions were available for us to spend, we did not protect ourselves from the passage of criminal proceeds through the financial system.
The unrelated allegation that regulated financial entities bought life insurance products designed for individuals and not corporate entities from other regulated financial entities demonstrates the inadequacy and cockeyed nature of financial sector oversight generally. It also helps to understand why in this fight against criminal cash this piece of paper called the source of funds disclosure is barely worth the sheet it is printed on. We need a better thought out FIU with experienced leadership to fix this.
The quick legislative work in 2011 satisfied the FATF's check-off boxes. The real work is ahead.
Intelligence gathered before and during the state of public emergency must reveal gaps in the law and crime-fighting infrastructure. The next step is to redraw the blueprint and fix the legislation. The crime-fighting organisations must collaborate and must actually deliver results. The leadership search must be global with many regional nationals working around the world in those areas. This is what is on the big screen.
The PM's use of that power of veto only shows our penchant for smoke, mirrors and sideshows.
• Clarence Rambharat is a lawyer
