I must express some level of surprise and disappointment in respect of much of the materials published in that INCS Report regarding Guyana’s AML/CFT framework and capabilities. I recall a questionnaire was circulated from the publishers of this report, and large volumes of critical information were supplied, but were unfortunately omitted in the report.
There is no need for one to speculate in relation to Guyana’s AML/CFT credentials. These were recently scrupulously examined over a period of 18 months, from September 2022 to June 2024, in a mutual evaluation exercise conducted by the most premier regulatory body in this hemisphere – the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF). In this process, every aspect of Guyana’s AML/CFT framework was critically scrutinized, including our legislative framework, our administrative processes, our investigative capabilities, and our law enforcement and prosecutorial capacities.
Additionally, various critical sectors were interrogated, including, the mining, banking and real estate sectors, revenue collection, gaming authorities, and the Commercial and Deeds Registries. For example, Guyana has bolstered its Beneficial Ownership Legislative provisions by requiring covered entities to identify and verify beneficial ownership information for legal persons and legal arrangements. The Commercial Registry has exercised various powers -primarily, the right of refusal and the power of issuing warnings, and ultimately striking companies from the register for failure to provide basic and beneficial ownership information, which has resulted in significant improvement of compliance by companies, with over 2000 companies filing BO information from 2023 to present.
Even Guyana’s inter-agency as well as inter-country cooperation mechanisms were examined. Issues such as beneficial ownership were specifically evaluated. In the end, Guyana was given a clean bill of health. In fact, Guyana fared better than most of its Caribbean counterparts.
Significantly, this positive appraisal comes from the appropriate and authorised global regulator for this hemisphere, and therefore, in my respectful view, constitutes the authoritative and conclusive diagnosis of Guyana’s AML/CFT credentials. The INCS Report should have taken guidance from CFATF’s mutual assessment of Guyana, which is publicly available on CFATF’s website. CFATF’s assessment of Guyana received the approbation of the Financial Action Task Force – the global regulator of this sector.
Coincidentally, just last month, an Article IV Mission from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) examined, inter alia, Guyana’s AML/CFT’s framework and performance. The findings of that body are strikingly different from the INSCR Report. One section reads:
“Staff supports Guyana’s continued efforts to strengthen its AML/CFT and anti-corruption frameworks in line with its international commitments. Guyana’s Mutual Evaluation Report by the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF), published in 2024, found a significant improvement in Guyana’s efforts to improve its understanding of ML/FT risks via the conduct of multiple ML/FT risk assessments, including a 2023 sectoral risk assessment on the Extractive Industries. The 2024 Sixth Round of Review of the Mechanism for Follow-up on the Implementation of the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (MESICIC) from the Organization of American States also acknowledges Guyana’s progress, and the authorities are working to strengthen the Integrity Commission, particularly the compliance framework for the submission of declarations.
…In line with the recommendations of the MESICIC 2024 report, work is ongoing in multiple areas to strengthen anti-corruption efforts. Following the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) report published in 2024, the authorities are working to implement the beneficial ownership transparency recommendation in line with the EITI standards. There is also scope to strengthen regulatory compliance in the non-oil mining
sector, particularly with large-scale operators. Staff supports the authorities’ strong efforts to strengthen the rule of law through hiring more magistrates and judges.”
Coming out of the CFATF’s successful mutual evaluation process, Guyana remains deeply committed to continue to vigilantly implement all global recommendations and make such legislative, policy and administrative changes that may be necessary to continue to strengthen our AML/CFT capacity and readiness to battle organized crime and corruption.
In fact, as we speak, our AML/CFT National Coordination Committee, of which I am the Chair, is fervently working to implement recommendations made during the Mutual Evaluation exercise as well as to rectify the identified deficiencies. Later this year, Guyana will be expected to provide a status update report to CFATF on this ongoing work.
1. Linking money laundering to corruption and organised crime
Any statement linking ML to corruption amongst public officials, must be substantiated by empirical/anecdotal evidence. In many of these cases, proportionate and appropriate actions were taken against the individuals (Brutus case in point). For the report to attempt to link ML to holders of public offices and corruption without citing the cases which have led to this conclusion, is simply speculative.
Guyana has repeatedly demonstrated its intolerance to corruption, especially relating to public officials, once the evidence is made available. Guyana has won the Best-Case Award in the Caribbean region for its efforts in fighting money-laundering and anti-corruption, particularly in relation to actions taken against former Assistant Commissioner of Police Calvin Brutus.
Reference was made in the report to the OFAC sanctioned person(s)/ companies. It is a fact of public notoriety that upon the publication of that announcement, the Government of Guyana made a public statement that it will engage the United States’ law enforcement agencies in rendering mutual legal assistance on these matters. This collaboration has commenced and is ongoing. Thus far, State agencies of Guyana have submitted large volumes of information to U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies as per their request.
Importantly, Government took immediate action in disengaging with the sanctioned persons/ companies in relation to extant relations in certain sectors in order to insulate Guyana’s financial system form any adverse consequences flowing from those sanctions. The Guyana Revenue Authority, the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) are currently collaborating and investigating these matters.
The very INCS Report has recognised that in comparison with other countries in the report, Guyana has implemented robust structures to detect, prevent and deter ML, including, implementation of the following:
(i) Criminalising Drug Money Laundering
(ii) Implemented Know Your Customer Provisions
(iii) Reporting Suspicious Transactions
(iv) Maintaining Records Over Time
(v) Implemented Cross Border Transportation of Currency
(vi) Implemented Beneficial Ownership Data Collection & Retention Provisions
(vii) Compliant with International Law Cooperations
(viii) Implemented Systems for Identifying/Forfeiting Assets
(ix)Implemented Arrangements for Asset Sharing
(x) Partied to Information exchange agreements with non-U/S/ Govts
(xi)A Party to the 1988 United Nation Drug Convention
(xii) A Party to UNTOC and UNCAC
2. There have been few money-laundering convictions in Guyana, why is this so? What systems are being implemented to see the numbers increasing?
It is common ground that Government has no control over the determination of cases by the Judiciary. We adhere strictly to judicial independence and the doctrine of separation of powers. The AML/CFT structure can ensure that the matters are investigated, charges are filed and evidence presented. We have no control in respect of the determination of these matters.
Since we came into office in 2020, the volume of investigations and charges have greatly increased. There are currently 298 ML charges, with one conviction obtained in ML, whilst in other instances, persons have been convicted of other offences, such as obtaining by false pretense.
Additionally, given that ML matters are complex and usually involve detailed financial analysis and reporting, it is not unusual for cases to take some time to be completed, especially given the importance of ensuring that ML is prevented.
In addition, there are instances where international protocols, laws and bilateral arrangements to share information ( critical to any ML investigation) for e.g. are not always as swift as intended, these existential yet extraneous factors must be taken into account when one is forming a conclusion as to how delays in disposing of matters, which are exclusively domestic and those which are hybrid in nature and involves the necessary input of our foreign partners in progressing and concluding cases forensically. There is no FATF or any renown AML / CFT measurement indicator which states that few convictions in a country redounds to weak institutions and AML / CFT framework. As a matter of fact, it may very well indicate that the rule of law and order is working in that particular jurisdiction.
SOCU engages with regional organisations such as the RSS, as does the FIU with its regional and international FIU counterparts. We anticipate that with properly conducted trials, convictions will be borne out for persons charged.
Law enforcement has also been using tools related to combatting ML, such as freezing, restraint and asset forfeiture, to ensure that assets are not disposed of or dissipated by charged and or accused persons, and upon conviction, these assets can be made available to the State to further improve the crime fighting capabilities of the country.
In addition to monies, this includes instrumentalities such as boats and planes; precious metals and precious stones can be used by their relevant supervisory authority for export to bring monies into the economy, as opposed to being abused and clandestinely taken away from the citizens of Guyana by criminal persons.
Similarly, CANU has been involved in making some of the larger drug busts between 2024 and this year.
Further, there has been increased training for staff and personnel in law enforcement and the Office of the DPP, which are yielding greater results.
Anil Nandlall, SC, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs.
About The Author
