Books about Anguilla

Loading...

Monday 22 June 2009

A United Corruption?

The Proceeds of Crime Act for Anguilla will provides a scheme to trace, restrain and confiscate the proceeds of crime. The new Act also will provide a scheme that allows confiscated funds to be given back to the Anguillian community in an endeavour to prevent and reduce the harmful effects of crime on Anguilla.

Sometimes I'm inclined to believe that many of our people are using the words "love for country" loosely, without taking careful consideration of what these words actually mean, and what their historic characteristics really are. When you study the historic nature; motive; objective; and results of our ‘so-called revolution’, you may want to change those words to their rightful meaning.

To understand our so-called ‘Anguilla professionals’ dissent; you must study their history and the characteristics of the individuals crying fouled. These are the same dodgy ‘all of self’ suspects who have forever benefited from the said ‘proceeds of crime’ (corruption), and the very loopholes from insufficient or ineffective legislation… or none thereof.

A Proceeds of Crime Act is best described as an exposing corruption legislation. On Anguilla this will affect the average accountant; politician; attorney; bank; minister of religion; businessman; civil servant and 'many' who have benefited from the proceeds of crime – directly or indirectly.

Now that our government has decided to take the bull by the horn, these same corrupted elites are busy trying to taint our government as incompetent. And as such - politically - our government is forced not to make competent legislation or lose the next general election.

However, the British Government has rescued Anguilla in 1969; the 1980 Constitution; and they will have to rescue us again with a Proceeds of Crime Act in 2010; regardless to government.

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” – MLK

With the lost of windfall moneys from the Transhipment Scheme and very low taxes, the recovery or confiscation of such proceeds of crime will help enable government to finance specific areas where funding are urgently needed. Example - the government may approve a program for the expenditure, in a particular financial year, of money standing to the credit of the Confiscated Assets Account (CAA). It will be up to the government to use this windfall money wisely.

The government may also approve equitable sharing payments to be made to other jurisdictions in recognition of the effort involved in joint investigations or prosecutions of unlawful activity; and vice versa.

The United Nations Convention Against Corruption obliges States to share profits of crime where assistance in the recovery of those profits contributes to legal enforcement cooperation.

The ball is in our court and the opposing team is us - so play professionally well, being fully aware that we can only outplay ourselves.

We all love Anguilla…

Thursday 18 June 2009

A Proceeds of Crime Act for Anguilla?

An Act (Legislation) critically vital in establishing the power of recovery of assets/property obtained through ‘unlawful conduct’; which must not be confused as simply tricked law specifically targeting Anguillians per se, except those associated in such unlawful conduct or criminal activities - will be a Proceeds of Crime Act, and must be accredited for what it is.

This piece of legislation will provide confiscation orders in relation to ‘persons who benefit from criminal conduct’; and restraint orders to prohibit dealing with such assets/property; allowing the recovery of such assets/property which is or represents assets/property obtained through ‘unlawful conduct’ or which is intended to be used in unlawful conduct.

However, there will never be a flawless piece of legislation or government policy and this is of no exception. Therefore it is crucial that we dissect and understand its significance when concluding our objectives. The result can have us remained black-listed/dodgy; finally destroying reputation and our relationship with the rest of the world, or to comply and be in good standing with. This legislation has no room for watering-down therefore; there is no simultaneous having your cake and eating it.

The main provisions of this legislation create special powers in the recovery of assets/property obtained through unlawful conduct. This will introduce a new power of civil recovery to allow the government to recover – by a civil action in the High Court the proceeds of criminal activity.

The tension here is that civil rules of evidence and procedure apply, meaning that to establish that a crime ("unlawful conduct") has taken place the government needs only prove their case on the balance of probabilities, not on the usual criminal law standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

These would-be introduced powers for the Royal Anguilla Police Force (RAPF) and Her Majesty Customs (HM Customs) are primarily to seize cash they believe is crime related and to secure its forfeiture in a court proceeding. This will enables court to freeze a suspect's assets/property at the start of a criminal investigation.

It allows the court to make statutory assumptions in non-drugs cases, that all of a defendant's assets represent the proceeds of crime. In essence, simply changing the burden of proof.

And yes, legal burden generally shifts under certain circumstances example, where presumptions operate. Other exceptions from the general rule include:

  • Common Law: insanity under the M’Naughten rules;
  • Express statutory exceptions: an Homicide Act - where diminished responsibility is raised as a defence;
  • Prevention of Crime Act – where the accused relies on a defence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse in response to a charge of possession of an offensive weapon;
  • A Prevention of Corruption Act – where a gift is given or received by a public official, it will be presumed that the gift was given or received corruptly unless the contrary is proved by the accused;
  • And it is implied that by virtue of the Magistrate Court Act, that where the defendant relies for his defence on any exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification, the burden of providing that he falls within that exception, proviso, excuse or qualification shall be on him;
  • And then there are the strict liability cases…

These exceptions are illustrative examples only; as research suggests that up to 40% of defences tried in Courts impose a legal burden on the accused; and this piece of legislation is simply another.

But do the benefits outweigh the burdens?

The Proceeds of Crime Act will simplify the requirements for convictions for ‘money laundering’ and ‘frontiers’ (fronting) by removing the requirement to prove what the crime was. It simply has to be proven that the seized money is the proceeds of crime. It will allows investigators to seek court orders requiring financial institutions and banks to identify all accounts of people ‘under investigation’ and provide transactional information on suspect accounts for a ‘specified period’.

It places greater obligation on the financial sector to disclose suspicious transactions and places an onus on any professional working in regulated industries to immediately report to the regulation authorities any suspicion they have that anyone they talk to may have committed a criminal offence.

It allows the government to precribe the form and manner in which these disclosures are made therefore expanding the law on money laundering to cover any crime rather than just drug-related offences, in essence, targeting all proceeds of any criminal conduct that would be an offence in Anguilla.

This will provide wide-ranging powers by authorities to deprive these criminals of their main motivation – their money and the property they have accumulated through their illegal activities.

The legislation will introduce overall surveillance/policing or a negligence test, meaning a professional working in a sector regulated by money laundering regulations (such as banks and other financial institutions) can commit a criminal offence for failing to report money laundering if there are ‘reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting’ that it is taking place. Failure to report will result in imprisonment.

However, there is a defence to these offences in certain circumstances, primarily authorised disclosure, which creates a consent regime where an individual or business reports any suspicious transaction and waits for specific consent before completing the transaction.

So… like every law, there goes the loophole.

These new offences have caused outrage in the professional community, with attorneys arguing that the legislation would force them to breach professional privilege and act against the interests of their own clients. They argued that the act is too broadly drafted that professionals, fearful of prosecution, would send law agencies a flow of useless reports relating to trivial breaches of the law.

So-called civil rights enthusiasts argued that this legislation will run the risk of undermining key criminal procedural protections and lacked sufficient safeguards example, in relation to the civil recovery orders, that it is wrong to give the state a power to opt for extensive confiscation of defendants' assets in circumstances where it does not have sufficient evidence to prosecute them in the criminal courts and is an unacceptable blurring of the civil and criminal law.

They further argued that although the action for civil recovery is not classed as criminal, and indeed is intended to circumvent the criminal process… its punitive nature means that, as a matter of principle, criminal type safeguards are warranted.

Now, we know that our populace is generally law-abiding and uncorrupted and will never get involved in any such unlawful conducts… ‘never have and never will’.

Are you aware of anyone involved in Racketeering; Money Laundering; ‘Fronting’; professionals knowingly - presently or previously - doing work for clienteles involved in any such unlawful conduct; Government ministers, Heads of Departments or Civil Servants receiving unlawful underhand payouts; God’s Purse-snitchers (church corruption); fishermen benefiting from surprise catches believe to be proceeds of crime waiting for a pickup on the open seas; business fake intakes and banking inconsistencies etc…let the authorities know and they can act under this propose legislation when accent.

Is Corrupt-de-Don corruption free enough to be tasked as our Corruption Tsar; fully well aware of his-story? While he remains quiet on such pertinent issues; Ms. Lolita Davis-Richardson and the ‘rest’ suspects continue to embarrass themselves.

As there will never be a perfect piece of legislation, my pledge is that if we care about Anguilla, we must support our government on this one. A Proceeds of Crime Act is good for the eradication of hidden criminal activities, the cleansing of our tarnished Financial Services Industry (half of our overall industries), and the next generation survival.

We must all work together for the success of Anguilla on a whole or we all will perish together as fools.

Let us stop being tribal with our trivial ‘Politricking’ and all hands on the Plough for the best interest of Anguilla.

We must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Thursday 11 June 2009

Youths march Wednesday to educate others on June 10th 1967 coup attempt

BASSETERRE, ST. KITTS, JUNE 9TH 2009 (CUOPM) – The failed attempt by the People’s Action Movement (PAM) to overthrow the lawfully-elected government of Premier the Hon. Robert L. Bradshaw on June 10th 1967 will be observed here Wednesday.

Young Labour – the youth arm of the governing St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party announced Tuesday, it will stage a march through Basseterre on Wednesday 10th June - 42 years to the day.

“We will march under the theme: “Faces Change: Philosophies Remain,” said Keisha Archibald in a press release.

“It is mainly to educate the young people of St. Kitts and Nevis and to bring to their attention the involvement of the People’s Action Movement to seize power by the bullet instead of the ballot,” said Archibald.

“The Youths of the Labour Party view it as our duty to alert our young people and others who were not around at the time, to this dark episode in our political history. We believe strongly that although there are new faces in the People’s Action Movement today the philosophy of the PAM party in introducing violence into our political system remains the same,” said Archibald in the statement.

The March will move off from in front of Masses House at 4:15 P.m. on Wednesday 10th June and travel down Church Street into the Bay Road via College Street, up Fort Street, turn west into Cayon Street and return to Masses House.

Members of the public can join the march and are asked to wear black T- shirts or top.

The Youth Arm said the June 10th 1967 event has been the subject of discussion among young people on Facebook and Hi5.

The June 10th event has been documented by Anguillian authors Nat Hodge and Colville Petty. In their books and other written articles on the Anguilla Revolution they wrote that the attempt to overthrow Bradshaw on June 10th 1967, was the brainchild of Ronald Webster and a prominent Kittitian politician, Political Leader of the People’s Action Movement, Dr. William V. Herbert Jr.

According to their publication: “It (June 10th 1967) had two principal objectives which were interrelated: Firstly, the defence of the Anguilla Revolution. Secondly, the overthrow of Robert Bradshaw’s government and its replacement by one sympathetic to Anguilla’s cause.

Ronald Webster, leader of the Anguilla Revolution, was fearful of an invasion from St. Kitts and reasoned that the best way of preventing it was to attack St Kitts before St Kitts attacked Anguilla. On the other hand, the sole objective of the prominent Kittitian politician was the removal of Premier Bradshaw. To this end, he thought it expedient to use the ‘armed might’ and revolutionary fervour of the Anguillian people to assist him. It was not difficult for him and Webster to join forces because both of them had goals, which, they envisaged, could be accomplished by defeating their common enemy: Bradshaw.

Detailed plans for the attack were worked out in Anguilla, St Kitts and St Thomas, Virgin Islands. They were fine tuned in Anguilla. To quote Clarence Rogers: “[The prominent Kittitian politician] discussed the details . . . with me again in Anguilla around 7th June. He came by mother's house, in East End, between 6:30 pm and 7:00 pm, where he sat on her bed and drew a plan showing where the men should land and the places to attack.”

Whilst in Anguilla, the prominent Kittitian politician also discussed the plans with Joshua Gumbs who claimed: “At about 10 o'clock one morning in early June 1967 [he] passed by Lewis Haskins machine shop, in Corito, where I was doing repair work on some engines and asked me to captain the boat which was to take the men to carry out the attack on St Kitts.” Joshua declined. In his words: “I said Doc, I am very sorry. What we did, we did it [the Revolution] for Anguilla. If the Kittitians want the Government out they must do it themselves. I am sure that the Kittitians wouldn't want us up there to shed their blood.”

The plans included capturing Bradshaw and his deputy, Paul Southwell, and taking them to Anguilla; the announcement by Ruby Gumbs, over radio station ZIZ in St Kitts, that the new Premier was the prominent Kittitian politician; the demolition of the Defence Force Camp; the capture of the Police Headquarters; the destruction of the Power Station; the blowing up of the fuel depot and the capture of the Revenue Cutter used by the Police.

As part of their preparations for the attack, several of our men underwent shooting exercises at Junks Hole Bay. United States mercenaries conducted the exercises. According to Ruby Gumbs the prominent Kittitian politician remarked: “If the boys continued to shoot the way they were doing at Junks Hole, with the help of the PAMites in St. Kitts, they can overthrow the Government in St. Kitts.”

The June 10th 1967 event was recently mentioned by prominent Kittitian historian, Sir Probyn Inniss.

He said that despite the armed attack to overthrow the lawfully elected government of then Premier Robert Bradshaw, the St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla leader remained strong and resolute.

“I was in awe of the physical and moral courage of this gentleman (Bradshaw). Both his moral and physical courage were tested sorely in the wake of 10th June, 1967. Because when details of the plot were revealed, it turned out that he (Bradshaw) was, to be humiliated, put on trial and eventually killed,” Sir Probyn told a packed congregation at the annual Requiem Mass held in the St. Paul’s Anglican Church to pay tribute to late stalwarts of the Labour Movement.

Sir Probyn, Senior Partner in the Law Firm, Inniss and Inniss, proffered that a crisis of this magnitude would have destroyed a lesser man.

“Nevertheless, Mr. Bradshaw remained strong and resolute. It is the measure of the man that he was able to put all of these traumatic events behind him and chart a course towards Unity in the society,” said Sir Probyn, a former Governor of the State, who served as Permanent Secretary, Crown Counsel and Teacher.