 Senators, when the House rose, the Value Added Tax Act resolution of Parliament to approve the draft Value Added Tax Amendment of Schedule 3, number 2 order was passed. Before I call on Senators, Honourable Senators and the Government Business wish to acknowledge our young student who was visiting the Senate sitting with her mom this morning, Senator Kate Gianna, I want to commend you for exposing your young daughter's social activity and I think it's a brilliant idea. So again, welcome to Mahalia and I hope her day is a very enjoyable and educational one. Senator Kibyan Ferdinand, Honourable Senators, Leader of Government Business. Thank you Madam President. Madam President, I beg to present for second reading a bill shortly entitled United Nations Sanctions Counter-Proliferation Financing Amendment. Madam President, this bill was previously circulated and has come here for first reading and the purpose was to allow for a measure of scrutiny but I just want to quickly mention that this is really to satisfy some of the, well, at least one of the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force, the FATF, which really is, these are external agencies external, if I may call them external entities that in some way we do not have a lot that we can do to not enforce some of the recommendations that they make and these are part of our international obligations especially as small states and to be able to fulfill that means that we have to make these amendments and have this legislation passed. So if we do not do so, there are consequences that we may not want to face and put our country through. So I just wanted to point that out and to indicate that this is why we have to come to make this amendment. So I ask for the support of the Senate for that particular amendment. Senators, the question is that the United Nations sanctions counter-proliferation financing amendment bill be read a second time. Okay, no comments. Senators, the question is that the United Nations sanctions counter-proliferation financing amendment bill be read a second time. I now put the question as many as of that opinion say aye, as many as of a contrary opinion say no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Act to amend the United Nations sanctions counter-proliferation financing act cap 12.30. Clause 2. Interpretation. Clause 2 stands part of the bill. Clause 3. Amendment of section 2. Clause 3 stands part of the bill. Clause 4. Amendment of section 4. Clause 4 stands part of the bill. Clause 5. Amendment of section 14. Clause 5 stands part of the bill. Clause 6. Amendment of section 15. Clause 6 stands part of the bill. Clause 7. amendment of section 17. Clause 7 stands part of the bill. Clause 8. Amendment of section 19. Clause 8 stands part of the bill. Clause 9. Amendment of section 21. Clause 9 stands part of the bill. Clause 10. Amendment of section 23. Clause 10 stands part of the bill. Clause 11. Insertion of new section. Clause 10 stands part of the bill. Insertion of new section 23a. Clause 11 stands part of the bill. Clause 12. Amendment of section 25. Clause 12 stands part of the bill. Clause 13. Amendment of section 26. Clause 13 stands part of the bill. Clause 14. Amendment of section 42. Clause 14 stands part of the bill. Clause 1. Short title. Clause 1 stands part of the bill. Senators, the question is that the committee rises and the bill be reported. I now put the question. As many as of that opinion say aye. Aye. As many as of the contrary opinion say no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Senators, I beg to report that the United Nations sanctions counter proliferation amendment bill went through committee stage without amendments to clauses. Honourable leader of government business. Madam President, I move that the report of the committee be adopted and that the bill be read a third time and passed. Senators, the question is that the report of the committee be adopted and that the United Nations sanctions counter proliferation financing amendment bill be read a third time and passed. I now put the question. As many as of that opinion say aye. Aye. As many as of a contrary opinion say no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Be enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the House of Assembly and the Senate of St. Lucia and by the authority of the same as follows. This act may be cited as the United Nations sanctions counter proliferation financing amendment act 2023. Honourable leader of government business. Madam President, I beg to present for second reading a bill shortly entitled Proceeds of Crime Amendment. Madam President, to proceed right away, this bill as was very similar to the bill that we just passed really is performing the same function, a similar reason. In this case it is to satisfy the recommendation number four of the FATF that I previously spoke about, which again is part of our international obligations. That bill calls for quite a lot of scrutiny to be placed on a number of our international, not only international but our transactions and some of our own financial engagements. I think it is important that we note that there are implications as a small thing when we have to do those things. But as of November, we will have to apply to make some of those other amendments. But in the meantime, this amendment is necessary. As I mentioned earlier, there are consequences of not doing so. One of them is blacklisting and we know when that happens what it can mean to us. But it is important that we try to protect our small businesses as much as we can. Some of those implications would probably have to do with the way in which it affects our correspondent banking, the ability of our people to be able to transact online. We know now that there is a greater thrust towards using non-cash transactions, use of credit cards. We now have shopping and some of those other agencies that provide that kind of service. We also need to be conscious of what happens with our small business community. E-commerce is a big thing now. So there are quite a few things that we can ponder on. But what is critical is that some of those are not within our realm to control and we, quote, unquote, had better do so. Otherwise, we may have certain consequences that we do not want our people to face. So as a responsible government, we need to sometimes swallow a little bit of pride and do these things. But I think while we do so, we can think about perhaps as a region how we can bond together collectively if we have to put up some resistance to some of those demands, if you like, and some of those requests for one of a better word that the international financial community is putting on us. So I believe the governments of the region, CARICOM, the OECS, if we have a collective approach towards lobbying on behalf of the region because some of those really put a lot of strain on us and our bigger resources and the method that we use to do business and the resources that we have available to implement some of those programs that we may be able to achieve more as a collective. So we can keep those in mind, but I think the need for us to make those amendments is really to fulfill those international obligations. And so I ask that we take that into consideration as we seek to make these amendments. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senators, the question is that the Proceeds of Crime Amendment Bill be read a second time. It's a fair day. Just a few comments on the bill, Madam President. We would have passed this legislation not so long ago and we're coming back to make some amendments to, in an effort to improve the legislation. I recognize that one of the explanations given in the Law House was the fact that the November plenary session of the Financial Action Task Force was at hand and St. Lucia's rating is very much at risk. And so therefore I see that the government is taking some steps to ensure that they submit the amendments on time so that we can have a review of our position and to allow for an improved rating on our image in the international community. Now, I hope, Madam President, that we would have done a thorough job in the amendment because I'm a bit concerned that it was only about a month ago we passed the legislation. Quite a lengthy piece of legislation I might add and we're back in a month's time to correct a number of shortcomings that were cited. I want to implore the government to ensure that a proper and thorough job is done on this so that we don't have to keep coming back. But I do understand that you're trying to meet in November deadline. So this bill, Madam President, seeks to curtail and to curtail one, but then I think at its core, to really ensure that the government can concentrate the assets of the crime leverage. So we're talking about money laundering crime, tax fraud, crimes that really would have robbed the St. Lucia people of a lot of investment into a lot of important economic and social areas. What was interesting in preparing for this debate, I took a look at some of the countries that had implemented a similar legislation because this is coming from the Financial Action Task Force and the UK is one of the earliest countries to have done so way back in 2004. And one of the things that struck me was the Home Secretary at the time, Mr. David Plunkett, who indicated that the UK's experience had been a total failure. And he used this benchmark to state the UK's failure. And he said that out of an estimated 655 million pounds of British criminals that when you look at the dollar value of about 175 criminals, there was an estimated worth of 655 criminals who there were confiscation orders given to. Despite these confiscation orders given by the court, the UK government was only able to pick up less than 12%, which is 80 million pounds, which is about 11% of the dollar value of the confiscated order. Now, the Home Secretary at the time who had laid this in the House of Commons, he owed and pinned the failure by the UK government through one thing. He said the very slow pace in which the court system in the UK worked was highly attributed to the failure of the implementation of this well-meaning piece of legislation. Now, that struck me because very often in St. Lucia we've heard of the backlog of cases which characterize our own judicial experience. In fact, there are many unsolved crimes for many, many years. In the UK's experience you had these would-be criminals who would have already served their jail time, but yet the confiscation orders, their execution and their implementation would not have been executed. And so while these criminals would have completed their sentence, they were left to run free and to go back into other parts of the world and to commit other crimes. So while the intent here is to ensure that, yes, we weaken the capacity of criminals in order not to commit further crimes, because by not being able to commit further crimes, you weaken their ability financially. That's smart, but it has to be well implemented for this to work if we look at the experience of countries with even greater capacity than ours in terms of their judiciary to fight these crimes. So I share a certain level of reservation as it relates to the success of this. I hope that we're not just doing this because we're told to do this by the Financial Action Task Force and that we see the merit in taking other steps in our judicial system to ensure that this important piece of legislation is actually implemented successfully all the way down. Passing the legislation is only the first step, which we recommend. There are other things like so many of the bills that we have passed here today that needs to happen down the chain for all of the bills and the motions and the resolutions that have come before us. For them to work, there's more that has to be done. So very important, very critical in the writing of crime. This is happening, Madam President, at a time when our country is enduring the most horrendous time of crime. Really, really difficult crime situation. It's something that I really wish that we had gotten on top of other countries. It bothers me that we haven't that we haven't been able to fix our crime situation, whether it's gun violence, whether it's tax fraud, whether it is money laundering, whether it is drug trade and other illicit activities. So it really is painful every time I turn on the television and I see mothers grieving for young boys who have fallen prey to the scourge of gun violence which continue to grip our country. Every time I hear anxiety from people as it relates to the anguish and the agony that they feel, you know, there are people who, today we're saying we're happy that there's an incident-free carnival. I wish that our country can get back to the day when an incident-free festival or a national event will become the norm. So not to deviate too much, but I thought that that was important to be said because of the national security crisis which we are having in the country. Madam President, we have to ensure that there's public trust in the police force. We have to ensure that there's public trust in the judiciary that when we take our matters to the courts that it will be done in a timely fashion. The criminals must be assured under this legislation that this is not just going to be a law that will sit on the books, but the country will be incapable of enforcing but that the criminals must see that we mean business when we speak about confiscating their property. So we've got to make sure that we build this force, this army of being comprehensive to make sure that the bills that we pass are effective in every way possible. Otherwise, this will be of no effect and we will only be passing legislation like this to get a good rating from the financial action task force and the important role and purpose that it should play in undermining the capacity of criminals. They are criminals who are today in prison and because of their financial wealth that exists outside of prison that they are able to call shots and make things happen and they're still orchestrating a number of illicit activities from the jail cells of our country. So it is important that this bill works. It is important that they know that as a country that we're able to not only put them in jail but we're able to weaken their capacity and weaken their network and that includes their financial wherewithal and capacity and force in order to be able to commit future crimes. And so important bill but so much more has to happen. It cannot be the normal lipstick approach that we've seen from this government. So I want to get the assurance from the leader of government business that we're not just here in an exercise in fertility we're not just here to please the financial action task force because we're afraid of what they will say about how they will blacklist us. We have spoken over and over again about how this has been an infringement on our sovereignty, how we're told. But in this instance, Madam President, I don't see this as necessarily a bad infringement upon our sovereignty. I see this as a good best practice in the world which can help us in our local crime-fighting initiative because this legislation and its intent is a good intention. But we have to ensure that these steps, that they work, that we're not just doing this as a ceremonial thing because we want to get the financial action task force people off of our backs but we want this to really work in the best interest of our citizens. I thank you, Madam President. Senator Lee? Thank you, Madam President. I was a little worried, Madam President, at the tone that my colleague, Senator, Leader of Opposition Business took because we're normally on the same side of fighting these pieces of legislation. So I was worried that he was going to desert me completely. I see at the end he did come back to the issues regarding our sovereignty, which to be honest for me is one of my prime concerns. I have a lot of other concerns regarding this piece of legislation but one of them definitely is the fact that this legislation largely, whereas I understand the utility of it, whereas I understand the imperative of having to do it based on our relationship with the financial action task force and the Caribbean financial action task force, OECD, all these super national bodies. I have great concern because at the end of the day, for laws to be most effective and to operate properly, they have to be grounded in the local experience. My fear is that by importing things wholesale from overseas at the dictates of another agency, we are not necessarily taking into consideration what's happening in our society and therefore how this law would actually operate and how it will affect our society. I listened with amazement to the Prime Minister's presentation on this bill on yesterday. I don't think I've ever experienced a situation where a politician has brought a bill to the, whether it's this house, whether it's this chamber or the lower house, and we're such ought to choose the right word. But basically, he said everything I would have said against the bill whilst proposing the piece of legislation, whilst at the same time lamenting the fact that, look, he had no choice at the end of the day given our rather weakened financial position but to implement the recommendations from the financial action task force. And that's sort of my broader concern that at the end of the day, no matter the utility of these pieces of legislation, we are in fact part of a wider plan, so to speak, to ensure that countries like St. Lucia remain developing countries. Every time we attempt to develop some form of indigenous industry, all of a sudden you have a raft of regulations and concerns that arise around that industry and, in essence, make the industry no longer viable while at the same time the territories of those countries that are dictating to us what we must do continue merrily along doing things that we are not permitted to do or other jurisdictions, in fact, whereas telling you that you are not adhering to the best practice themselves don't adhere to the best practice. I just came across an article, I've come across it before, I think I raised it in this house, where the ultimate beneficial owner regime, which we've all had to adopt, and I understand the utility of it again, in the UK over a billion pounds with fines had not in fact been levied, despite the fact that persons had failed to implement or to report ultimate beneficial owners as required by the law. Yet still, if we were to fail at even a fraction of that amount, we would be seen and blacklisted as not being compliant with any of the international standards. So that double standard is always worrying to me. And to my mind, as I said, these policies are really good at ensuring that at the end of the day we have to rely on aid, we have to rely on grants, we have to rely on assistance from the metropolitan countries, and we cannot develop and be fully independent. As I said, when I went through the bill, I had a number of issues with it. First of all, the drafting is, to my mind, very complex. It is not a simple bill to read, and the concern is always that law, especially criminal law, should be as straightforward as possible so that persons can order their affairs in a manner to ensure that it don't breach the law, whereas reading, for example, the definition of associated property. Associate property includes property held by the defendant, not itself recoverable. Any interest in the recoverable property, any other interest in property which is recoverable in which the recoverable property subsists, if the recoverable property is a tenancy in common, the tenancy of the other tenant, if the recoverable property is part of a larger property but not separate from the part of the remainder of that property. So what does that mean? I see everybody is looking at me very puzzled, and that's exactly the point and the difficulty I have with a lot of the definitions in this act. They're not straightforward. They're not something that you can just pick up as a layperson. Even I, as a trained attorney, have difficulty understanding what this is supposed to be telling you. Bearing in mind that associated property can be seized, can be forfeited, and is liable to forfeiture under the provisions of this act. So it's not just tainted property, which to my mind is fairly straightforward. You also have associated property. So persons who might not be engaging themselves directly in criminal activity are liable of the potential possibility of their potential possibility. The possibility of their property being seized arises under this act, and to my mind that is of great concern to me. If I move on again, I'm not going to go through every single issue I have with a bathroom. Just try to highlight a few. Again, I have a slight difficulty with the fact that we are applying a standard proof of civil recovery. I understand that this is something that happens in the UK. This act is largely, as my colleague Senator pointed out, largely framed on the proceeds of crime acts coming out of the UK where a lot of these changes have been adopted. But we have to remember the UK does not have a written constitution. The UK Parliament is paramount and can basically legislate anything at once. The idea for me again, is that the court has the right to decide on a balance of properties, whether or matter. Senator, could you guide us as to what you are doing? That is section 23D, paragraph 23D, I can say, which is under part A, civil recovery. That's section 11. Section 11, that's page 18. Let me just see what it is in the revised version that we were given. Yeah, so it's page 18. 23D, the last paragraph on page 18. Which I go on to say that the court will decide on a balance of properties, which is the standard for civil proof of civil matters, that a matter alleged to be criminal conduct has occurred, and that a person used or intended to use property in or connection with a criminal conduct. So you've not been found guilty of any criminal matter, but the court has the right now to decide, well, on the balance of properties, most likely you were committing a crime. And so based on that, we have the right to come in and seize your property. Again, the civil standard, and I'm hoping this is what's been happening in practice, is a sliding standard. And so in matters of fraud, matters that are approaching criminal conduct, normally a higher degree of probability is required than with a standard state tort, a tortious accident or an accident on the side of the road. I'm hoping that in practice, that is what is going to be implemented. So it's not a situation where, on the mere possibility that I may have conducted or may be tending to commit a criminal activity, my property then becomes liable to forfeiture. I also had on page 20, exceptions relating to recoverable property that's 23J. Where recoverable property is disposed of and obtained by a person in good faith of value and without notice, that recoverable property eases to be recoverable property, A, if it is best and forfeited or otherwise disposed of pursuant powers conferred under this act, or B, whether a respondent makes a payment to a claimant in a judgment under civil proceedings. It then goes on to say property is not recoverable, A, while a restraining order applies to it, if made under this act, or B, in pursuant of a judgment in civil proceedings, whether in or outside St. Lucia, the respondent makes a payment to a claimant or a claimant otherwise obtains property from the defendant. The claim of a claimant is based on the criminal conduct of the respondent. Apart from this subsection, the sum received or the property obtained by the claimant would be recovered property. Now I have very, very grave concerns about this particular section. Generally, at law, an innocent third party gets good title to any property that they purchase, notwithstanding the defective title in the original owner. This is turning that on its head. Basically saying that except in very limited situation, basically where the court has said you can retain your property. How innocent and oblivious I may have been to the criminal conduct of the previous owner, no matter how hard I would have hooked for my property. The fact is once this was owned or obtained through criminal proceeds, it remains in a sense tainted and recoverable property. And the fact that I am a stranger to the actions of this person. So for example, I'm an expert. I've shown up in St. Lucia. I know nothing about the social fabric of St. Lucia. I know nothing of the persons, because most of us have a sense sometimes of who is involved in criminal activity. But I've come from overseas. I've obtained my aliens license. I've gone through all my vettings. So there's nothing impure about me. But yet still, because this property may have been owned by a criminal at some point, it becomes recoverable property. And it says it only ceases to be recoverable property if it is vested, forfeited, or disposed of pursuant to this act or that I have made a payment to a claimant under civil proceeding. So if I have sued the criminal and the criminal paid me, that's fine. I get my money. I get to retain it. But under any other circumstances, basically any interaction I have with the criminal person, regardless of my state of knowledge, my property is at risk. To me, again, this is really a step too far. Sorry. It's beyond draconian. I don't even think in the old days of just showing up and seizing people's property with no particular reason you could act in this particular way. We see again, as I said, I'm not going to go through every single issue. On a more practical situation, on page 27, which is, I'll tell you, section... Well, it's actually continue 11. So 23T, which deals with the appointment of a receiver. It says a receiver shall immediately inform the court and the attorney general, if he or she believes that property to which the order applies is not a recoverable property. And a few other things. My question really and truly is, what does immediately mean? How does that work in practice? For me to make this assessment, it means that I have to have taken some time to consider what the property is, the circumstances surrounding the property. How can I then report immediately? More importantly, there's nothing that says what happens if the receiver fails to report immediately. So this is a more practical concern. I think that section needs to be reconsidered because it means nothing in actual practice. Page 33, looking again at 23BB, in particular paragraph 2, which says that, and this is in regard to interim recovery of property, where the court has the right to order a trustee to take charge of the property, pending forfeiture actions. But it says, in performing his or her functions, a trustee acts on behalf of the attorney general and shall comply with any directions given to him or her by the attorney general. Again, I have grave concerns about what this section means. A trustee normally is inserted in these sort of situations to ensure that you have an independent professional governing and taking charge of the property. If I am required to take instructions and directions from the attorney general, that means that that independence is illusory. It doesn't exist. So you have a situation where the attorney general who, no matter who the attorney general is, is going to have a vested interest in showing that properties are recovered because he has, I have an issue with that later on, but he has access to these funds as part of his anti-crime initiatives. He has a vested interest, or she has a vested interest in showing that properties are forfeited and that the monies are recovered, the assets are recovered. Wanted to look good for us in terms of our compliance with the requirements of the financial action task force because one of the criticisms is always despite the fact that we have legislation, we've never actually had serious prosecutions or serious seizures or significant seizures under that legislation. So there's pressure on the attorney general to ensure that properties are recovered. So if I have an imperative and a desire to ensure that properties are recovered, what do you think is going to happen when I'm giving directions to the trustee? A trustee who, to my mind, ought to be an independent person who makes decisions based on the law as to what should happen to the property. The prime minister made much of the use of hearsay evidence and this is on page 69, I believe. Page 69. Page 59. No, not 59. It's page 69. 40F. Page 69. There's one of the, yes. But the one I'm speaking of is in relation to, again, the restraining orders. Now, the exclusion of hearsay evidence in criminal matters is a well-established rule of law. The laws or the rules are a lot more relaxed as regards civil matters. And again, I recognize that this is taken almost verbatim from the English Act, so it's not without precedent. But the concern raised by the prime minister is a genuine one and I understand it. And I also note that the English Act, unlike this one, makes the use of the hearsay evidence subject to the evidence act. This one says notwithstanding the evidence act, you can use the hearsay evidence. So normally there's a requirement for you when you're using hearsay evidence that you indicate what the source is, why you're relying on it, and why there isn't better evidence that is available to you. That is not required there. And I think that, again, is a safeguard that should be included in this act. Just to ensure that everybody understands the terrain on which we are operating and ensures that as much as possible. Because, like I said, at the end, this is such a crudely piece of legislation. This is aimed at taking away property from persons. Whether you feel that they've obtained it illicitly or not, the fact is it does belong to the person. There is a constitutional right to property. So if you're going to restrict or impact on that in any way, you have to ensure that as much as possible, the principles of natural justice apply to ensure that the person is given as fair a hearing as possible. And normally hearsay evidence, or limitations against the use of hearsay evidence are part of ensuring that the fairness of the trial process. So whereas I understand we are dealing with civil matters, and again, there is the possibility of using hearsay evidence, the restrictions that apply to the use of that in civil matters should also apply and it should not just be a carte blanche permission. Again, on page 18.9, that section seems to have been removed in the later version of the Act. So I'll move on to part 3, which is the anti-crime initiative. That's at page 84 of the new version of the bill that was circulated. Now, I understand the general intent behind this, but again, this is one I have a lot of practical issues with. So as I understand it, the anti-crime initiative allows certain persons to apply to a board for permission to use the funds that have been seized or forfeited. The persons who are allowed to make these applications are, first of all, the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Commissioner of Police, Comptroller of Customs, and the Director of the Financial Intelligence Authority. That's at section 59A, which is at paragraph 20. I then note at 59B, that is the Attorney General with the approval of the Cabinet who selects the persons who make up the board. So the Attorney General, who's one of the persons who has the right to come and solicit these funds for anti-crime initiative, is the same person who is in charge of deciding who sits on assessing the applications. I don't think I need to go into any great detail as to the potential conflict that arises there. But it gets worse, Madam President, because at paragraph 59Q, which is at page 88, 59Q3, a recommendation made by the committee is not binding on the Attorney General and may be considered by the Attorney General in making a decision for the purpose of providing funding for an anti-crime initiative. So why do we have a board? Why are we wasting resources and time to put in place a body that is going to make assessments as to what funds or what initiatives should qualify for funds? If at the end of the day the Attorney General can just decide I'm not concerned with your decision, it's not binding on me, this is what I want to do. Again, I don't think I need to point out the conflict that arises there. Now, again, at 59T, it says the committee shall submit a report to the Permanent Secretary of the Attorney General's chambers and the report must include the number of applications reviewed and considered, the number of applications recommendation for approval and the number of applications with a recommendation for refusal. At paragraph 3, the Permanent Secretary then, at the end of each month, submits to the Attorney General a report on all the applications reviewed by the committee. I see no requirement for reporting to the Parliament, which to my mind again, considering the fact that at the end of the day, no matter what is stated in this report, Attorney General has the right to make his own mind up as to how the funds are used, is to my mind a significant omission. So, my concern as I indicated is that this piece of legislation, I understand the significance, I understand why it's been brought to us, I understand the need,