 Mr. Speaker, I beg to present for second reading a bill shorty entitled Proceeds of Crime Amendment. Mr. Speaker, this bill again is part of our international obligations through the financial action Task Force, Mr. Speaker. And this one we did with recommendation number four. And Mr. Speaker, we are called to meet all these commitments. We are called to follow all these procedures, Mr. Speaker. And this has a heavy administrative cost and administrative burden on us, Mr. Speaker. And the sad thing is that we have to deal with all these laws, deal with all these changes, deal with all these monitoring, Mr. Speaker. And our forms of income are being limited and they have been shortened and they have been taken away from us liquor by liquor, Mr. Speaker. It's a crime shame that small islands like us have to follow these international obligations, Mr. Speaker. We have to. We almost have no choice. We have to pay high price people to assist us, Mr. Speaker, to meet these international obligations, Mr. Speaker. And most importantly, the people who are under the most scrutiny are politicians. We are the ones who are called peps. We are the ones who have to go through the most scrutiny, Mr. Speaker. Imagine I was asked by a bank to show my proof of income. I was asked by the bank to send my salary statement. So I said to the bank that my salary is in the estimates of expenditure. It's no secret my salary is in the estimates of expenditure, Mr. Speaker. But these are kind of things that we have to go through. But sometimes I wonder, Mr. Speaker, that do the people who ask us to impose these things, do they impose it on themselves? But, Mr. Speaker, we have no choice. We have no choice. We have to do it and we have to spend the money and the resources necessary to do it, Mr. Speaker. So this one was the previous one United Nations. This one is recommendation number four, which relates to confiscation and provisional measures, and recommendation number 43, relating to powers of law enforcement and investigative authorities, Mr. Speaker. In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, what it does is it amends the previous proceeds of Crime Act, which he passed in this parliament, to strengthen it, Mr. Speaker, to strengthen it, Mr. Speaker. Because under the postings of Crime Act, Mr. Speaker, which is Act 3.04 of the revised order of delusion, the Crown is permitted to confiscate or forfeit the physical assets, land, vegs, and cash of persons convicted of criminal offences where said physical assets are tainted by the criminal convict, Mr. Speaker. That exists already under the postings of Crime Act. So, Mr. Speaker, on January 25, 2021, St. Lucia's fourth round mutual evaluation report was published, again on the FAFT website, and I liked that St. Lucia was deficient even though we passed that bill. We were still deficient in complying with the above mentioned recommendations. On becoming aware of the shortfalls in the Act, the National Anti-Money Launching Oversight Committee, NAMLOC, who assiduously to propose the changes to the Act that would be required, and their colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and his staff have been constantly telling us about NAMLOC, NAMLOC, NAMLOC. In our heirs, every day is NAMLOC, NAMLOC, NAMLOC, Mr. Speaker. So, we have to do what NAMLOC says. Mr. Speaker, but, you know, you already pay when you're small. Mr. Speaker, St. Lucia is expected as part of his follow-up process to apply for re-rating. We have re-rated already, and we have to be re-rated in November 2023, at the plenary on the FETF, on the 40 recommendations that rated as non-compliant and partially compliant is his Mutual Evaluation Report, Mr. Speaker. The Proceeds of Crime Act has been identified as one of the key enactments in either amendments for the purposes of re-rating. So, the original Proceeds of Crime Act was not good enough. So, you have to go back in there, and you have to do some amendments which are outlined in this bill, Mr. Speaker, to make us compliant with the EMEA Report, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure, I'm sure that when we do that, soon or later, we'll be back for another amendment, Mr. Speaker. I'm certain, Mr. Speaker, that that will happen. As they say in Patua, we have no choice, and the banker will tell you, we have no choice. Because, Mr. Speaker, that's important, because banks are now under pressure for the corresponding banking facilities, Mr. Speaker, under a lot of pressure. And certain islands in the region, in Karakom, they've suffered. One particular island, Mr. Speaker, all the corresponding relations were taken away from them. I mean, Mr. Speaker, I don't think when we play politically these things, I don't think we have explained to the public sufficiently what losing corresponding banking facilities means, Mr. Speaker. It means that your credit card is useless. It means that buying things on the Internet is useless. It means that you can make no transactions with plastic, because the bank has nowhere to clear it, when immigration is active, Mr. Speaker. And certain islands in the region have suffered from that punishment. So we have to enact that legislation. We have to enact it, Mr. Speaker, because all this is in one big soup. Corresponding banking, mutual evaluation reports, recommendations of the FATF, all of them are in one soup, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that small islands are compliant, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, the asset recovery unit of the regional security system, RSS, not those that are here, not those that are here, not the soldiers, is what is called the asset unit of the regional security system, RSS, the asset recovery unit. And they provided a draft process of crime bill for member countries to review and consider in an effort to assist member countries in the development and strengthening of the respective anti-money laundering, terrorist and anti-legislative frameworks. The bill makes provision in the area for civil asset recovery, which will be utilized as cabinet has already approved the request to amend the existing process of crime act for amendment by Cabinet Clause 62522. So all you do in there, Mr. Speaker, is that we bring to the house what the parliament has already, the cabinet has already agreed, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, these deficiencies to be highlighted, amendments are sought based on the draft bill from the RSS. We are asked to amend Part 2, Division 1 to 8, that is the confiscation. Part 3, Division 1 to 10, that deals with civil recovery. Part 5, Divisions 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 that relate to investigations. And Part 6, General Part 7, messiness, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the bill amends the act by changing the definitions for the terms relevant to offense and tainted property and providing new definitions for words such as civil recovery investigation. The act allows amendmentation to application of a for future order for confiscation order or conviction to provide a high quality of power to make a for future order or confiscation order when a person is convicted of a criminal offense and to provide for a request for leave. In terms of a confiscation order or conviction, the director of prosecution is empowered to serve a written notice on a person convicted of criminal conduct and to determine a question on the balance of probabilities, Mr. Speaker. A very important role for the director of public prosecution, Mr. Speaker. And that is actually a sacred position, Mr. Speaker. And the power is a constitutional position and his power now is being strengthened by the passing of the proceeds of Gremac, Mr. Speaker. So we always expect that the position in the position, the person in the position of the director of public prosecution is beyond all forms of scrutiny. It's impartial to a point where his impartiality cannot be seen because he's so impartial. Very important, Mr. Speaker. It's very important. The position of director of public prosecution is a very important job, Mr. Speaker. And every word, every statement made by the director of public prosecution is a statement that has great relevance and a statement that has a lot of reach. All reach, Mr. Speaker. And by the actions or by the words intended or unintended, the director of public prosecution is a position that is always scrutinized and a position that must be beyond scrutiny, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, a number of new provisions are proposed for inclusion in the act to make provision for the time of payment on the confiscation order, interest on the amount paid on the confiscation order, and considerations of the high court after making a confiscation order. Other provisions in the act allow for the high court to order payment by financial institution variation of an order where an amount available to a defendant is inadequate and a discharge of a confiscation order, Mr. Speaker. And, Mr. Speaker, you will note that somewhere in the bill, any sum, if you look at section 29, R, Mr. Speaker, on page 51, the minimum amount to be seized in an account is $10,000, Mr. Speaker, which is less than $3,000 US, or is it? So anytime, Mr. Speaker, that you have $10,000 in account, you can be seized if you fall under the remit of the proceeds of crime amendment act, Mr. Speaker. I mean, Mr. Speaker, that is something that is not worthy, the amount that can put you in problems, Mr. Speaker, if you fall foul of this act, Mr. Speaker, $10,000 is in crime under our Mr. Speaker. I mean, Mr. Speaker, there is need for clearance for the Attorney General on the matter because there are some other acts that say $10,000 US and this one says $10,000, easy dollars. I don't know if the Minister, the Attorney General, can advise on that, Mr. Speaker, because we passed some bills here that say that the banks