The Tribune

By AVA TURNQUEST

Tribune Chief Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

ATTORNEY General Carl Bethel has tasked Director of Public Prosecutions Garvin Gaskin to consider whether money laundering charges and asset seizures can be applied to cases investigated by the police.

In the first constitutional direction of its kind for the country, Mr Bethel said the general directive was intended for specific application in every criminal case.

“The police have secured 40 plus convictions for money laundering over the past year out of 60 plus prosecutions,” Mr Bethel said. 

“There has been no acquittals thus far, 100 percent conviction on money laundering cases going to trial.

“This is due to the focused cooperation between the DPP, giving legal advice on these matters to investigators, and the police, who carry the greatest burden of criminal investigations.”

“This constitutional direction is a first of its kind in the Bahamas,” he continued.

“However, it is based on Canadian precedents where their AG has issued a number of directions to their DPP. This is a general direction that is intended for specific application in every criminal case.”

The constitution gives the DPP the power to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person; to take over any case started by another person or authority; and to discontinue any criminal proceeding at any stage before a judgement is delivered.

It also empowers the AG to give general or specific directions to the DPP in any case that impacts public policy, national security or the country’s international obligations.

The AG’s directive detailed the strengthened legal regime to combat money laundering, terrorism and the financing of terrorism and the proliferation of offences through the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2018, adding it was in the public interest to proceed with investigation and prosecutions of money laundering cases that held a reasonable prospect of conviction.

In every case at the investigation stage, the DPP has been directed to consider whether: any money laundering charges should be laid, either in association with a predicate offence, or as a stand-alone charge (against a person or entity who facilitated the disguised transmission or enjoyment of illicit money); any proceeds of crime, ie, assets for seizure, restraint and confiscation, have been identified which may be recoverable; or whether there are instrumentalities of crime, and property of an equivalent value, involving domestic or foreign predicates, which may be forfeited or confiscated.

The directive also calls on the DPP to consider for each case whether a parallel inquiry should be conducted, such as determining the extent to which a financial intermediary may have knowingly facilitated money laundering; or whether it should trace, locate, and eventually seize with a view to confiscate the proceeds of crime from foreign/domestic predicates located abroad.

A predicate offence is a term given to a crime that is a component of a more serious crime.

The directive further advises the DPP to give consideration to non-conviction based, or civil, forfeiture orders where proceeds of crime or funds intended to finance crimes have been identified; but no criminal charges are likely to be laid in respect of that property. This refers to cases where the offender is unknown, or is not otherwise amenable to apprehension, arrest, service of process or criminal charges within the jurisdiction. The DPP must also give consideration to the preservation and management of the value of seize/confiscated proceeds of crime, and their deposit into the Confiscated Assets Fund and/or the repatriation or sharing of assets, the direction read.