Orville Taylor, ContributorI was about to buy myself a BMW but I am told that my salary as an academic is not enough. Worst of all, I moonlight in media and all persons who work in the industry know that it is called media (the plural of medium) because the salary is just bigger than small.
Given that I am not supposed to have the economic means to purchase my 'Black Man Wagon' in Black History Month it could easily be inferred that my earnings are unlawful. Moreover, I have worked like a nowadays slave during a few summers in the United States - with a work permit - until overwork made me unwell.
So now, legislators are likely to conclude that my 'ill-gotten' gains are contraband and can therefore be taken away under proposed legislation. Furthermore, I drive a dark-coloured car that is tinted midnight black, have friends who are under-educated, associate with men who smoke noxious substances and grew up in a neo-inner- city community where at least two police men have been killed in the last four years.
Mention that I worked for the Government under two ministers who at present represent garrison constituencies and want to become (remain) prime minister and you might want to conclude that I have a questionable lifestyle.
Most admired heroes
To compound matters my most admired heroes are an executed convict, who used to lead a gang of 12 men and one woman, and a deportee who was convicted of mail fraud, and I am in dark waters. It perhaps makes a difference though that these men are Jesus and Marcus respectively.
Seriously though, I would rather doubt that anyone would believe that Miss Ivy's last son is a crook but one has to be very careful when fiddling with established constitutional rights.
A well-intentioned piece of legislation being piloted through Parliament seems set to make a dent in crime. Designed to improve upon the provisions of the Forfeiture of Proceeds Act of 1994 as well as the Money Laundering Act, the new Proceeds of Crime Bill appears to have a lower threshold regarding the rules of evidence than in other criminal matters.
The proposed statute allows for the confiscation of "property of perpetrators of all forms of criminal activities by an asset recovery agency." This course of action becomes available to the state when persons are convicted of criminal offences.
No one can logically oppose the principles contained in this bill given that scores of thugs make millions annually from drugs, pimping, prostitution, fraud and threats. I am often quite peeved when an illiterate badman becomes rich by 'excaushan,' an activity that he cannot even spell or pronounce, while many of my university graduates have to work for sub-standard wages if they find employment at all.
Doubtless, there is need for laws that ensure that illegal money does not find itself into the national economy, or if it does, it does not overpower it. From a strictly economic perspective, money that is not derived from the internal productive processes in a country causes inflation. Simply put, where there is a glut of currency in the economy but no accompanying increase in production, then the prices of goods and services increase.
Cheaters of the system
Ultimately, this distorts the economic reality of the society and in the end widens the gap between rich and poor. Thus, illegal activities do not really help an economy unless the 'proceeds' of such deeds are invested into legitimate businesses that generate real foreign income for the local economy.
Beyond simple economics, illegal money is dangerous to our democracy and entire social fabric. Imagine the scenario where the typical role model is an individual who is able to succeed by breaking the rules of society. In a post-slaverysociety where good black men are a diminishing breed and where the majority of perpetrators and victims of violent crimes are young men, we cannot turn a blind eye to cheaters of the system.
There is an even greater threat presented by 'dirty money' and in this regard, the Attorney-General ought to tread carefully. At the time of writing, there is still a dark cloud over the ruling People's National Party (PNP) regarding the Trafigura fiasco. Money was passed without a clear explanation being given as to what for. Given the proposed bill, would it be covered under the ambit of ill-gotten gains? This issue raised larger questions about the financing of political parties and could very well cut off the lifelines of many a politician.
Furthermore, is there going to be greater scrutiny for persons who have 'no visible means of sustenance' but receive remittances from abroad? Remember! The largest contributor to our gross national product is money being transferred from abroad. One should be nervous when politicians try to take away the right to privacy. Does one have to declare sources of income from abroad as well? After all, this is what American law requires of American citizens.
'Beyond reasonable doubt'
But this is Jamrock. What may be one thing in one instance is another in the next. If the bill passes in its present form then one can lose his/her property even without conviction if it can be inferred that one has a 'criminal lifestyle'. I wonder how many politicians that would cover since the official salary of a Member of Parliament is less than that of a professor?
Opposition Senator Dorothy Lightbourne, a lawyer, argues that the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' ought to be the rule of thumb. In response, her Government counterpart Noel Monteith, suggests that the objections should have been raised earlier.
True! But the public shouldn't suffer because the Opposition was sleeping on the job.
Dr. Orville Taylor is a senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Psychology andSocial Work at UWI, Mona.
