The Editor, Sir:

In my letter published by your paper in November 2007, I took to 'chastising' the established public media for not being as thorough and precise as it ought, and also to remind the public on the status of anti-money laundering (AML) legislation in Jamaica.

With the public discussions on alternative investments schemes and the 'know your customer' concerns of the banks with regard to AML guidance notes in force from the Bank of Jamaica and the Financial Services Commission, and now the charges related to the Cuban light bulb matter, the error continues to be repeated by prominent newscasters and the public media when references are made to the Money Laundering Act.

Any reference to the Money Laundering Act (MLA) as of June 1, 2007, would not be properly grounded in the law as this act and its operative regulations were since repealed. Here is a brief background that should bring us to the present.

Alm legislative regime

Jamaica's first dedicated anti-money laundering legislation was the Money Laundering Act, 1996, along with its companion Money Laundering Regulations, 1997. Combined primarily with the Drug Offences (forfeiture of proceeds) Act and the Dangerous Drugs Act, together they represented Jamaica's AML legislative regime.

However, these acts and regulations have been effectively repealed and replaced by the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) and, therefore, are no longer operative law. POCA was passed by Parliament in March 2007 and came into effect on May 30, 2007. POCA and its companion regulations constitute a wide-ranging set of legislation that targets benefits derived from the commission of any crime, and incorporates the concept of money laundering, as well as introducing in local law, the principle of civil forfeiture.

Unless a particular legal point is being made that the alleged acts took place while the MLA was in force and that the charges are, therefore, under the MLA - a most dubious legal construct - it should be accepted that it is the POCA and its companion regulations that are pertinent as far as money laundering crimes and charges are concerned.

Defining money laundering

It was disappointing to hear the president of the Bar Association cast about in a somewhat anecdotal way for a definition of money laundering. A useful approach would have been to quote from POCA which would have done the public a great service, as there are many persons who still link money laundering expressly to the trading of illicit narcotics such as ganja, cocaine and heroine. The fact of the matter is that by many reports of international law enforcement agencies, drug-related activities account for less than 40 per cent of the estimated money laundering activity.

POCA is not a private circular or letter. POCA is a public document, it is the law of the land. It might be a worthwhile effort for the established media to focus some attention on this piece of legislation and bring further enlightenment to the public.

I am, etc.,

CHRISTOPHER PRYCE

christopherjmpryce@yahoo.com

Waterloo Avenue, Kingston 10