THE MONTHLY GLEANER | FEBRUARY 20 - MARCH 22, 2023 | www.jamaica-gleaner.com | NEWS 4 Anyone knowing the whereabouts of Henley George Forrest whose last known address is Woodland Point Drive, Tamarac, Florida please contact the offices of Knight Junor & Samuels Attorneys-at-Law at 1(876) 922-4384 or 1(876) 999-0898. N O T I C E Barbara Gayle and Sashana Small/ Gleaner Writers THE JAMAICAN Government has won a key victory in its battle to cleanse the financial system of tainted money, imposing on lawyers criminal sanctions if they fail to report suspicious client transactions to the finance ministry’s chief investigative unit. THE UNITED Kingdom-based Privy Council handed down the landmark ruling on Thursday, February 9 concluding that the regime did not contravene constitutional rights and thus upheld a decision by Jamaica’s Constitutional Court. The Privy Council also said that the General Legal Council’s (GLC) powers of inspection do not interfere with legal professional privilege. King’s Counsel Symone Mayhew, one of the lawyers representing the GLC, said the decision had far-reaching consequences for lawyers and Jamaica at large. “The judgment settles the issue that the regime is not unconstitutional in its application to attorneys-at-law. The judgment expounds on several important principles of law, to include legal professional privilege, which the Privy Council confirms is protected under the regime,” Mayhew told The Gleaner Thursday. “It is true that the duties imposed on attorneys are onerous, and there is much work to be done as we will now have to implement the various procedures in our practices to be in compliance with the regulations while at the same time handling our clients’ business.” However, Mayhew shared that attorneys across the world, including the Caribbean, have similar obligations imposed by legislation. Mayhew appeared along with Allan Wood, KC, and attorney-at-law Sundiata Gibbs for the GLC. Attorneys-at-law Lisa Whyte and Faith Hall represented the attorney general, who appealed on behalf of the Government. Meanwhile, two senior civil-society activists have welcomed the Privy Council ruling, which has implications for the Anti-Money Laundering/ Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) regime. Principal director of National Integrity Action, Professor Trevor Munroe, contends that the ruling by Jamaica’s final appellate court does not infringe on human rights. “My understanding, subject to correction, is that the Jamaican lawyers’ association was the only one in the Caribbean that sought to ensure the lawyers do not come under the suspicious transaction anti-money laundering and terrorism regime. It is an important ruling,” he said in a Gleaner interview. “What this does is to make us understand our Charter of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is not blocking, as some alleged. ... The existing charter ... says that our rights can be infringed but only to the extent demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.” Chairman of the Crime Consensus Monitoring and Oversight Committee, Lloyd Distant Jr, said stakeholders were anticipating the“positive” ruling, which he hopes will give impetus to the Government’s bid to fast-track the UnexplainedWealth Orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA). That law would allow courts to issue orders for the seizure of unexplained wealth on the basis of civil, rather than criminal, standards. Finance Minister Dr Nigel Clarke signalled early that the State would be moving fast to implement what he dubbed a “game-changer” in the war against money laundering. Clarke said that Jamaica now satisfies the international standard of bringing all Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professionals under its AML/CFT. He said Jamaica will nowmove with expedition to ensure that attorneys fulfil their obligations under the law. “The decision enables the General Legal Council to resume its role of monitoring compliance by attorneys as the first step, with support from Jamaica’s AML/CFT Prime Contact Secretariat of the BOJ, to resensitise attorneys particularly with regard to the suspicious transaction reporting regime,” Clarke said. In 2013, Jamaica extended its anti-money laundering regime to include attorneys carrying out certain activities such as purchasing and selling businesses or real estate or creating companies of trusts. It was also extended in order to address national-security concerns and comply with international standards in respect of the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing. The Jamaican Bar Association challenged the regime on the basis that it was unconstitutional on a number of grounds and took the matter to the Full Court. In July 2021, the Court of Appeal ruled that certain aspects of the regime were invalid on the basis that they contravened the constitutional rights to privacy, liberty, and freedom from search of property without demonstrable justification. The Privy Council restored the Full Court’s ruling in the Supreme Court, which was handed down by Justices Paulette Williams and David Fraser (now Court of Appeal judges), as well as Justice Sharon George. The Privy Council said it was accepted by the parties and the courts below that the anti-money laundering regime involves some interference with attorney-client confidentiality. This is because both inspection powers of the GLC and the obligation to report suspicious transactions would be likely to involve some disclosure by attorneys of their clients’ confidential information. “However, the board agrees with the Jamaican Supreme Court that the interference is demonstrably justified. There can be no doubt that combating money laundering is of first importance to Jamaica. The inclusion of criminal sanctions, as opposed to a purely regulatory approach, is within the range of options open to Parliament,” the Privy Council ruled. “Interference with attorney-client confidentiality is much less serious than any infringement of legal professional privilege would be and is justified by the importance to Jamaican society of preventing money laundering.” The board said it considered that the regime did not infringe the constitutional right to protection from search of property. “The power of the General Legal Council to conduct inspection does not confer a coercive power to search and seizure. In the absence of a warrant or court order, the General Legal Council would need an attorney’s consent to enter their office or take documents,” the Privy Council ruled. Privy Council ruling hailed as ‘game changer’ CLARKE DISTANT MUNROE
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUzNTI=