Activating the Proceeds of Crime Act

THE EDITOR, Madam:

The recent utterance by Minister of National Security Dr Horace Chang about criminals committing crimes to pay lawyers, though unsubstantiated, is not a surprise to many good-thinking, ordinary Jamaicans. This argument was first posited by a witness in a recent case, again unproven.

What this line of argument has done, though, is have ordinary Jamaicans asking: Why has the Proceeds of Crime Act, since its inception over a decade ago, not tackled this matter head-on?

We would like the Jamaican Bar Association to know that ordinary, good-thinking Jamaicans are growing concerned about the potential risk that tainted money (money laundering) can have on our fragile judiciary. We don’t need the Jamaican Bar Association to try to silence such comments without declaring its hand. Tell us in an appropriate forum how many of your members, during the last seven to ten years, you have called in about such concerns.

Suspects and criminals are to be represented but not enabled. Criminals are not conventional in their acts, so ordinary policing alone won’t deter them from committing crimes or bring them to justice.

ACT NEEDS TO DO ITS JOB

The banks, for a long time, have stayed far from marijuana money and cryptocurrency because of potential repercussions.

The Proceeds of Crime Act needs to do its job and have lawyers toe the line, thereby recommending certain potential clients to the country’s legal-aid services rather than putting themselves at risk. Criminals need to learn that their ill-gotten gains will not aid in their defence.

How can an individual without a nine-to-five, legitimate licensed business, or family endowment be allowed high-profile legal representation in our courts without first proving that his/her source of income is not tainted? How come?

This is a plight of the judiciary that ought to be corrected forthwith. Makes no sense you say you are serious about stopping crime yet leave so many loopholes.

FRANK PEART