DELIBERATIONS on the critical Proceeds of Crime Bill, which has been before a Joint Select Committee of Parliament for more than a year, inched forward on Thursday, but with reservations on the part of some members about the bill’s definition of trust services, which they said was too wide and left a danger of innocent persons being implicated.

A similar concern had dogged an October meeting of the committee where it was pointed out that whereas other persons or entities could be captured under the definition for ‘financial institutions’, it could be difficult to enforce it on individuals who provided trust services.

On Thursday, opposition committee member Delroy Chuck said there was a need to exercise caution as the term trust services was far too ambiguous, despite the views from other members that a ‘wide definition’ could act as a ‘deterrent’.

“We must be very careful; the term ‘trust services’ could be so broadly interpreted that it could implicate far too many persons, including the shopkeeper in a village,” Chuck said.

He argued that since the Act carried such stringent sanctions for offenders it could not carry such a wide definition in that respect.

“When you have an Act that has very stringent punishment, the law must be as unambiguous as possible and you can’t have such a wide ambit where people are not sure where they fall within the Act,” Chuck told the committee.

He added that if the Proceeds of Crime Act was going to be successful it must be clear and unambiguous.

“It seems to me when you talk about occupation of businesses in the provision of trust services that definition to my mind would be too wide and would allow the authorities unnecessary power,” said Chuck, an attorney-at-law.

He suggested instead that the provision be placed under the regulations of the Financial Services Commission.

National Security Minister Dr Peter Phillips, who eventually consented, suggested that the term be excluded from the bill temporarily and placed under review. Phillips later said the provision would still apply, but would be subject to ministerial order or affirmative resolution.

He said, however, that the intention was to have the matter cleared up once and for all, removing the possibility of having to make further changes to the legislation in the future.

Prior to the decision, the security minister had expressed a difficulty in seeing the damage done by leaving trust services in the definition, emphasising that would apply to persons whose regular occupation was the provision of trust services.

“The concern here is that you don’t end up creating a major loophole through which you find a lot of the targets plunging through. The question is how do you capture persons who offer trust services and there are indeed many that came to my attention recently; you have all kinds of informal arrangements for lending funds unlicensed by the financial regime and it’s significant amounts of money; so what damage is done by leaving it in?” Phillips had questioned.

Speaking at the October meeting, the security minister had displayed a similar leaning, arguing that the intention was to net institutions or entities offering trust services as they were likely prospects for money laundering activities.

The passing into law of the Proceeds of Crime Bill is being anticipated by the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) as one of the most essential pieces of legislation in their fight against crime, especially drug trafficking and money laundering.

The Act is aimed at bringing, within the ambit of possible forfeiture through the courts, all properties and accumulated wealth which cannot be explained by legitimate activity, and comes as part of efforts to fight organised crime and to ensure that persons engaged in criminal activities do not profit from their illegal activities.

The committee resumes its sitting on the Bill which has been before it for over a year now.

dunkeleya@jamaicaobserver.com