THE Joint Select Committee of Parliament which has been examining the Proceeds of Crime Bill is expected to complete its deliberations next week, and is hoping that it will be passed and put into force by the early half of the next legislative year.

The committee was set up more than a year ago to examine the bill, which is expected to put a major dent in the pockets of criminals when implemented.

The passing into law of the bill is being eagerly awaited by the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) as one of the most critical pieces of legislation in its fight against criminal activities, in particular drug trafficking and money laundering.

The legislation 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.

During its sitting yesterday, government member Senator Delano Franklyn raised questions as to whether the provision of a 72 hour time period whereby cash seized could be detained initially by the authorities was sufficient.

Committee chairman Dr Peter Phillips, in responding, said the period would allow for proper accounting and reporting of the cash to be undertaken to ensure that the initial grounds for the seizure were in fact true. He added that the provision was attempting to strike a balance between the rights of persons.

Under the Proceeds of Crime legislation, a Resident Magistrate’s Court may direct the release of the entire sum or any part of the cash if the court is satisfied, on the application by the person from whom the cash is seized, that the conditions in the law for the detention of the cash do not apply.

In response to concerns that there should be a widening of the conditions for which compensation might be obtained from the Courts where a forfeiture order was not issued and the detained cash released in the final outcome, Phillips said he was not inclined to remove the confinements which are in place as this would “leave the crown open to all kinds of claims, spurious or not”.

According to Phillips, if the current conditional limits under which claims for compensation could be made were widened, it was likely that persons would purport all kinds of ‘exceptional’ instances.

In the meantime, the security minister sought to lay to rest fears that innocent third parties could be convicted for unwittingly being in possession of ‘recoverable property’. Phillips said there were general exceptions in situations where an individual disposes of recoverable property and someone acquires it in ‘good faith’ not knowing the origin.

The minister made it clear that while the person into whose hands the property/cash was passed innocently would not be convicted, the individual who passed it on would be held as well as the property in question.