OPPOSITION Member of Parliament Dr Morais Guy on Tuesday blamed his colleagues in Parliament for allowing commercial banks to introduce “runaway charges” for service to customers following amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA), passed in 2013.

Dr Guy, who made a cameo-like intervention into the discussions in Parliament on the Bill seeking to amend the Banking Services Act to control banking fees and charges, said that amendments to POCA in 2013, which restricted cash withdrawals of $1 million or more, forced customers to rely on the banks to demonstrate the legitimacy of their business.He said that the private member’s Bill brought by his Opposition colleagues Fitz Jackson, which was eventually withdrawn, was long overdue.“In fact, this piece of legislation should have come into effect before this House passed the amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act of 2013. The amendments to POCA were well intentioned and were in an effort primarily to reduce money laundering in the country and to prevent fraudulent transactions,” he said.“However, this Parliament has aided and abetted the banks in their runaway charges consequent on that piece of legislation,” he stated.“Why do I say so, Mr Speaker? Under the amended rules of POCA, cash transactions above $1 million are no longer allowed. Persons/entities who prior to that had resorted to saving cash and buying property and or machinery were now forced to transact their business through the banks to demonstrate legitimate enterprise.“The banks could not have been happier. In fact, they laughed all the way to the bank. Consequent on this amendment, there was now a pool of customers’ money on which they could charge any and every imaginable fee and, if there was no activity, after a time they charge dormant fees.“We have literally aided the opening of significant funding to the banks to literally exploit the customer,” Dr Guy said.He added that by passing Jackson’s Bill seeking to amend to increase monitoring of banks’ fees and charges the Parliament “would have made redress on this egregious state of affairs”.He noted that the Bill was seeking to protect the customers and guarantee a mandatory minimum service package to customers and to regulate fees charged by the banks“As governments have over the years encouraged persons to save and to put aside some of their earnings for their retirement and, by extension, allow more funds available for national development, many rural folks have, based on the encouragements, tended to remove the monies from under the mattress to the banks, where they feel the money is safer. But, little did many realise that, unlike the “mattress bank” which, if untouched, did not lose value, putting it in the banks and not touching it would see it being eaten away, as any interest accrued on it would, over time, be eaten away by fees,” he concluded.Speaker of the House of Representatives, Pearnel Charles, had allowed Dr Guy to make his presentation, before Jackson rose to announce that he had withdrawn his Bill because of a lack of action and support from his colleagues in Parliament.Guy said he needed to make his presentation at the request of his constituents in St Mary Central.