THE ASSET RECOVERY UNIT
July 14, 2015 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source
An asset-recovery unit is to be established in Guyana. In theory this sounds commendable. All countries should attempt to recover as much assets that have been stolen from them. However there are number of preliminary points which have to be settled.
Firstly, there has to be some basis, other than academic or intellectual conjecture, to establish that the State has been denuded of large amounts of State assets. If a few dozen cars are stolen, then there are state agencies like the Guyana Police Force whose function is to investigate such disappearances. There is no need for a special assets recovery unit.
It has been said that one academic has posited that as much as $300B may have been stolen from Guyana. I do not know if this is a cumulative figure or it is an annual figure. If it is an annual figure then it would be larger than the total Budget of the country and therefore would have to involve misappropriation of private funds. The methodology as to how this sum, whether it is cumulative or annually, needs to be examined.
But even if such is presented, there has to be some tangible evidence that would be necessary to justify establishing such a unit. The first hurdle to be crossed is therefore whether there is a basis for the establishment of the unit.
The second hurdle to be crossed is the likely total sum to be recovered. If the sum to be recovered cannot meet the expenditure involved in tracking down the assets, it makes little sense to go after the alleged disappeared assets. You may end up spending millions of dollars to recover hundreds of dollars in assets.
The third hurdle is the legal framework. If the stolen assets are in Guyana, it needs to be asked whether there is a strong enough legal framework to facilitate their recovery. The regulatory laws in Guyana are generally weak and it is doubtful whether they can support effective asset recovery.
It is suspected that if indeed there was massive stealing of public resources them much of these resources may have found their way into foreign jurisdictions. How does the unit to be established hope to go after these assets.
It certainly does not have extra- jurisdictional reach and it is doubtful whether foreign powers are going to assist unless the crimes involved have corrupted their economic or social systems.
The fourth hurdle, and perhaps the most important of all, concerns the perception that this assets recovery unit to be established may be used as a vehicle or witch- hunting persons in society.
This is a unit which is likely to be given tremendous powers to investigate not just government officials but also private citizens. The powers would likely have to be highly intrusive.
It is important therefore that the functions of this unit be made clear to the public. It is important also that the legal powers of the unit be established and that some oversight be put in place to ensure that this unit does not abuse its powers or does not use its powers to pursue with private or political vendetta.
The persons appointed to this unit should themselves be subject to scrutiny. They should be required to declare their assets to the Integrity Commission before they commence work and their assets should be regularly monitored.
This is not small money that is pursued; it is from all accounts hundreds of billions of dollar. This requires a specialized and highly trained unit with persons of impeccable character who can withstand public scrutiny.
