Review ‘Bond Scam’ Reports & Be Your Own Judge Of Prosecution Options & Develop A Suspects List
Chandra Jayaratne
One media station tagged the ‘Bond Scam’ as the greatest financial loss inflicted on the nation since its independence. The million dollar question yet remaining unanswered however is, ‘will the truth, the extent of the scams, the long term impact on the nation and its citizens, the real culprits and recovery of proceeds of the crime be ever be transparently visible for society expectations of Justice to be delivered.
Since 2015, beginning with analyst amber signals, media exposes and debates, parliamentary debates, followed up by public interest litigation, central bank investigations, Auditor Generals Reports, COPE committee reviews, the Presidential Commission Report and most recently the Forensic Audit reports, have made available to the public, sufficient material on the purported ‘bond scam’ and even the details of similar scams.
The Forensic Audit Reports cover the years prior to 2015; where irregularities are seen even under other accountability regimes. Regrettably, these Forensic reviews have left out of its scope, the essential detailed examination of the biggest scam of all purportedly carried out in March 2016 (which in any event is unpardonable to have been allowed to take place despite the public fury and remedial action demands following February 2015 scam). It is also likely that these Forensic Reviews have failed to ‘follow the money tracking of placements, layering and integration led money laundering tracings’ essential to institute court action.
In the back drop of the purported Primary Dealer mainly connected to the 2015 and 2016 scams, failing to be liable for tax on its publicly declared profits from these wrongful trades and also not being subjected to Financial VAT and Deemed Dividend Taxes, despite activist demands can citizens expect any action to recover proceeds of these crimes?
The only silver lining is that the material publicly now available could provide the interested citizens and even law enforcement officers, sufficient information to make their own judgments and express opinions; and even to advocate on the best option next step strategic actions. In this context should public interest oriented activists set up a mechanism to establish a Peoples Court ?
The business persons, professionals, academics, intellectuals, civil society activists, media expose journalists and even common citizens, leaving aside for the present, the accountability of the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary, should now begin to engage in a review process, in order to make up their mind on the reality or the myth of the purported ‘bond scams’ and their impact on the society and citizens. They can now, also determine or at least get a ball park estimate of the likely extent of losses, suffered by the State, the EPF/ETF/Privately managed Funds, individual investors and last but not least the society as a whole ( ie. actually all present and future taxpayers, who are all the citizens of today and tomorrow). They should collectively or individually, even publicly critique and debate; and try to reach a decision on the reality or the myth of what previous and present governments, politicians, officials, the governors, central bankers, primary dealers, public / private funds, state institutions, law enforcement officials, media and even the potential parties with direct or indirect connections to the scam have done, who are the other third parties who have either engaged in and / or aided and abated in any irregular, illegal, unethical or nationally detrimental actions leading to the purported losses, which ultimately fall on the nation and its citizens of today and tomorrow.
Post the aforesaid review, the suggested stakeholders should also attempt to draw up a list of potential suspects, who may have engaged in such conspiracies; encouraged or led such conspiracies from the background; those who directly or indirectly engaged in their execution and also identify those who aided and abated in any such irregular, illegal, unethical transactions, including those persons who in supervisory or control positions with accountability to prevent such incidents who failed willfully and knowingly to take such preventive actions.
The next step for these stakeholders, where possible is to identify the potential charges that can be framed against these errant persons and possibly even prepare an ‘Evidence Matrix’ identifying the critical relevant dates, the irregular /illegal/unethical transactions/events, available evidence, persons responsible, purported violation or offense, potential charges.
The final step in this process is to recommend action that should be taken to recover the proceeds of crime.
Towards the initiative suggested above, the relevant statutory provisions and jurisprudence that can be considered by the public stakeholders in determining the potential charges against the errant persons are those arising mainly from the Penal Code, Bribery Act, Declaration of Assets and Liabilities Law, Securities & Exchange Commission Act, and Registered Sock and Securities Ordinance, EPF Act and Monetary Law Act.
Looking Forward to Civil Society Collective Activism in setting up an independent and competent Peoples Court supported by citizens in advocacy and exerting pressure on the government and law enforcement and guiding independent citizens’ voting decisions of the future, set out hereinafter are the Relevant Statutory Provisions and Jurisprudence for Consideration and Benchmarking by the Collective Stakeholders and Peoples Court
