The Hon. Ajith P. Perera

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Chairperson, this is the Proceeds of Crime Bill. I regret that the Hon. Member who opened for the Government appeared not to fully grasp the Bill’s purpose. If someone possesses property that is proven to be proceeds of a crime, such property can be recovered and restored to the rightful owners. There must be an underlying crime with evidence. Whether the offender is a public official, private person, or businessperson, if a criminal act defined by law resulted in unjust enrichment, that is an offence—often under bribery and corruption laws or other statutes.

¶ 02 The first structured national discussion on recovering stolen assets began under the 8 January 2015 Good Governance Government. On 1 May 2015, a Presidential Task Force on Stolen Asset Recovery was established, chaired by President’s Counsel J. C. Weliamuna, with current Supreme Court Justice Yasantha Kodagoda among 13 members. Concurrently, as Member and later Chair of the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Legal Affairs (Anti-Corruption) and Media, I worked on this Bill. It is complex, engages fundamental rights and international trade/relations, and took time as in other jurisdictions.

¶ 03 In 2020, after Mr. Weliamuna left for Australia, another expert committee chaired by then Justice Yasantha Kodagoda completed drafting. The change of government stalled it.

¶ 04 Now, it is the duty of this Government to bring a detailed law to recover stolen assets for the State and victims. Notably, no Fundamental Rights petitions challenged this Bill; only one was filed and later withdrawn. While that eases passage, Supreme Court review could have helped refine constitutional and practical issues.

¶ 05 I draw attention to Clause 4. Clause 4(1) provides temporal application so that conduct prior to commencement is captured; Clause 4(2) states no person shall be punished for an offence under this Act unless committed after commencement. Under Article 13(6) of the Constitution, retroactive penal laws are prohibited. While 4(2) seeks to align with that, the nature of this Act—State deprivation of property—has punitive characteristics. There is thus tension between 4(1), 4(2) and Article 13(6). I request the Minister and the Attorney-General to address this for clarity at Committee Stage.

¶ 06 Further, Clause 68 concerns notices requiring statements about property, with the form in Schedule I. Only Police may issue these. Given issues with police independence and past misconduct, such a potent notice—carrying heavy procedural consequences—should be subject to prior judicial authorization based on sufficient evidentiary grounds, as in the UK and elsewhere. I propose inserting a requirement for magistrate’s approval before issuance.

¶ 07 Another issue is Clause 97(8) regarding minimum value thresholds for investigations. Rather than leaving this solely to executive determination, the threshold should be set at a transparent, reasoned level with a clear process.

¶ 08 Clause 97 on the Authority for management of restrained property needs strengthening. Our history with state-managed assets—e.g., Land Reform Commission properties—shows risks of mismanagement and corruption. The Authority’s governance and safeguards must be more robust given the potentially vast value and complexity of assets.

¶ 09 Discrepancies exist between Sinhala and English texts—e.g., Clause 53(5), Clause 53(1), and Clause 72—which could spawn litigation. Please rectify.

¶ 10 The Victim Compensation Trust Fund under Clause 132(1) also requires stronger governance provisions, as it may hold billions.

¶ 11 The Samagi Jana Balawegaya supports this Bill in principle, but urges good-faith Government amendments to ensure protection of citizen rights and to prevent misuse.

¶ 12 Thank you.