The Hon. Shanakiyan Rajaputhiran Rasamanickam

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Chairperson, first, I wish the Hon. Minister Harsha Nanayakkara well for bringing a good and important bill that matches his competence, unlike trivial matters such as the “toilet pit marriage” story. Many experts we spoke to said they had no criticism of this bill; that it is indeed a good bill. I therefore congratulate the Hon. Minister of Justice. However, I want to draw your attention to three points.

¶ 02 Under Clause 53(4)(b) there is a point—Hon. Ajith P. Perera also started to raise this but ran out of time. Clause 53(4)(b) reads:

¶ 03 “whether the monetary value of the suspected proceeds of crime will be sufficiently high so as to justify and necessitate the conduct of an investigation into the suspected proceeds ...”

¶ 04 I won’t read it all. The question is whether the amount is sufficiently high to justify an investigation. I suggest inserting a clear threshold—e.g., that proceeds above a specified amount will be subject to recovery under this Act. We know laws can last 100 years. While this Government may implement it properly, in future, even small amounts like Rs. 10,000 or 20,000 could be pursued under this Act, which is not desirable. Please consider a threshold.

¶ 05 Secondly, on Clause 71: the powers of an Investigation Officer. If property is to be forfeited or an investigation is commenced, as Hon. Ajith P. Perera said, given certain issues within the police, there is a risk of abuse. Please address safeguards against abuse.

¶ 06 Finally, regarding the Proceeds of Crime Management Authority: property recovered will be managed by this Authority. There will be 11 members. Of these 11, four are ex officio, and the Minister appoints the other seven with concurrence—chartered accountants on nomination of their institute, engineers likewise from their body, etc. However, there is no provision on remuneration—monthly, quarterly, or the quantum. It would be better to specify in the Act itself, because otherwise a future Minister might influence members via remuneration decisions.

¶ 07 I also must respond to a matter raised in the last hours of debate by the Leader of the House. He equated “BR” with Basil Rajapaksa being responsible for prior regime collapses, and then used “BR” to attack Bimal Rathnayake personally. That was a low personal smear. I raised a clear allegation regarding a Government Minister’s corruption; instead of investigating it, there was a cheap personal attack made in panic.

¶ 08 President Ranil Wickremesinghe previously provided decentralized budget allocations to MPs from the North and East via District and Divisional Secretaries. Many Members here received these. He asked whether Hon. Sumanthiran or Dr. Sritharan received them from my district members—who were not even in the last Parliament—to allege I received money from the President. That accusation is false and stems from ignorance of how decentralized funds work.

¶ 09 Thank you, Hon. Deputy Chairperson. I will conclude now.