The Hon. Anura Karunathilaka - Minister of Urban Development, Construction and Housing

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, there is a background to presenting the Proceeds of Crime Bill in this manner. Recently there has been intense public discourse on stolen wealth and properties created from stolen money, and on recovering them.

¶ 02 I wish to draw attention to an article on 21 October 2021 on the website of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists titled, “Sri Lankan power couple piled up luxury homes, artworks and cash offshore as ruling family rose and rose.” It focuses on a former State Minister and her husband. In 2012 they established the “Asiaciti” foundation in New Zealand. Law enforcement agencies in the United States deem it vulnerable to money laundering. They later expanded operations to Samoa, which the EU has blacklisted as a harmful preferential tax regime.

¶ 03 Through this foundation, they amassed a vast art collection: paintings by Sri Lanka’s George Keyt, India’s Jamini Roy, and M. F. Husain, valued at roughly USD 4 million. Prof. John Zarobell of the University of San Francisco, an expert in the economics of art, notes that such assets can be used to diversify portfolios and transfer value—essentially converting proceeds of fraud or theft into seemingly lawful assets. The article also details how the former State Minister and husband bought apartments in London and luxury homes. In 2009, they purchased a 16-perch plot in a foreign city for USD 1.7 million, and in 2016 were questioned by authorities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. In 2020, Singaporean authorities fined the institution USD 793,000 for non-compliance with anti–money laundering policies and other offences. This is exactly what this Bill is designed to address.

¶ 04 Another article dated 3 September 2021 by Rawan Atallah on the same site details questionable transactions via the “Trident” foundation in the British Virgin Islands linked to former Treasury Secretary Ramalingam Pathmanathan (Pasupathy) [note: OCR suggests Ramalingam Pasqualingam; referring to a former Finance Ministry Secretary], involving about USD 2.6 billion and another USD 1 million in transactions.

¶ 05 I cite these to show that the bulk of stolen wealth and abuse of office is by politicians and a smaller number of officials, and also by underworld and narcotics traffickers who launder their proceeds. There has been a belief among the public that there were insufficient legal provisions to act against properties that appear lawful on paper. Though we had the Bribery Act, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act, the Anti-Corruption Act, and other regulations, there was debate whether they were sufficient to curb political and official corruption and recover stolen wealth. The people long expected a strong law like this, and our NPP Government has now presented it. I wish our Minister of Justice, the Cabinet, and all Members well for bringing a strong Bill to realise the people’s aspirations.

¶ 06 We also know that before bringing a law like this, various allegations were raised against some politicians and officials, and they treated them with contempt. That is why, when some of them received Rs. 1 million from the President’s Fund, they said they were asleep when the cheque was signed and placed on the bed—showing disdain for public opinion. In the Bond Scam, some said they did not know cheques from Arjun Aloysius came to their accounts—and justified receiving any amount of money.

¶ 07 Moreover, some politicians and their offspring, rather than providing a rational explanation for their wealth, insulted the public’s intelligence by claiming they received a jewel casket as a dowry that funded all their assets. This underscores why we need a strong law.

¶ 08 The public have demanded this. International institutions have also urged us to bring such a law and create a strong legal system to recover assets generated by crimes. Hence this Second Reading today. As many Members noted, the Bill covers a broad canvas: empowering investigators, ensuring recovery and subsequent management of forfeited assets, and establishing robust mechanisms.

¶ 09 It also addresses those who may not directly commit crimes but conceal information or protect offenders due to kinship or partisanship. Clause 24(1) states that an attempt, conspiracy, aiding, or abetment to commit an offence under Clause 23 is itself an offence. Clause 24 and Clause 58 are important, especially on empowering investigators to use digital evidence.

¶ 10 Finally, some said we opposed corruption and then parted ways when it was rejected. Yet we recently saw those who supposedly rejected corruption standing with Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa, appointed as district leaders, with one recently remanded in the Anuradhapura area. There are others; due legal action will follow.

¶ 11 One last point, though not directly on this Bill. As people’s representatives, we enjoy freedom of speech here under parliamentary privilege. But no one may cross the boundaries of privilege and decency. Recently, while this House has seen constructive dialogue across the aisle, one or two Members have acted without understanding those ethical limits and the mandate of the people who sent them here. That is unfair to their constituents.

¶ 12 Hon. Presiding Member, in conclusion, if such conduct continues, it brings this august House into disrepute and is an injustice to the people who elected them. We must take greater care. Thank you.