The Hon. Harshana Nanayakkara, Attorney-at-Law - Minister of Justice and National Integration

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, today is a historically important day. I listened to all Members. Some in the Opposition constructively engaged to improve the law; others raised unrelated personal matters—that is their right. Why is today historic? Because the National People’s Power came to power with a key role: to end fraud and corruption, and to recover the people’s assets and money from those who stole them. I, Harshana Nanayakkara, have said this since 2015. On that basis we sought the people’s mandate in 2019 and fell to 3%. Amidst mud and slander, we stood for this because of a shared conviction: those who ruined the country and amassed wealth by crime have neither legal nor moral right to live in comfort off those funds; that money must be returned to the State or directly to victims. Therefore, I am very happy that, unexpectedly by 2019, and certainly by 2024, we have been able to form a Government and fulfill promises. As Minister of Justice, this is a very meaningful day because I was able to bring this law.

¶ 02 We are happy for several reasons: bringing a necessary law to fulfill promises; and to explain its uniqueness. While many clauses were covered, the core feature must be stated. Crimes cause grave and long-term consequences. Offenders commit crimes to obtain benefits and then use those proceeds for further crime or luxury lifestyles. Sometimes proceeds are reinvested into further crimes. The main objective here is to treat monies, property, or other benefits obtained by crime as proceeds of crime, and to provide for their return to the State or victims.

¶ 03 Ordinary citizens have no ethical right to benefit from criminal income. Offenders use complex methods to conceal or change the nature of proceeds and sometimes transfer to third parties or benefit through seemingly independent arrangements. However, bona fide persons acting honestly with their genuinely earned income to purchase property will not be affected by this law. In short, no righteous, honest citizen needs to fear this law. Those who will cry are the thieves. This Bill causes no harm to ordinary citizens.

¶ 04 Let me respond to some thoughts raised. Some said provisions are unconstitutional or shift the burden unfairly. But not a single Fundamental Rights case was filed in the Supreme Court against this legislation. If anyone believed there was a human rights or constitutional violation, they could have filed—none did.

¶ 05 On Article 13(6): the Proceeds of Crime Act does not attract it because forfeiture of proceeds is not a penal sanction on the possessor; it returns illegally acquired property to the State or victims. All offences in the Bill have only prospective application. The forfeiture provisions are not retrospective penal law since forfeiture is not penal. If those forfeiture provisions applied only prospectively, what about property acquired by past drug trafficking or corruption? I emphasize that taking steps to deprive criminals of benefits from proceeds of crime is a duty of the Government, and such proceeds should be restored to those entitled.

¶ 06 [Mr. Speaker left the Chair; The Hon. Deputy Speaker took the Chair.]

¶ 07 Hon. Deputy Speaker, forfeiture and vesting in the State of proceeds of crime also serves as a deterrent, preventing crimes for profit. This legislation introduces non-conviction-based forfeiture—the only law in Sri Lanka enabling forfeiture without a prior conviction. Most of our laws are conviction-based. Existing provisions are scattered; even the Code of Criminal Procedure does not mention “proceeds of crime.” This Bill provides a unified framework for investigation, preservation, and all related matters.

¶ 08 From the Committee’s Report I quote the well-known challenges of conviction-based forfeiture and the absence of focus on proceeds of crime in existing law. Even under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, state vesting requires a prior conviction, which is difficult when the offender has died, is missing, or remains unconvicted though property is found. Sometimes property is found without a claimant. Under this law, such property can be vested in the State. The Committee notes original proceeds may be converted through unidentifiable transactions and pass multiple hands. Many developed countries have non-conviction-based mechanisms. The key feature here is that the action attaches to the property—the proceeds—rather than the person.

¶ 09 Some say this will not work. Under another Government, perhaps not. But this is an NPP Government; we will do it. I thank the President for directing us to bring this swiftly, the Cabinet, and my Parliamentary colleagues. The President also instructed that it is not enough to enact; it must be implemented well. Therefore, we will re-engage the drafting Committee to guide implementation, to train prosecutors and police, and to monitor effectiveness. If there are teething issues, we will address them.

¶ 10 No one said this Bill is bad; some voiced certain concerns—fair enough. We can do this.

¶ 11 On objectives set out in Clause 2: to deter crime-for-profit; to prevent and deprive any person from benefiting from proceeds of crime; to provide for investigation into offenses including bribery and corruption, drug trafficking, terrorist financing, organized and other crimes, and into proceeds of crime; to locate, search, identify, assess, restrain, preserve, seize, manage, and for court-ordered forfeiture of proceeds, among others.

¶ 12 Some asked how to recover assets parked overseas. Clauses 141 to 145 explain mutual legal assistance and repatriation. Concerns were raised about exhibits deteriorating over long trials. True. That is why Part V establishes the Proceeds of Crime Management Authority to manage, preserve, and realize value of seized property, reducing exhibit piles rotting in court yards. The Anti-Corruption Act’s Section 115 touches proceeds of crime but only for bribery and corruption; this law applies across the board.

¶ 13 For implementation, Clause 43 empowers the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption; Clause 45 empowers the Police. A dedicated Proceeds of Crime Investigation Division with specially trained officers will be established, with ability to hire forensic specialists.

¶ 14 Clauses 52 to 75 provide for independent, impartial seizure, investigation, and enforcement under judicial supervision, and ensure proportionality to the value of proceeds. Concerns about excessive police powers are noted—we are here to reform that system; the NPP will do so.

¶ 15 Key clauses: Clause 32 protects informants and whistleblowers—their employment and safety are protected. Clause 34 provides a rebuttable presumption, shifting only the evidential burden, not the legal burden which remains with the State. If a person holds property or money that cannot reasonably be explained by lawful, known income, an evidential presumption arises that it is proceeds of crime; if satisfactorily explained, no issue. This does not harass ordinary citizens. It is necessary because corruption has bled the State of millions.

¶ 16 I also acknowledge the intellectuals who contributed since discussions began in 2016–2017. We are implementing it because we genuinely intend to fulfill our election promises. Therefore, this is the first Bill our Government has brought. Others drafted laws but lacked the will to implement. For example, the 2023 Anti-Corruption Act required establishing mechanisms within 18 months; that was not done by the previous Government. We are now setting them up. Some Members gained the “privilege” of being first arrested under that Act because we are implementing it.

¶ 17 Let me thank the Committee members by name: Hon. Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, Supreme Court Judge (Chairman); Mr. Rohantha Abeysuriya, PC, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Kuvera de Zoysa, PC; Mr. Sarath Jayamanne, PC; Mr. Neville Abeyratne, PC; Mr. Priyantha Nawana, PC; Mr. Sanjaya Gamage, Attorney-at-Law; Mr. Sudarshana De Silva, Senior Deputy Solicitor General; Mr. Amal A. Randeniya, Attorney-at-Law; Dr. Ayesh Ariyasinghe, Additional Director, FIU, Central Bank; Mr. Asanga Karawita, Attorney-at-Law; Mr. Kamal Silva, Attorney-at-Law; Ms. Disna Gurusinghe, Assistant Director General, CIABOC; Mr. Chathura Galhena, Attorney-at-Law; Ms. Lankika Dayarathna, Assistant Legal Draftsman; Ms. Ruwanadini Kuruppu, Assistant Secretary (Legal), Ministry of Justice; Mr. Nimantha Athukorala, Senior Assistant Director, FIU, Central Bank. I place on record my gratitude to them and to my Ministry staff assisting today.

¶ 18 This is a historic law. Our Government will take all steps to implement it well. For those interested, the structure is as follows: Part I, General Provisions and Offences; Part II, Investigation, Restraint and Seizure; Part III, Civil Inactivation of Proceeds of Crime; Part IV, Preservation and Management; Part V, Proceeds of Crime Management Authority.

¶ 19 [House agreed to extend time for the day’s Proceedings.]

¶ 20 Continuing: Part VI, Government forfeiture and related proceedings following inactivation; Part VII, Civil remedies for victims based on proceeds-of-crime findings; Part VIII, Disposal of forfeited proceeds and realization of value; Part IX, Victims’ Compensation and Redress Fund; Part X, International cooperation including extradition. Preservation, conservation, and management are covered in Clauses 76–116 with detailed mechanisms for safeguarding and managing inactivated assets until final court determination.

¶ 21 In conclusion: the NPP came to change this country. That cannot be done if those who gained wealth and power by crime keep their ill-gotten gains. No one has a right to live luxuriously off stolen wealth. Our society often admires wealth and power rather than character; we must ask, “Where did the money come from?” Now the NPP is in power.

¶ 22 We will implement this law properly, monitor it through our Committee during the first year, and address any issues that arise. Thank you.

¶ 23 [Question put; Bill read a Second time; referred to Committee of the whole Parliament; considered in Committee; Clauses 1–151 and Schedules I–VI agreed to; Preamble, Enacting Clause and Title agreed to; Bill reported without Amendments; Third Reading moved and agreed to; Bill read a Third time and passed.]