Why the WIN Candidate Accounts Got closed
The closure of We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) candidate bank accounts by Demerara Bank Limited (DBL) has caused a significant stir in this society, and as usual, a strong misinformation campaign coming from the jagpard party. Insight is here to provide some perspective.
As is typical of the troubles facing the party, the machinery at WIN is claiming political persecution, specifically the PPP when it comes to the bank closure. Close, but just one letter off – the abbreviation that applies is PEP, or Politically Exposed Person. The 2009 Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act (AMLCFTA) defines a PEP thus:
“‘politically exposed person’ means any individual who is or has been entrusted with prominent public functions on behalf of a state, including a Head of State or of government, senior politicians, senior government, judicial or military officials, senior executives of state owned corporations, important political party officials, including family members or close associates of the politically exposed person whether that person is resident in Guyana or not”
Section 15(4)(d) of the Act outlines the responsibilities that financial institutions are obligated to follow when it comes to PEPs.
At a minimum level, every single person who enjoys a senior or significant position within any established political entity becomes by definition a politically exposed person under international law and national law. This of course includes candidates, particularly those offering themselves on a list from which legislators and/or members of executive government will be pulled. Normally, PEP designation invites a greater level of scrutiny say in establishing a bank account, but it can also can result in prevention of a PEP from sending or receiving money via remittance services, as Aubrey Norton found out four years ago.
When it comes to candidacy on the list of WIN, headed by Azruddin Mohamed, sanctioned under OFAC, the basic categorisation of being a PEP becomes far worse. Every single caution attached under law, as well as supporting regulation, is amplified. In the US Treasury Department release last year on the Mohamed sanctions, the following paragraph is significant, particularly the section we have highlighted.
“In addition, financial institutions and other persons that engage in certain transactions or activities with the sanctioned entities and individuals may expose themselves to sanctions or be subject to an enforcement action. The prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any designated person, or the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.”
It should be noted that when asked at Nomination Day about the potential impact of the sanctions, Mohamed either lied or was himself misinformed when he claimed that it was his businesses that were sanctioned and not himself as an individual. The sanctions list him specifically, his father, and former P.S. Mae Thomas in addition to and separate from the businesses. The businesses are not running for elections – he is, and hence the exposure comes from his candidacy.
The FIU stipulations on PEPs and the OFAC sanctions taken together mean one thing. Anyone with any close ties to the WIN political machinery, either by advocacy, significant professional services (the eggball man the campaign buys from, no, but the PR firm or specialist, yes), or most importantly, signing on to the WIN candidate list headed by Mohamed exposes themselves to local and international sanction, from business transactions to travel. That is why no one in the WIN executive, and increasingly so on the candidate list, will be traveling to the United States any time soon.
The full approved candidate list of all parties has not yet been made public. When it does, it will not only be Demerara Bank but every single bank in this country that will be taking similar steps against WIN candidates, if they have not already done. Hence the threat of legal action against DBL by Natasha Singh-Lewis is bullshit. This is not a result of political targeting but basic fiscal risk policy. Anyone threatening to close their account at Demerara Bank because of some misguided ‘principled’ reaction to the current disclosure needs to start clearing space under their mattress because that principled reaction will have to apply to other banks as well.
Visit Insight for more clarification on key issues – when it comes to accurate, credible information on electoral issues this season, we’re the one for you.
