EDITORIAL - Why won't FID grab the assets of gangsters?

PROFESSOR TREVOR Munroe is entirely correct in urging the authorities to move with dispatch against the assets of Christopher Coke, the reputed crime boss whose henchmen so openly challenged the authority of the Jamaican state a fortnight ago.

Mr Coke is now on the run, attempting to evade extradition to the United States. But as Professor Munroe, who heads the Centre for Leadership and Governance at the Mona campus, University of the West Indies, pointed out, the security forces "know a lot about Coke's palaces and houses".

The security forces, as well as ministers and officials in the public bureaucracy, also know, or should have a fair understanding of some of Coke's business dealings, through his ostensibly legitimate enterprises. At least one of them was awarded many millions of dollars in construction contracts by the Jamaican Government.

Many of the accrued assets from these businesses are visible, or traceable. It would be a powerful message to the leaders of organised crime in Jamaica that they are no longer insulated, and the holdings of persons considered by many to be criminal overlords were to be confiscated.

Slow to action

As Professor Munroe put it: "The criminals should know that the 'President' (one of Coke's nicknames) of all dons and his associates are not able to retain access to houses in Kirkland Heights, Oakridge and other areas."

What surprises this newspaper is that this argument is having to be made and how sleepily the Financial Investigations Division (FID), with its powerful tools to go after the assets accumulated from criminal lifestyles, has operated.

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act of 2007, the FID and the Assets Recovery Agency - which inexplicably fall under the Ministry of Finance - do not have to await for someone to be convicted of a crime before attempting to go after his/her assets.

Going after assets

Indeed, Section 56 (a) of the act allows for "the enforcing authority to recover, in civil proceedings before the court, property which is, or represents, property obtained through unlawful conduct". In the case of attempting to recover cash, the civil proceedings can be before a resident magistrate.

Significantly, the termination of whether an asset has been gained by unlawful conduct, according to Section 56 (3), "shall be decided on a balance of probabilities". In other words, the FID need not await a criminal trial and conviction of a gangster and his cohorts or facilitators before going after their assets.

A criminal conviction, though, should make the process easier. Which is why we are surprised at the FID's seeming inertia in pursuing the assets of, say, Leebert Ramcharan, former Montego Bay drug boss, who was convicted in the United States. The agency appears equally slow in seeking to corral the assets of Donovan 'Bulbie' Bennett, the St Catherine bad man, who was killed in 2005 trying to evade capture by the police.

Perchance the Assets Recovery Agency and the FID have been attempting to garnish the assets of these gangsters and/or other criminals, they have been extremely quiet about it. They clearly need a new lease on life.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.