Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that as already raised under Parliamentary Question B/601, Government is fully apprised of the deteriorated conditions of the steel jetty at the Mahebourg Waterfront, which has been closed for safety reasons and for the urgent needs for its replacement to ensure public safety while supporting tourism and local economic activities. A document detailing the different structural options, currently under consideration for the replacement of the jetty, is being tabled for the benefit of the House. These include various design configuration and materials option suitable for the marine environment. Among these, a reinforced concrete structure is one of the leading options under consideration given its durability, reduced maintenance and long-term cost effectiveness. Madam Speaker, I am further informed that the estimated cost for the replacement project is approximately Rs25 million based on preliminary technical assessment carried out by the District Council of Grand Port. In this regard, provision has been made in the forthcoming financial estimate for an interim allocation of Rs25 million to enable the project to proceed to its preparatory phase in the next financial year. This will cover among others, the appointment of consultants for a detailed design, structure and drawings, the carried out of engineering studies and feasibility assessment and the undertaking of the Environment Impact Assessment and other statutory process as maybe required. These preparatory works will be subject to the approval of the Ministry of Finance and to the necessary clearances from the Ministry of Environment and other authorities. As regards to part (b) of the question, Madam Speaker, the project is presently at its preparatory stage. The commencement of physical works will depend on the finalisation of the selected structures option, completion of all the technical studies and the obtaining of the required statutory approvals. Subject to these approvals and financial clearances, implementation will proceed thereafter in a structured and timely manner. It would be premature at this stage to commit a firm start and completion date. In the meantime, Madam Speaker, I wish to reassure the House that appropriate safety measures remain in place at the Mahebourg Waterfront to ensure public safety pending the implementation of the project.

Thank you. Yes, hon. Apollon!

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, hon. Minister. I thank you for your answer. Can I make a request for a site visit at the Mahebourg Waterfront to see this eyesore which is being posted every week on social media so that we can give the renovation a priority for the next budget?

Of course, Madam Speaker.

Of course.

We can do a site visit at the convenience of the hon. Member.

The presence of all concerned.

No problem.

Thank you. So sweetly said. Time is up! The Table has been advised that the following PQs, over and above those I have already mentioned, have been withdrawn: B/251, B/279, B/280, B/282, B/283, B/286, B/288, B/289, B/291, B/292, B/294, B/295, B/298, B/299, B/302, B/304, B/305, B/311, B/312, B/314, B/313, and B/317 have been withdrawn. Yes, hon. Prime Minister! MOTION SUSPENSION OF S.O. 10(2)

Madam Speaker, I beg to move that all the business on today’s Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order 10. Mr Mohamed seconded. Question put and agreed to.

Yes, hon. Minister of Education! STATEMENT BY MINISTER FORMER DPM STATEMENT – CLARIFICATION REGARDING MR K.C. & MINISTRY ENQUIRY (4.28 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, with your permission, I have to make a statement about a matter raised by the former Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) concerning a conversation that I had with him regarding one Mr K.C. I wish to dispel all doubts that may, unfortunately, linger after that statement of the former DPM. In fact, it is the former DPM who called me, and, amongst others, he asked me questions relating to an enquiry which had to be initiated at the level of my Ministry regarding a particular school, but which had not started for reasons beyond my control. I also related an incident when the said Mr K.C. had brought someone to my office, at MITD Pheonix, regarding the same and I had asked them to leave as it was inappropriate for me to speak to them given that an enquiry had been initiated. The conversation which had hardly started was cut short by myself as soon as I realised that the person brought to see me wanted to speak about the school which was subject of the enquiry. I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Hon. Minister! PUBLIC BILL Second Reading THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, COMBATTING THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM AND COUNTERING PROLIFERATION FINANCING (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (No. III of 2026) Order read for resuming adjourned debate on the Second Reading of the Anti-Money Laundering, Combatting the Financing of Terrorism and Countering Proliferation Financing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. III of 2026). Question again proposed.

Hon. Minister Assirvaden! (4.29 p.m.)

Merci, Madame la présidente. Je ne serai pas long. Madame la présidente, je suis heureux de commenter ces amendements présentés par ma collègue sur The Anti-Money Laundering, Combatting the Financing of Terrorism and Countering Proliferation Financing Bill. Madame la présidente, sûrement, les Mauriciennes et les Mauriciens, qui nous écoutent concernant ces amendements, se posent la question : quelle est l’utilité d’emmener ces amendements en 2026 ? Est-ce que ces amendements sont des priorités ? C’est la priorité des priorités de ce gouvernement dans ce contexte où on est. Moi aussi je me suis posé la question quand ma collègue a emmené les amendements au cabinet et je me suis fait un devoir d’aller lire. Ce n’est pas vraiment dans ma ligne d’action en tant que ministre, mais je me suis fait un devoir d’aller lire ce qui a été proposé par ma collègue. La conclusion qui est sortie assez rapidement, c’est que ce projet de loi est pertinent à l’heure actuelle. Nécessaire, pertinent, et d’une importance capitale. Car cela s’inscrit dans une volonté claire : améliorer de manière substantielle l’efficacité de notre pays dans la lutte contre la criminalité financière sous toutes ses formes, qu’il s’agisse de blanchiment d’argent, de financement du terrorisme ou encore des mécanismes de financement liés à la prolifération. Aussi, en lisant, en essayant de comprendre – quand même, c’est technique. Il y a une technicité dans ces amendements –, il s’agit également de permettre à nos institutions d’agir avec davantage de rapidité, de précision, d’efficacité face à des pratiques de plus en plus sophistiquées. En général, pour les Mauriciennes et les Mauriciens qui se posent la question : pourquoi ces amendements ? Pourquoi en sommes-nous arrivés là en avril 2026 ? La réponse, partielle du moins, est que nous faisons face à l’héritage d’une décennie marquée par un scandale financier de tout genre sous le régime du MSM !

Tout à fait !

Avec comme Premier ministre Pravind Kumar Jugnauth.

Madame !

Une décennie durant laquelle les dérives se sont accumulées, où les garde-fous institutionnels ont été contournés comme des bouchons de champagne, sautés, où des pratiques inacceptables ont pris racine.

To pe donn li valer, koup ar bouchon champagne!

Le blanchiment d’argent ne relevait plus de l’exception, il y a 10 ans de cette décennie. Il tendait à devenir un véritable pilier du monde opératoire de l’ancien régime. C’est précisément pour rompre avec cette logique que nous devons aujourd’hui agir avec détermination. Madame la présidente, j’ai vu que l’amendement à la Banking Act et au FIU, les sections 26, 50, 53A, 69, vont être proposés pour être amendés. Je ne sais pas en ce qui concerne mes collègues, mais il y a quelque temps de cela, depuis notre arrivée au pouvoir, j’ai entendu parler du reward money. Ce reward money, à mon avis, Madame la présidente, est l’un des dossiers qui a profondément marqué l’opinion des Mauriciennes et Mauriciens, en général. Marqué l’opinion publique. Pour beaucoup de Mauriciens qui m’écoutent ce soir, ce dossier est devenu le symbole même de la dilapidation des fonds publics sous le MSM. J’entends certaines personnes dire – enfin – ils ont la nostalgie du temps du MSM !

Ayo bondie !

C’est la dilapidation des fonds ! Mais au même moment, c’est la nature même du système qui interpelle, car ceux qui étaient concernés un moment donné, Madame la présidente, qui étaient touchés, c’était le cœur même de nos institutions. Quand des unités comme la Special Striking Team, le Special Intelligence Cell, the Counter Terrorism Unit, the Force Crime Intelligence Unit étaient touchées, la population était choquée ! Pour ne pas dire scandalisée ! Quand nous avons vu des retraits en espèces ; allez à la banque et essayez de faire un retrait de R 300 000. Allez à la banque, les Mauriciens qui m’écoutent ce soir, allez à la banque, essayez de mettre R 50 000 que vous avez eus en cadeau de vos enfants de l’étranger, la banque vous demande the source of fund. La banque vous demande de remplir une fiche pour mettre R 200 000 en cash. Et ici, entre le 18 octobre 2024 et le 07 novembre 2024, pas moins de R 14 millions ont été retirés du compte d’un ACP de police sous l’ancien régime MSM alors que le Premier ministre s’asseyait là, ici, à la place de l’honorable Ms Savabaddy.

(Interruptions)

Ces retraits, Madame la présidente, effectués en raison de R 1 million par jour mais cela n’a ring the bell pour personnes ? L’ancien ministre des Finances, Padayachy, l’ancien Premier ministre n’ont rien vu – R 14 millions de retraits chaque jour. Oui !

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member : Ek zot ena toupe al dan…

Pou finans kampagn…

Justement, ces retraits effectués en raison de R1 million par jour dépassaient largement les plafonds fixés par la Financial Intelligence Anti-Money Laundering Act.

Zis avan eleksyon.

Justement, juste avant les élections ! Vous voyez la pertinence de ces amendements ? Je n’ai pas l’habitude de féliciter les gens trop facilement moi, mais là je suis obligé de féliciter ma collègue. Madame Speaker : Votre voisine.

C’est un fait que la pertinence est là. C’est précisément pour répondre à ce type de dérives – dérives de reward money – que les amendements proposés à la législation bancaire prennent toute leur sens ainsi la modification apportée à la section 26(2) de la Bank of Mauritius pourra désormais divulguer toute information nécessaire pour faire un signalement ou transmettre un dossier aux autorités. Madame la présidente, j’ai entendu, j’écoutais avec attention ce matin quand j’ai lu l’amendement la Banking Act, sections : 53, 64, 64A, 64B, 64C – je vous l’ai dit, il y a beaucoup de technicité dans ces amendements. Quand j’ai écouté avec attention la réponse de l’honorable Premier ministre ce matin – Silver Bank.

Caverne Alibaba!

C’est vrai ! Moi, je pense que l’ancien Premier ministre a raison de se cacher ; il a raison de se cacher. An hon. Member : Non, li pe tir latet soidizan la.

Non, il a0 raison de se cacher ! On ne le voit simplement que quand il y a des dépôts gerbe. Si aujourd’hui nous sommes en train de procéder à des amendements à la Banking Act, ce n’est pas un fruit du hasard. Vous réalisez ! De 2022 à 2023. Laissez-moi répéter ce que l’honorable Premier ministre avait dit ce matin : de 2022 à 2023, 7 sociétés liées à un homme d’affaires indien, – j’ai oublié son nom –

Gupta !

Gupta, l’ami de Padayachy ! Gupta, – ont obtenues des prêts toxiques – toxic loans – d’un montant variant de R 157 millions à R 200 millions chacun. Au total, R 1.2 milliards qui a été débloqué par cette banque aujourd’hui en liquidation.

Scandaleux !

Cela c’est le temps du MSM ! Et on voit aujourd’hui la pertinence de ce que l’honorable membre emmène en ce qui concerne les amendements. Madame la présidente, l’affaire Silver Bank n’est pas un cas isolé malheureusement, pour le pays. Elle est le symptôme d’un système MSM qui nécessitait une réforme en profondeur. Ces amendements viennent précisément combler les lacunes qui ont permis l’émergence des tels abus en renforçant la transparence, la supervision et la coopération entre institutions. Madame la présidente, – je surveille mon heure – Maradiva !

(Interruptions)

Encore une fois ! Le papa qui m’écoute ce soir ou la maman qui m’écoute ce soir – Maradiva : c’est votre argent qui a été dévalisé.

Inn devaliz State Bank!

C’est l’argent de la State Bank, l’argent des fonctionnaires, R 470 millions donnés à une compagnie que je ne connaissais même pas le nom, Dhyanavartam Ltd, plus connu sous Maradiva.

Maha Diva.

Maha Diva ! Une affaire troublante ! R 470 millions accordés en juillet 2024 à la veille des élections générales par la State Bank of Mauritius. Dont le propriétaire est – on le connaît, le beau-frère du Premier ministre – lakwizin.

(Interruptions)

Ton Georges ! l’ancien Premier ministre ! Oui, l’ancien Premier ministre !

(Interruptions)

Pour vous dire, Madame la présidente, que c’est précisément pour répondre à ce type de situation que le projet de loi amende désormais la Companies Act en redéfinissant la notion de « beneficial owner ». Désormais il ne s’agit plus seulement du détenteur officiel d’action mais de toute personne qui contrôle réellement une société directement ou indirectement. Ce n’est pas fini, Madame la présidente ! Vous réalisez, au lendemain de la Covid-19 alors que le pays est encore meurtri, MIC – ils ont dévalisé. Quand j’étais juste à côté ici dans l’opposition, je me suis servi du mot « bangoler ». J’ai dû retirer ce mot par l’ancien Speaker quand j’avais dit qu’on a bangolé. Allez voir le mot « bangoler ». Bangoler tout ce que le peuple a travaillé pendant des années. Des transactions ! Ils ont bangolé d’abord, l’héritage de la population, dévalisé l’héritage de la population de plusieurs milliards de roupies sous le Covid-19 – selon leur réflexion pour aider les compagnies alors que c’était pour aider Pack & Blister, pour aider… Comment ?

Les amis d’enfance.

Les amis d’enfance, justement, R 2 milliards bangolés, Madame la présidente.

Courtier Joomaye.

C’est dans cette optique, Madame la présidente, que nous saluons les amendements amenés cet après-midi. Et ce n’est pas fini, je pense que les Mauriciens et les Mauriciennes en général n’ont pas oublié l’affaire de Ambre Hôtel. Ambre Hôtel – le rachat de l’Ambre Hôtel a particulièrement, justement, retenu l’attention. Dans le cas de Ambre Hôtel, un accord conclu en 2022 pour un montant de R 2.1 milliards a finalement donné lieu à un paiement de €48 millions en 2024, soit environ R 2. 4 milliards. Et l’écart – l’honorable Premier ministre disait ça ce matin, l’écart – vous savez l’écart de combien ? R 300 millions ! R 300 millions qui a changé de compte. R 300 millions qui est sorti de sur un compte pour aller pour la commission. Vous réalisez, Madame la présidente ? Un paiement en devises dans un contexte de tension sur les réserves soulève des questions fondamentales sur la transparence au temps du MSM, cela gouvernance au temps du MSM et l’opacité sous l’ancien régime MSM. Encore une fois, je salue ma collègue, mais ce n’est pas fini ! C’est malheureux pour ce pays. Peut-être, on a oublié, certains ont oublié dans ce pays, l’affaire bet365. Un Attorney General, l’ancien Attorney General, Madame la présidente – un scandale financier sous l’ancien régime touchant l’ancien Attorney General qui s’est retrouvé au cœur de l’affaire bet365. Un moment de ce pays, et vous êtes étonnés que nous sommes visés, nous sommes sous la menace de grey listing de la FATF ? On ne peut pas être étonnés quand on a de telles personnes pour diriger notre pays. Un Attorney General à un moment donné, fut accusé d’avoir facilité le déblocage des gains de plusieurs dizaines de millions de roupies auprès d’une plate-forme bet365, d’être intervenu. L’ancien Attorney General Ravi Yerrigadoo, avocat des Jugnauth, était intervenu au- delà de ses fonctions, vous réalisez l’Attorney General ? D’avoir participé à la mise en place d’un montage financier international impliquant des comptes à Dubaï et en Suisse.

L’ancien Attorney General!

L’ancien Attorney General! Vous réalisez à quel niveau d’Attorney General on est tombé – on avait touché le fond à un moment donné.

(Interruptions)

Limem li’nn vinn konseye dan State Bank.

Comment ? Ah, il est dans le conseil de la State Bank ? Il était, il était ! An hon. Member : Il était consultant.

Madame la présidente, le duty-free – mais il y en a beaucoup. Vous vous rappelez comment la population a souffert pendant la période de covid-19. La période de Covid-19 restera l’un des moments les plus difficiles, les plus dur de notre histoire récente. Elle a également relevé des pratiques profondément préoccupantes. Ainsi, la population a fait face à la peur. Vous vous rappelez ? A la maladie, à l’incertitude où au moindre moment des contrats de plusieurs centaines de millions de roupie ont été attribués par la STC dans des conditions qui continuent d’interroger ; quincailleries, bijouteries, entreprises nouvellement créées ont obtenu des contrats. Et ces gens-là aujourd’hui osent nous pointer du doigt ! Ce MSM-là ose nous pointer du doigt quand des Rolex sont en circulation partout dans des valises ? Justement, ce contraste entre la détresse de la population et certaines décisions prises dans ce temps, dans l’attribution des marchés publics est profondément troublant. Ces situations mettent en lumière l’importance des amendements récents à la Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act. Grâce à la section 10A, la FIU peut désormais suspendre toute transaction suspecte et demander des informations supplémentaires, empêchant ainsi des flux financiers douteux de se concrétiser comme au temps du MSM et ce n’est pas fini. Mamy Ravatomanga, vous réalisez ? R 7,3 milliards ont été transférées sous le régime du MSM. R 7,3 milliards effectuées à différentes périodes qui soulèvent des interrogations majeures. Comment autant d’argent a pu atterrir sur des comptes ici à Maurice, sans qu’aucune institution ne voit rien. Aucun responsable ne voit, aucun Premier ministre qui est responsable suprême du pays ne voit rien ! Vous réalisez avec qui vous vous êtes assis ? Vous réalisez ? R 7,3 milliards…

(Interruptions)

Madame la présidente, vous voyez, je suis retourné un peu dans le passé. J’ai dû le faire simplement pour que la population réalise dans quelle priorité nous amenons ces amendements. La priorité est que nous faisons face à une menace et la menace est telle que nous devons mettre tout en pratique pour que les institutions fonctionnent, car sans des institutions fortes, crédibles, cohérentes, nous n’allons pas pouvoir faire avancer ce pays. Maurice, Madame la présidente, doit demeurer une juridiction respectée, fiable, exemplaire. A mon avis, c’est une question de souveraineté, c’est une question d’intégrité, c’est une question d’honneur nationale. Madame la présidente, sincèrement, je suis heureux de soutenir pleinement ce projet de loi. Merci.

Je vous remercie. Nous allons lever la séance pour une demie heure. At 4.49 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.42 p.m., with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

Please be seated! (5.43 p.m.) Mr A. Duval (Fourth Member for Port Louis North & Montagne Longue): Madame la présidente, j’interviens sur ce projet de loi dans un contexte très particulier, probablement historique parce que ce projet de loi suit la démission de l’ancien Deputy Prime Minister, l’honorable Paul Bérenger, qui a évoqué justement les raisons dont laquelle ce projet de loi est emmené aujourd’hui au Parlement comme une des défaillances du gouvernement qui l’a poussé donc vers la sortie. C’est dans ce contexte, un Deputy Prime Minister qui démissionne au coût de son parti et de ses camarades de parti et…

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: To content.

Mo krwar zis twa ki sagrin la. An hon. Member: Les li trankil !

(Interruptions)

Et donc…

(Interruptions)

Je n’ai pas bien suivi. Il a démissionné au coût ? Qu’est-ce que vous avez dit ?

Au coût probable de son parti et son amitié qui le lie à ses camarades de parti – voilà un qui arrive – de longue date. Et donc, un exercice très particulier.

(Interruptions)

Pas du tout ! Pas du tout ! Je m’explique, Madame la présidente. Donc, le Deputy Prime Minister quitte sa fonction, ses privilèges et bien sûr il quitte tout ce qu’il a acquis dans cette grande et large victoire ; victoire sans équivoque. An hon. Member: 60-0 !

De 60-0, exactement. 60-0, 19 députés au début et huit ministres. Il quitte tout cela, son poste de Deputy Prime Minister, son portefeuille. Il quitte tout cela et il…

May I stop you for a minute? I can understand your introduction.

Yes?

But I will not allow you to speak for so long on the issue of hon. Paul Bérenger.

Of course. I am getting to it.

Yes, please!

I am tying it…

Please…

Yes, no!

…get to the…

Absolutely, Madam Speaker.

Talk on the Bill! Talk on the Bill!

Absolutely, what I am saying, Madam Speaker, is that he has done that in the name of what? In the name of the fear of Mauritius being put on the FATF grey list. That is his reason amongst others. I put a question today to know the others, it has not come but that is one reason and that is the reason reported by international press, financial and business media outlets organisations, Reuters, Bloomberg, Business Day, Binance amongst many others. And what do they say? They say that he also mentioned the risk of Mauritius being placed on regional anti-money laundering grey list covering, southern and eastern, as one of his fer de lance for motivating his resignation, at the enormous cost that it turns out to be costing him. Yet, it would have been a historic day for him to put these very objections on Hansard today. And he is not here!

(Interruptions)

I hope that we will have the opportunity to hear because he owes it to the nation and to all those hundreds of thousands of people who voted for him, to know exactly…

You are still… I am sorry?

…his objections.

Will you sit down for a minute?

Yes.

Will you sit down?

Yes.

I am sorry, you are still on a political landslide. You are not talking about the Bill.

Madam Speaker, I have listened to hon. Patrick Assirvaden – you have too –, I have not once heard any section or any provision being referred to.

(Interruptions)

That being the case, Madam Speaker, I am moving on. My point has been made, and it is not a point against you, hon. Assirvaden. The point I am trying to make is…

It is against me!

…that we owe it to the nation…

It is against me!

Especially, when we have cited these as the main thrust of a resignation, to come and debate here in the House and explain. He went as far as to say that this Bill, although a step in the direction, is not nearly enough to combat corruption and money laundering in this country. So, I hope that he will enlighten us. That being said, Madam Speaker, this Bill – and that will be my main contention today – is nothing but a cosmetic arrangement to please the FATF. Why? Because the existing legal provisions under the many legislations – I will get to that –, the FCC Act, the FIAMLA, the FSC Act and under all the other legal provisions, which are being amended under this Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, already give adequate powers to law enforcement agencies and to reporting agencies. While they have those powers, not nearly enough is being done, either by this administration or previous administrations. I will get to it. What is the current legislative framework that we have? Let us look at the FCC Act, which is a part of this Bill. You will see, Madam Speaker, section 36, money laundering, that – “Any person who – “(a) engages in a transaction which involves property, [whether] in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, (…) represents the proceeds of a crime;” Then – “where he suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect that the property is derived or realised, in whole or in part or directly or indirectly, from any crime, shall commit an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding 20 million rupees and to penal servitude not exceeding 10 years.” That is section 36. Then, there is section 52, Obligations of legal persons, to be read with section 2. What is a legal person? It means any entity, including a private entity other than a natural person, therefore, other than a physical person. So, section 52, Obligations of legal persons, Madam Speaker – “(1) A legal person shall ensure that it has adequate procedures in place, which are reasonably necessary, to prevent it or any person acting on its behalf from committing an offence under this Part, failing which it shall commit an offence on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding 20 million rupees.” That is for the company. There is a subsection (2) to section 52 – “(2) The Commission, may, after consultation with the relevant supervisory authority, issue appropriate guidelines to a legal person on the adequate procedures which the legal person shall put in place (…).” I will come to it later. That is for the FCC to do. Then, there is section 53, Liability of legal persons – “(1) A legal person shall be guilty of an offence under this Part if any of its directors, senior managers or any other persons involved in its management, or any of its officers, agents or representatives having authority to act on its behalf, commits an offence under this Act for the benefit of the legal person.” Finally, there is section 56, which is being amended under this Act, Referrals to Commission, that is, to the Financial Crimes Commission – “(1) Notwithstanding any other enactment, where in the discharge of his functions – (j) any other person,” It applies to legal persons, then, that person – “has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence under this Act or the Declaration of Assets Act has been, or is being likely to be committed, he shall refer [that is, including that legal person] the matter to the Commission for investigation.” There is an offence provided under section 141, where you fail to comply. So, that is the existing legal framework that has existed since the coming into force of the FCC Act. Let us look at section 52 (2), where the Commission may come with guidelines. The Act imposes an obligation on any person to adhere to those guidelines. Yet, there is a discrepancy, which is very important to understand, in the application of this Act by the FCC. I will get to this, but first, I will say on record that I commend the FCC for the work it has been doing so far. I think that the FCC is doing a commendable work. It is regrettable that the Director is still operating in an interim capacity, under a 9-month contract, which is about to expire. I hope that the Prime Minister will see to it that this situation can no longer continue and that a full-fledged director ought to be appointed at the FCC. That being said, let me come to the guidelines, which the very same FCC, under that Director, has published. I will say, Madam Speaker, that these guidelines show that the FCC did not properly understand and implement its mandate under section 52 (2) – which I have previously read –, which imposes an obligation. The distinction between “shall” and “may” or “should” is a great one. Madam Speaker, the guidelines published by the FCC are guidelines which, again, guide legal persons, that is, all those private entities operating in various sectors in Mauritius, which deal with persons who may be dealing with illicit money, with proceeds of crimes. About the guidelines, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I was expecting the Minister to come and clarify this very essential aspect of enforcement, what the Anti-Money Laundering (Miscellaneous Provisions) aims. Let us not forget, it aims to improve the country’s efficiency in combatting criminality, including money laundering, and to put in place the necessary measures and safeguards to make it more difficult. Then, you would assume that the Minister would have realised the discrepancy between the guidelines, which use terms like “may”. Let me read for you to illustrate. Principle 2, for example, the Conduct of risk assessment, which is essential in ensuring that we can detect and that we can stop any illicit transaction by the legal entity. It says – “15. For the purposes of the assessment, the following, which are not limitative, may be considered:” These are the words chosen under the guidelines: “may be considered”. It gives different, very essential points, I must say, in its guidelines. For example – “(…) it is recommended that Legal Person conduct and document any risk assessment at such intervals which is appropriate for the sector in which the Legal Person operates and, when there is a change in law or circumstance in the business, to identify, analyse, assess, prioritize its internal and external Part III FCCA Offence risks.” – that is, Part III of the FCC Act. It also says, another example, that depending on the size of the organisation, the higher the risk, the bigger the size, then it ought to be proportionate to the extent to which you place resources and, of course, that you adhere to these measures. But the very problem of the guidelines, Madam Speaker, and this is what I am trying to illustrate, is that these guidelines are merely recommendations. It uses words like “may”: the company “may” adopt, the company “may” report, “the company may report” if it finds that there is a prête-nom, the company “may” report if he thinks that there is the use or financing of drug money. It “may” do that. That is the FCC saying that. And the law says “it shall”, “the company shall”. The Commission may after consultation the relevant supervisory authority issue appropriate guidelines to a legal person which the legal person “shall” put in place. So, there is a huge problem, firstly, with what the FCC is doing as per its mandate, a clear mandate, and how it is discharging it, implementing it. That is the first issue that I would have hoped, would have been addressed under this Miscellaneous Provisions. I will illustrate the point. I said that the FCC is doing a tremendous work. I stand by it. We have all seen in the recent days and the recent weeks and the recent months, since this Government has been in power, even before, the constant comings and goings. Comings for that matter, not goings because Government had a good idea to dispose of proceeds of crimes which are being suspected pending trial. I support that as well. But the comings of vehicles in the hundred’s: boats, vehicles, motorcycles, luxury items. We are talking of luxury vehicles that cost more than a house. The public has seen, very recently, cars being bought at dealerships by one person, totalling Rs50-60 million for one person. Young persons with no professional background – funds channelling from the USA, coming to Mauritius. You said it, the hon. Minister did say that it is becoming more and more sophisticated. True, it is, and this is why you need to adapt yourself to the changing framework of how money laundering is being now used to circumvent the existing framework. But what do we see, Madam Speaker? We see people going to a car dealership, buying 100 cars, Madam Speaker, – 100 cars! – in one transaction. We see cars in the millions being bought by people of dubious character, some with criminal records.

Kisanla ti dan puvwar?

(Interruptions)

We see… la pe koz ene zafer 2025 la, twa ki ti dan puvwar ! Pe koz 2025. 3 loto 50 milion 2025, publik pe guete !

Kan ti aster?

(Interruptions)

2025 zisteman mo pe dir twa, avan mont tax ! People have seen it and, look, I am not criticising this Government. I am trying to get to the crooks of the matter, myself. I am trying to give you my take on what I think should be done to better the system. There clearly is an abuse of the system, Madam Speaker. Clearly! We are chasing the dog’s tail and not tackling the problem head-on. What are we doing? We are looking at money laundering, the assets that it has been converted into. But what about the money that has been laundered? The Rs50 million, when it went into the car dealership. Isn’t that laundered money? Should we not apply these various provisions that I have spoken about to go into the crooks of the matter? If we want to make an example for FATF, if we want to convince FATF that we are not simply swallowing what they are giving us, we are going over and above, looking at the Mauritian context, understanding the problem, realising that we have an issue and addressing that issue, then we are doomed, Madam Speaker, and the Deputy Prime Minister, démissionnaire aurait eu raison, finalement, if we are not doing it. What I am saying, Madam Speaker, is very simple and I hope the hon. Minister takes it on board. It is about time that car dealers who deal in the millions, who have no reporting duty under the FIAMLA, no reporting duty. Although I have stated the reporting duty under the FCC, it has never been applied. I had a question today coming in Parliament, I can already give you the answer. Zero prosecutions have been laid under the various provisions that I have cited. Zero prosecutions to any of those persons in this industry, zero! That is the truth! Therefore, what I was saying, Madam Speaker, we need to rethink the system. Car dealers have to have a mandatory reporting requirement under FIAMLA like a real estate agent does. How does it make sense that the real estate agent who is leasing a home for Rs5,000, have to go for KYC, have to look at the source of wealth, have to look at all of these issues, but someone who is selling a car for Rs20 million, doesn’t? How does that make sense? And, we all know that the car industry is one which is the most flourishing, regardless of the measures. Madam Speaker, yes, the second issue is car leasing. I have listened attentively to the Minister’s reply. Madam Speaker, for car leasing, it is clear that, in fact, it was highlighted in the ESAAMLG Mutual Evaluation Report of July 2018, you could see there was a problem. For the last five years of that evaluation, there had been only three reports made by leasing companies of suspicious transactions, for the whole of five years. Today, the hon. Minister has answered that for since 2020, the 9 domestic leasing companies, there has been only one investigation for serious deficiency. But we all know that all these cars are being financed by leasing companies. We all know as well that the reporting duty of leasing companies is and has to be reviewed. How can a company who is involved in a cleaning service, which owns three or four Toyota 4x4s, worth Rs3 million, have total assets of Rs10 million, have a sudden inflation of its revenues in the last five-six months, now, goes and subscribes to a leasing to buy a luxury vehicles worth Rs50 million which have no connection to its business and it does not fit any essential purpose for its business? How can that person not be made to report that transaction? How? Madam Speaker, I am pressed by time, I will finish on car rental companies. I hope the hon. Minister will take that on board. The latest investigation the FCC has shown. Car rental companies, 300 cars being owned by people who are suspected to be involved in money laundering and drug transactions. Is it not time for a major review of car rental industry together with the FIU, the MRA, the FCC and all the other investigative and monitoring bodies so that we have an overall and a real audit and get an idea of the real situation? Madam Speaker, I will finish, since I have, unfortunately, to conclude, by saying this – I said that the situation, unfortunately, shows the failure of this administration and previous administrations in dealing with the real issue. We have seen, Madam Speaker, that there have been persons who have taken advantage of the system, of the red-carpet treatment that has been offered in the past to invest massively in our economy. Who does not remember Álvaro Sobrinho? Who does not remember Mamy Ravatomanga?

(Interruptions)

And, we have to agree, Madam Speaker, that there is no difference between the two. Both are billionaires, both are politically exposed persons, both have been accused of embezzlement of public funds in their respective countries. Both have been given red carpet treatment.

Both MSM!

Both! It doesn’t matter who it is…

(Interruptions)

You have to realise…

It matters…

(Interruptions)

Look! Look! I was not going into that. I was not going to go into that but hon. Assirvaden said something earlier. He maybe did not realise that this has been going on for at least three administrations. Now, I will tell you something. Both invested in multi-million if not billion rupees in the property sector, the financial services sector, the banking sector. Both have been subjected to investigation by international bodies and both have tarnished our financial services sector in Mauritius and our reputation. And, both were not fit and proper and that ought to have been known whether it is now for Mr Ravatomanga or previously for Mr Sobrinho. But the question is – what is the Government willing to do about it? I asked a question to the hon. Prime Minister last time; I understand his reply. He cannot divulge the names of banks and the management companies and the property developers because there is an ongoing investigation. I respect that but yet the question begs to be asked – What is the government really willing to do about it? Is it willing to go into the depth of it? Is it willing to go and take exemplary measures against all those companies, top 100 companies?

You will see, this year itself.

I hope and I will hold you to it because I am talking with sincerity here. Top 100 companies that have been involved, that have facilitated and that ought to be taken to task under the existing framework. To conclude, Madam Speaker, we do not need 60 pages of laws. I did not have the time to come to the others. We do not need 60 pages of amendments that do absolutely nothing but cosmetic changes to please the FATF. What we need is what I have said, I have touched on the issues; I have scratched the surface – is to be prepared to go where it matters. What I am going to say, Madam Speaker, just to finish on that, I have seen the Courts (Amendment) Act. The FCC is doing a tremendous job; it is looking for about 30% increase in its budget. I hope that the courts be given 30% of their budget as well because the impositions or the constraints that are being done under the courts, under this Miscellaneous Provision Act, to work a un pas fou et impossible given the constraints of materials and staff. And, the fact that they have only two courts that have to be shared by the FCD. Then, I hope, at the minimum, that we give 30% increase to the court in the upcoming budget if we want to walk the talk and we want to speed up financial crimes in Mauritius to the court and I will see that the government does so, and I will do that again in my budget speech and I hope that you will allow me again more time. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much. Hon. Damry. Let us try and keep our time. I am trying to keep the time. (6.09 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Finance (Mr D. Damry): Madam Speaker, allow me to set the record straight after the fiction of a narrative exposed by hon. A. Duval. Let me lay down the historical context for this Bill. In 2017, ESAAMLG conducted the mutual evaluation exercise for Mauritius and adopted the report in July 2018. Starting from October 2018, Mauritius was placed under an observation period of one year with the obligation to implement 58 recommended actions. In November 2019, Mauritius submitted the post observation report and enacted amendments to the AML-CFT-CPF Bill. Notwithstanding the above, in 2020 – cry my beloved country. FATF determined that the strategic deficiencies outweighed the reforms and placed Mauritius in the grey list. Subsequently, Mauritius was placed on the EU and UK blacklist. However, in 2021, FATF determined that Mauritius substantially implemented its action plan including amendments to its AML-CFT-CPF legislation and removed Mauritius from its grey list. Likewise, Mauritius exited the EU and UK blacklist in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Then, the shit hit the fan. All hell broke loose. Whereas between 2022 and 2024, the authorities were expected to initiate or complete 25 measurable enforcement and effectiveness actions, they failed to implement any single action. As a responsible government, we initiated or completed all the 25 actions between November 2024 and now. 7 actions in 2025, 7 actions to date in 2026, 11 forthcoming actions in 2026 itself. Hon. A. Duval mentioned that this is a stand-alone Bill. Madam Speaker, this is not a stand-alone Bill. The Bill is part of 25 actions. These actions are so important to our nation, local and international industry stakeholders and FATF observers, that with your permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to list them, underscoring our strongest political commitment. It is a bit technical but in the interest of international FATF observers, I would like to give the headline 25 actions. It will be quick. The seven actions in 2025 – 1. Publication of the 2nd National Risk Assessment Report; 2. Completion of the national strategy on AML-CFT and national action plan; 3. Development of a comprehensive roadmap for the 2027 Mutual Evaluation; 4. Setting up of the Interministerial Committee on AML-CFT- CPF for the preparation of the 2027 Mutual Evaluation; 5. The registrar of cooperatives to start AML-CFT supervision of credit unions; 6. Designation of 3 persons based on the United Nations (Financial Prohibitions Arms Embargo and Travel Ban) Sanctions 2019; 7. Reactivation of the Technical Assistance Coordination Committee for support from development partners. The seven actions in 2026 in process – 1. Promulgation of regulations and administrative penalties to sanction noncompliance with AML-CFT; 2. Completion of the midterm mock evaluation; 3. Constitution of a mutual evaluation team; 4. Establishment of a joint public committee on AML-CFT-CPF; I can go on but it is going to be long. The reason I am saying that is because this is what was supposed to be done by the precedent government but they did not do it. We picked up the pieces and we have implemented it. Madam Speaker, it is with a lot of surprise that as a non-practicing barrister, I can relate to the crux of this Bill and I will submit that hon. A. Duval has completely missed the crux of this Bill. Hon. A. Duval referred to a Mock Evaluation Report in 2018 but he failed to mentioned the Mock Evaluation Report of 2025, and in that report, 11 immediate outcomes to remedy deficiencies in the existing legislations were found. This is precisely why this Bill is being brought to remedy the deficiencies that the Mock Evaluation Report of 2025 has found, to remedy the deficiencies in terms of effectiveness, in all the legal frameworks that have been listed by hon. A. Duval. Madam Speaker, we were all shocked by the reply of the hon. Prime Minister to the PQ on Silver Bank this morning. The scale of institutional conspiracy to defraud our country is incredulous. I was even more shocked by the list of endless scandals raised by hon. Assirvaden in this same House, earlier today. This begs the question – What could have been the motive for zero action between 2022 and 2024? Could it be to cover up Silver Bank like Money Heist at the expense of livelihoods depending on our financial industry? What could be the motive for covering up or harbouring criminal networks that launder illicit funds through assets, as raised by hon. A. Duval. He referred to property and to motor vehicles. Had the previous government completed the 25 actions, had the previous government completed the national risk assessment that they were supposed to complete in 2022, they could have identified the different assets that are used to launder illicit funds. But they did not do so! In fact, the mock evaluation report for both 2018 and 2025 identified what, we call, domestic non-financial businesses as a weakness. This forms part of it. Criminal networks are very dynamic. They try to outwit/outsmart a system. They try to find loopholes in the laws. This is exactly what they were doing with the precedent legislations. This is the deficiencies in the laws that this Bill is remedying. This Bill will close the loopholes that will allow these criminals to launder their funds. Madam Speaker, between November 2024 and as at date, over 300 vehicles valued in excess of Rs218 million have been seized. Car leasing companies are under investigation. The FCC is investigating 400 hundred cases of value Rs30 billion and contrast that with 800 cases of value Rs2 billion between November 2019 and November 2024. On the topic of cars, unfortunately, in the interest of time, I will not be able to cite these cases, but I would like to refer the House to two cases in Singapore. One is the 2.8 billion luxury vehicles scandal and the second one is the SRS Auto Investigation in 2025. Even a jurisdiction like Singapore only started combatting money laundering with regard to cars as from the late 2020s. The 2.8 billion luxury vehicle scandal – this case, in my humble opinion, is a jurisprudence for effectiveness because intelligence, investigations, prosecution and asset recovery were completed in two years, Madam Speaker. Compare that with the time taken in our jurisdiction. Let me reassure the House that our intelligence and enforcement agencies have been working tirelessly in tracking high value assets that have been paid for by illicit cash. Madam Speaker, my contention is that, this Bill provides for effectiveness enabled by a risk-based supervisory framework around the four key elements of the AML/CFT/CPF value chain – • Intelligence; • Investigation; • Prosecution, and • Asset recovery. Other speakers have sufficiently canvassed the technical details. So, in the interest of time, I cannot list each amendment, but I will give you an example. For instance, the change, the proposed amendment to the beneficial ownership goes deep because it is not only about know your customer. It is also about know your business, which is a small change, but it has giant implications. What hon. A. Duval was referring to, car leasing companies being used for money laundering, etc., you will be able to do that when you start tackling ‘know your business.’ When you have cases like Prateek Gupta & co coming to Mauritius through the veil of multiple legal entities through know your business, you will be able to track whether these businesses actually do what they actually mean to do. Now, with the advance in technology, a business can be safe. Let us say, the business is in online entertainment, but when you go deep behind the business, it could be used for arms trafficking or drug dealing. So, this is one example of how this Bill brings effectiveness in combatting money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. I have lot to say, but I do not have much time. So, I would like to respond to what hon. A. Duval said: ‘What is the Government willing to do?’ Under the previous government, criminal networks outwitted and outsmarted authorities in this financial jungle that we live in. Allow me to send a stern warning to those criminals. We will hunt them down because this is not their jungle, this is our jungle! And to drill down the point, let me take you to a real jungle and tell you the story of the lion and the deer.

Yes!

How many of you know that the maximum speed of a deer over a long distance 60 mph, but the maximum speed of a lion over a long distance is only 40 mph. Yet, the lion hunts deer all the time. What is the reason? An hon. Member: You are the deer!

A lion prepares.

Chut! Chut!

A lion prepares; a lion is patient; a lion strategizes; a lion develops tactics. When the time is right, the lion accelerates to a maximum speed of 80 mph and hunts the deer. An hon. Member: Be deer la lamem!

Madam Speaker, enough of stag parties! We are the lions of this jungle and we will nail down the criminals. The hon. Prime Minister has a track record. My word is my bond. I commend this Bill to the House. Long live Mauritius! Thank you.

Thank you, hon. Minister for respecting the time. Yes, hon. Parapen! (6.24 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Minister of Social Integration, Social Security, and National Solidarity (Mr K. Parapen): Madam Speaker, history can be ironic at times. During colonial times, empires acted as bandits and plundered many economies. The aim was quite simple: to exploit the world’s resources to fund the expansion of empires. In this scheme of things, the colony was merely an extractor of wealth at the service of the almighty colonial master. So, it is definitely not a coincidence that major revolts in the colonies be it the Boston Tea Party of December 16, 1773, or even Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March of 1930, all had to do with taxation. After all, taxation is the lifeblood of organised societies. Who gets taxed and by how much one gets taxed is often a reflection of how societies organise and in whose interest it is working. Under colonial rule, the colonies faced many taxes as the aim was to repatriate as much as possible to the heart of the empire. Who would have thought, then, that many of the same colonies who were victims of colonialism would shake the very foundation of these former empires many years later by running light fiscal regimes. History can indeed be ironic at times. As the biggest and most powerful economies of the world witnessed the significant movement of financial flows from their own network toward the network of countries which optimise tax avoidance, the so-called race to the bottom – they had to react and react, they did. Mauritius is not a member of the FATF, has never been and probably never will be but, yet, here it is – Mauritius, that is, modifying an array of enactments ahead of the 2027 evaluation by FATF. The FATF was set up in 1989 by G7 countries and, to date, it has 40 members, only 40. Primarily, the largest economies of the world. The FATF is one of the ways that the developed world has devised to influence policy-making in other jurisdictions especially those willing to engage in the race to the bottom. Its Grey List is a powerful tool that can convince even the most reluctant of regimes into action. The previous MSM regime could testify. The inclusion of the concept of ecocide in Environment Act is concrete proof that the FATF, and by extension, the developed world, is exercising major influence on the rest of the world. As a political activist with Rezistans ek Alternativ, I have been involved over the last 15 years in numerous grassroots struggles involving environmental causes, most notably, an ongoing legal battle against New Mauritius Hotels which started in 2018 where my two-party comrades, David Sauvage and Stephan Gua, along with them, we have been fighting in the courts for the preservation of wetlands of critical importance at Les Salines, Rivière Noire. Not to forget my involvement in the “Say No to Coal”, fighting the construction of CT Power on the shores of Montagne Jacquot near Pointe aux Sables, years before I would eventually become a representative of Constituency No.1. I have also been actively involved in the “Aret Kokin Nu Laplaz” movement against the beach grabbing at Pomponette which culminated with the re-proclamation of a Pomponette beach as a public beach following the Alliance du changement historic win in November 2024. Throughout these years of activism, I have been a prime witness of lacklustre effort of Mauritian policymakers in addressing the environmental challenges of our time. There is so much to be done to protect our environment from looters and destroyers. As a matter of fact, the inclusion of nature’s rights in our Constitution is one of the main demands of Rezistans ek Alternativ prior to joining the Alliance du changement as we recognise the urgency to protect our fragilised natural environment in the epoque of Anthropocene. It will, therefore, not come as a surprise to you, Madam Speaker, that my party, Rezistans ek Alternativ, is enthused by the amendment to the Environment Act being proposed in this Bill. The inclusion of ecocide as a crime in our laws will go a long way toward safeguarding our environment, keeping it safe from predators. However, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition was referring to my political party when he alluded that the amendment to the Environment Act was made to please, as he said, a member of the Alliance du changement, then I think that he is misinformed. As much as Rezistans ek Alternativ welcomes this timely addition of ecocide in the Environment Act, this is being done in the context of improving the country’s efficiency in combating criminality. This is being done with the Financial Action Task Force breathing down our neck. In cruder terms, the criminalisation of such destructive human behaviour in our Environmental Law is the doing of international capitalism. This marks an alignment with a strategy shift of the FATF which started in 2012, that is treating environmental destruction not just as a regulatory breach but as a predicate offence for money laundering. It is estimated that environmental crimes generate between US$110 billion and US$281 billion annually making it the world’s fourth-largest criminal activity. Such a strategy shift did not, however, fall from the sky; it represents the courageous, relentless and principled stance taken by progressive movements across the globe over the years with NGOs like Global Witness and Tax Justice Network being leading, prominent examples. These organisations have since long denounced the exploitation of resources of the Global South by the Global North, be it corporates or criminal syndicates that have pushed for stricter environmental laws in the Global South to neutralise them. Allow me, today, to pay tribute to all the progressive climate and environmental activists around the world for their unflinching determination to preserve mankind’s greatest asset: Planet Earth. The growing influence of international capitalism on the affairs of Mauritius is evident, and it is worth pondering at whose expense is this happening. Is it happening at the expense of the country’s historical, local oligarchy. One thing is clear though, with the introduction of the ecocide in the Environment Act, the FAFT has managed a feat which the historical local bourgeoisie will never have sanctioned. Can this be termed as progress? In reality, two international institutions, emanating from international capitalism namely, the Financial Action Task Force and Moody's, the rating agency, have seemingly coerced Mauritius into addressing long-standing issues which local institutions have repetitively failed to address, that is, improve legislations to combat criminality linked to money laundering and deep structural economic reforms, respectively, failing which the country will likely be sanctioned either by a grey-listing in the case of the FAFT or a downgrading to Junk Status in the case of Moody’s. Why is it, then, that we respond to international institutions in such a strikingly different way? Could it be that the offshore sector is progressively becoming the main pillar of our economy, and, as such, we are obliged to comply to such requirements that will keep the offshore sector thriving because as much as we are appreciative of the ecological legislative progress, Madam Speaker, we remain wary of the ramification of an ultra- dominant offshore sector. With your permission, Madam Speaker, allow me to table this article from the newspaper ‘The Atlantic’, published on 28 July 2016 and the title of which reads ‘Why tax heavens are political and economic disasters’, written by Mrs Brooke Harrington, a Dartmouth College Economic Sociology Professor and a PHD holder from Harvard University. It provides ample evidence of numerous countries which sought prosperity through lax business and tax regulations which eventually made them and their respective population worse off. This article has had a profound influence on my understanding of offshore centres and I sincerely hope that many will consult the article tabled to catch a glimpse of the often-untold reality of offshore centres. The offer goes as far as evoking a finance curse, a paradox of plenty similar to the resource curse suffered by many African countries, whereby the plentiful availability of a resource does not, unfortunately, improve the living conditions of the masses as one would come to expect. It is often said in business quarters or even on mainstream platforms that the offshore sector is the biggest tax contributor in Mauritius. That is not true. The main contributor to taxes in Mauritius is the population which has, since the advent of the light fiscal regime, associated with the offshore sector, shouldered a disproportionately large tax burden, mainly through value added taxes and other indirect taxes. In his first budget, the hon. Prime Minister and Minister of Finance unveiled a new fiscal strategy, whereby the population would not shoulder a disproportionate fiscal burden. Instead, additional direct taxes were introduced, mainly through fair share contributions, so as to rebalance the fiscal effort between direct and indirect taxes. Should the offshore sector evolve into a dominant pillar of the economy, it is only fair that Government taxes further the wealth that the industry generates, be it through the profitability it generates for locally based companies or through the income of its employees; failing which, it is very likely that Mauritius will endure the same feat as numerous tropical Caribbean countries, that is, state capture by the wealthiest and let us face it, they are not the most ethical beings on the planet. Back in 2017, my electoral campaign at the by-elections of Quatre Bornes would focus exclusively on the risk of gentrification for the Mauritian society. Nearly 10 years later, there can be no debate that our society is in a full-blown gentrification process; soaring property prices amidst a mushrooming of gated communities, exodus of the youth and often the most educated of them and an ever-increasing cost of living for the average Mauritian. Over this time, the offshore sector has thrived, this is a reality we cannot depart from. The critical question we need to ask is whether the offshore sector has been a boon or a curse for our society. By our society, I mean the average Mauritian who earns less than Rs25,000 monthly and who can barely make ends meet. Has he benefitted from the billions of dollars which have transited through our economy over the years? If the answer is no, then we need to go back to the drawing board, Madam Speaker. What can we do as policy makers to ensure that the country as a whole benefit from the offshore sector? After all, economic growth is more tangible when it is served on a plate rather than through pompous speeches. Madam Speaker, I also want to discuss an amendment being brought to the Declaration of Assets Act in section 10(3) where a new subsection is being added and I quote – “(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where a person fails to submit a declaration within the specified period and thereafter, makes a voluntary declaration, he shall not be liable to any penalty, provided that he is not the subject matter of an investigation under this Act.” I believe such an amendment is contrary to the spirit in which the Bill is being presented. To put it blandly, if there is no cost for being late, then there is no incentive to be on time. Allow me to share my personal experience. Back in June 2025, I sold a property to adjust to my new financial reality of being an MP. However, it was not until November 2025 that I notified the FCC of the sale of a property. I had mistakenly assumed that only acquisition of assets should be disclosed to the FCC. My mistake, I fully accept it. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, so I had to fork out Rs25,000 to settle the fine imposable as per the Declaration of Assets Act.

Maybe everybody is hearing this. So, nobody else will do that.

I have now learned my lesson, an expensive lesson be it and you can be sure that if there is a next time, I will comply with the law within the 30 days provided. However, if this amendment in this Bill goes through, I would not have been liable to any fine as long as I voluntarily declare the disposal of the asset to the FCC with no time bar. With the new provision, I could potentially acquire an asset in year 1 of the mandate, dispose of it in year 4 of the mandate, pocket some non-taxable capital gains in the meantime and not notify the FCC at all without incurring any fine whatsoever. This is clearly not right and I have raised the issue with both the Minister of Financial Services and the Attorney General and I am comforted that they will both look into the matter and consider bringing appropriate amendments at committee stage. So, to conclude, Madam Speaker, the Bill in front of the House today once voted, will definitely bolster the arsenal of laws aimed at combatting criminality and the Minister of Financial Services needs to be given the credit she deserves for presenting such a comprehensive piece of legislation. But in reality, the main issue of our offshore sector is not so much in the laws that govern it but rather in the effectiveness of the implementation of these laws. Madam Speaker, having witnessed le branle-bas général ahead of the evaluation by the FATF in early 2027, the cynical part in me cannot but ask the following question; what if our public institutions were under perpetual evaluation? Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hon. Seeburn! (6.44 p.m.) Mr M. Seeburn (Second Member for Vieux Grand Port & Rose Belle): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today to express my strong support for the proposed legislation on Anti-Money Laundering, Combating the Financing of Terrorism and Countering Proliferation Financing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill introduced by the hon. Minister of Finances and Economic Planning. The Bill is a comprehensive framework designed to strengthen Mauritius’ financial integrity, align our laws with international standards and ensure that our economy remains transparent, resilient and well regulated. Madam Speaker, Mauritius has over decades carefully built its reputation as a credible, stable and well-regulated international financial centre. That reputation did not come by chance. It is the result of deliberate policy choices, institutional strengthening and continuous engagement with the global financial system. However, in today’s world, reputation is not static. It must be constantly protected, reinforced and renewed. This is precisely what this Bill seeks to achieve. It introduces amendments to various laws to cover the full spectrum of financial institutions, corporates, non-profit organisations and public sector to improve the efficiency of Mauritius in combating criminality, money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. Madam Speaker, we operate in a global financial environment where transparency, accountability and compliance are fundamental requirements. As a responsible jurisdiction, Mauritius must align itself with the standards set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). For the first time, I heard, Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, at the very outset of his speech, stating that this Bill is necessary. He further stated that Mauritius was placed on the grey list in February 2020 when the previous government was in power, but did not comment further on the real consequences of this downgrading. This is what happened, Madam Speaker. In fact, the previous government and the Minister of Financial Services had failed to take the necessary steps on time, which led Mauritius to be placed on the grey list in February 2020 by the Financial Action Task Force. Mauritius was then placed under increased monitoring. This enormously affected the investors’ confidence. It further affected the reputation of Mauritius as a credible financial centre, which further led to strictest scrutiny from international partners. Furthermore, actions taken by the European Union demonstrated that reputational risks had translated directly into economic risks, affecting investment flows, increasing the cost of doing business and placing pressure on the financial institutions. Madam Speaker, the Bill responds to the past shortcomings. It strengthens supervisory powers. It improves information sharing and ensures that our institutions are better equipped to detect, investigate and act against illicit financial activities. In summary, Madam Speaker, clause 2 to clause 8 of the Bill lay down the foundation of a robust and uncompromising framework to combat money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. They decisively strengthen the powers of the Bank of Mauritius and impose strict obligations on our banks, companies, cooperatives to uphold transparency, conduct proper due diligence and report suspicious transactions without delay. At the same time, the Bill reinforces the authority of our courts to act swiftly, including freezing illicit assets, enhance accountability through stricter assets declaration requirement for public officials and extend vigilance to environmental activities, highlighting the offence of ecocide – as emphasised by hon. Parapen earlier to environmental activities – to ensure that criminal elements cannot exploit our natural resources for illicit gains. These provisions send a clear and unequivocal message: that Mauritius will not tolerate abuse of its financial and institutional system. Clause 9 of the Bill brings clarity, coherence and effectiveness to an institution that is already central to our financial crime framework. In a world where illicit financial flows are increasingly sophisticated and transnational, it would be irresponsible for this House to leave gaps, overlaps or uncertainty in the mandate of the Financial Crimes Commission. Clause 9 ensures that our enforcement architecture is properly coordinated and capable of meeting both domestic expectations and international obligations. Clause 10 of the Bill introduces important amendments to the Financial Intelligence Unit and Anti-Money Laundering Act, reinforcing the preventive and reporting framework that underpins our fight against financial crimes. By enhancing obligations, clarifying compliance mechanisms and strengthening the role of reporting entities and supervisory bodies, this provision ensures that suspicious financial activities are more effectively identified, reported and acted upon. This is a necessary step to ensure that our legislative framework remains robust, responsive and fully aligned with evolving international standards. Madam Speaker, in summary, clause 11 to clause 24 of the Bill seem to be closing gaps by strengthening enforcement and extending oversight across every key sector of our economy. In general, it empowers our enforcement and intelligence agencies to detect, investigate and act decisively against financial crimes while tightening reporting standards and governance requirements for financial institutions, foundations and higher risk sectors such as gambling real estate sectors. These provisions further enhance transparency in taxation payment systems for companies, for trusts and associations, and fully ensure full disclosure of beneficial ownership and enable the effective implementation of international sanctions. Taken together, these measures are not merely technical amendments. Madam Speaker, they are a stronger statement of intent that Mauritius will remain a transparent, credible and fully compliant international financial centre, where integrity is protected and where illicit activity has no place. What becomes clear is that this Government is taking concrete and decisive action where it truly matters. The strengthening of beneficial ownership transparency will put an end to the abuse of opaque corporate structures by those who seek to hide behind anonymity. The enhanced reporting obligations will ensure that suspicious activities are flagged earlier and dealt with more effectively. At the same time, the Bill gives greater teeth to our regulatory and enforcement authorities, enabling them to act firmly against those who attempt to undermine our financial system. Madam Speaker, this Bill is fundamentally about safeguarding the future of Mauritius as a jurisdiction, integrated into the global financial system. By strengthening our legal framework, we are sending a clear signal that Mauritius is a clean, transparent and has resilient financial centres. This will enhance investors’ confidence, secure our access to international banking system and support sustainable economic growth. This is not a merely legislative exercise, but also, a strategic investment in the long-term stability and prosperity of our country. We must continuously align with the standards of the Financial Action Task Force to preserve our credibility and competitiveness. Failure to do so will expose our country to reputational damage, reducing investors’ confidence and potential economic consequences, as seen in the past with actions being taken by bodies such as the European Union and the Financial Action Task Force. The classical example is what happened with the operation of Silver Bank in Mauritius, as stated by the Prime Minister earlier. It is now clear that stricter regulation is necessary to prevent future crisis. This Bill is about ensuring that honest businesses are protected while those who are engaging in illicit activities find no place in Mauritius. These provisions send a strong message that this Government will not tolerate financial crimes as we are fully committed to protecting the integrity, credibility and future of our economy. By strengthening our laws, we are not only complying with the international standards, but also, protecting our society, our institutions and our future. It is also important to situate this Bill, Madam Speaker, within the broader international context. When we examine leading jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, we find the continuous strengthening of legal and regulatory framework to combat money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation risks. In the United Kingdom, for instance, there has been a strong emphasis on beneficial ownership, transparency and the tightening of corporate accountability through reforms to company registers and enforcement mechanism. In the United States, authorities have significantly enhanced oversight through measures such as stricter reporting requirements and expanded powers to tract illicit financial flows, particularly under anti-money laundering reforms. Similarly, Madam Speaker, Australia has moved towards reinforcing its regulatory regime, including closer supervision of reporting entities and expanding the scope of regulatory net and enhancing supervision across various sectors. Madam Speaker, the lesson is simple. Even the most advanced economies in the world are constantly evolving to address new and emerging risks. The French President, Emmanuel Macron, had constantly advocated for deeper European Union financial integration and stronger oversight with the legislation. Christine Lagarde, the President of the European Central Bank, one of the most influential leaders, strongly supports regulations and further encourages balancing stability with innovation. Mauritius must do the same and this Bill ensures that we do not lag behind but rather, remain aligned with global best practices. This legislation is also about sending a strong and unambiguous signal to the international community. It says that Mauritius is committed to transparency, accountability and is committed to maintaining the highest standard of financial integrity. This Government has chosen to position Mauritius as a forward looking responsible and resilient jurisdiction. This legislation strengthens our legal architecture. It reinforces our credibility on the international stage and further secures the foundations for a sustainable economic growth. Before I conclude, Madam Speaker, allow me to express my sincere thanks to the hon. Minister and the State Law Office for coming forward with this progressive piece of legislation, and, also, to thank all those who have spoken before me in support of this proposed legislation. This Bill is not just about compliance and regulation; it is about the future of Mauritius. It is to ensure that our country continues to thrive in a highly competitive global environment. In a world of uncertainty, one thing must remain certain that Mauritius stands for integrity, credibility and excellence. We choose integrity. We choose credibility. We choose progress. With these words, Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Thank you so much. Hon. Narsinghen! (6.57 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade (Mr H. Narsinghen): Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor. Looking at the body language of the iron lady, I understood that I cannot be too long. I have fully understood. Therefore, …

You see an iron lady somewhere?

Where is she?

The Whip! So, I don’t want to be whipped! So, Madam Speaker, normally as an ex-academic, I usually give a plan, so I will start with a plan. So, I will give a short rebuttal to the hon. Leader of the Opposition and to my good friend the hon. A. Duval, and then, subsequently, I will come to the rationale behind the amendments, and also try to explain the distinction between financial stability as opposed to financial integrity because my intention, here, Madam Speaker, I know we have got seven- eight lawyers in the House, a number of economists, a number of accountants. So, my intervention is not to explain to these learned friends but to the population. Then I would like to comment on international organisations and in my rebuttal, I will not rebut one of my colleagues from Government but I would beg to differ on certain comments made on FATF and the ESAAMLG and also comments made that Mauritius should not exploit African countries. On the contrary, we have developed a strategy, the hon. Prime Minister, the ex- Deputy Prime Minister, my colleague Mr Ramful and myself, we have been going to Africa, to explain to all the stakeholders, many countries that they have to use Mauritius as a platform to invest in Africa and be equitable to our African brothers and sisters. So, it is important to understand, in spite of the fact that we can be critical towards international organisations, FATF, and even the World Bank and IMF, we have to understand that we are a small jurisdiction, so we have to be careful. Also, I would like to bring some comparative perspectives and then go on some technical points if I have time. Now, normally I don’t crack jokes but since I know all of you are tired, I listened carefully to our good friend hon A. Duval, I don’t know if he still remembers zoli mamzel. Do you remember the story of zoli mamzel? He was referring to cosmetic amendments. If you look at the Bill, Madam Speaker, it contains 69 pages – not 6! It is harping on more than 20 different legislations. Just like hon. Patrick Assirvaden, normally, I don’t like to easily congratulate people but I have to confess that the team, not only the Minister, her team and herself has done a very good job. Now, coming to the second point raised by hon. A. Duval – he mentioned about guidelines. I think we have to make a clear distinction between what is hard law, Madam Speaker, as opposed to guidelines. Guidelines, normally, should be couched in a language where you are using best endeavour standards and there is no need to use words like ‘shall’, you may use ‘may’ because these are guidelines and guidelines are meant to be guidelines. Now, coming to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I listened to him, I was expecting more solid and constructive contribution. Unfortunately, I could not really hear some serious criticisms. Normally, we give, Madam Speaker, seven days for people to reflect unless there is a Certificate of Urgency and it is sad to note that the Leader of the Opposition failed to understand the logic of including ecocide in the Bill. Ecocide is related to money laundering and even in sophisticated economies, waste management companies use their companies as a conduit for money laundering. Secondly, I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition has failed to understand that a delicate balance has to be struck between promoting a sound global business sector whereby we have to attract capital and investment versus combating money laundering. It is easy to talk but not easy to strike that balance. So, certainly, the Bill is not perfect but I think the right balance has been struck. I can understand, I, myself, could have levelled certain criticisms but we have to understand that a sort of delicate balance has to be struck. I think that the hon. Minister is taking a sort of incremental approach. Now, let me come to a very important point which has to be driven. It is of paramount importance, Madam Speaker, to preserve the integrity of the financial services. It is the financial integrity, not only at the international level, but also at the national level. At the same time, Mauritius has to be fully compliant with international standards set by international organisations, be it the World Bank, the IMF, and, above all, the Financial Action Task Force, and the Eastern and Southern African Anti-Money Laundering Group – this is a regional organisation. The financial system, Madam Speaker, in Mauritius, cannot act in isolation, it has to pay heed to other financial systems, be it at regional level and also at the international level. If mismanaged, you will see, it will contaminate the whole global financial system and it will have far reaching effects and rippling effects. To have a comprehensive understanding, it will be also apposite to understand a few concepts. Like also financial stability and financial stability is of utmost importance for Mauritius. Now, coming to the international organisation, which one of my colleagues from Government criticised, it is important to understand that, yes, we may level certain criticisms against these organisations but as a small jurisdiction, – don’t forget, we are a small dot in the Indian Ocean – we cannot afford to disregard inter-governmental organisations be it the FATF or IMF or the World Bank or the Eastern and Southern African Anti-Money Laundering Group. So, we have to accept the international standards which have been imposed by the FATF and, Madam Speaker, we certainly cannot ignore these standards. Madam Speaker, Mauritius is not US, Mauritius is not China, Mauritius is not Russia, that is, it is not an autarchy entirely self-sufficient and economically self-contained. The FATF, as you know, is a global watchdog for money-laundering and financing of terrorism and now mass weapon financing. In such international standards with more than 40 recommendations, the main objective as we know, is to combat illicit financial floats. Founded in 1989 and based in Paris, it provides operational measures to protect the integrity of the financial system. It sets strict standards and countries must use them as benchmark. It carries also, very important to note, a peer review mechanism which is held periodically and countries may be in the compliant list or the grey list or the black list. When a country is in the grey list, it is a high-risk jurisdiction and will be monitored as a country which is willing to collaborate. It may also be in the black list, as my colleagues explained before, how Mauritius with the incompetence of the previous regime, fell in the grey list and now we have to be careful. I also understand that there are certain birds of bad omen who are voracious to go back in the grey list but I am sure that with this piece of consolidated legislation, this will not happen. Let us pray. So, regarding the ESSAMLG, it is a sort of subset of the FATF. It has 21 members. This is also a very important organisation comprising countries like Madagascar, Seychelles, Namibia, South Africa and so many other countries. So, it is important to understand that Mauritius, even if you can be critical about this organisation, we have to comply with the standards which are being set by both organisations. At the same time, Madam Speaker, I fully concur with some of my colleagues and I have to also say that hon. A. Duval has made a few valid points also. Passing the law is one thing but I think what is very important is about implementation. The population is still expecting that those who have been guilty of certain shortcomings in the past, certain crimes in the past – who managed the case of Sobrinho, who managed the case of Bastos? These management companies are still scot-free and we will have to take concrete actions against these companies. This is very important. At the same time, I noticed that there has been consultation before stabilising the text but at the same time, my recommendation for next time, not only for this Bill from this Ministry but also from other ministries, I think it is very important to have a window on the website of all ministries to allow professionals, researchers, academics and also the brains from the diaspora to bring their criticisms and suggestions. So, we can improve; it is good but it could have been better, in terms of consultations. Also, I want to shed some light in terms of comparative perspectives. You will see that to a great extent, those who have prepared the Bill, the technicians, they have borrowed the best from different models. From the UK model, as you know, it is a very good model but one of the golden standard models is the Hong Kong model. Even before, in 2002, we did follow many of the standards from Hong Kong and this time also, there has been a sort of attempt to align our law, our amendments with what is being done in Hong Kong. And also, I think to certain extent, I don’t know how far, those who prepared the Bill, have followed the Scandinavian standards. So, it is important, Madam Speaker, I will just take a few examples…

You have got two minutes left.

Two minutes. So, to see for example from a technical angle, how the amendments of the Bank of Mauritius Act and the Banking Act shift the regulatory focus from a reactive watchdog approach to a proactive hunter model. And I think my colleague mentioned about hunter, so this is a hunter model which has been adopted. Also, the Bank of Mauritius, the bank is not empowered to disclose information to law enforcement agencies, if necessary, to report suspected offence. Furthermore, it can impose administrative penalties and sanctions on financial institutions and their directors for non-compliance with banking laws and guidelines. Similarly, the Banking Act, through section 53(a), 64, 64(a), 64(b) and 64 (c) have been amended and this time, the scope of supervision has been widened beyond money-laundering to also englobe proliferation financing. This alignment with FATF standards ensures that the financial system is also shielded against funding of weapons of mass destruction. To conclude, I would say that this incremental approach adopted by the Minister of Financial Services, is a starting point but personally, I am still waiting for more amendments. For example, the hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Attorney General mentioned that we are soon coming with a National Crime Office, Fraud Office and this is important. As I mentioned, having the laws and the books is very good but implementation and also placing the right persons in the right places is of paramount importance. So, thank you for your attention, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much. Yes, hon. Ameer Meea. (7.13 p.m.)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Allow me at the outset to commend my colleague, Dr. the hon. Mrs Jyoti Jeetun, Minister of Financial Services and Economic Planning, for introducing this important piece of legislation to the House. I wish to place on record my sincere appreciation to her Ministry, to the Attorney-General’s Office, to the Core Group, to the inter-ministerial committee, to the monitoring teams, to the competent authorities and to all the Ministers and institutions that are working relentlessly on this national priority. This is technical, demanding and often invisible work but it is absolutely vital for Mauritius. I also wish to salute the leadership of the hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has been clear from the outset that the integrity of our financial system and the credibility of Mauritius as a jurisdiction, are non-negotiable. Financial services have transformed Mauritius from a low-income agriculture-based economy into an upper middle income financial hub. Mauritius is not just a small island economy. We are recognised as an International Financial Centre, a gateway connecting capital to Africa and beyond. Our jurisdiction plays a critical role in facilitating investment flows and supporting economic development across the region. We are a bridge between Africa, Asia, Europe, the United States and the Gulf. We are a platform of trust, expertise and connectivity. That is the position we have built over the years, and that is the position we must now defend with even greater seriousness. A strong AML/CFT framework is not a burden on our International Financial Centre. It is the very foundation of it. No serious international financial centre in the world has been built on weak compliance. It is precisely because of jurisdictions like Singapore, Luxembourg and Dublin take these matters seriously that they are trusted globally. Let me be clear – being compliant does not mean being hostile to business. On the contrary, a jurisdiction that meets international standards is a jurisdiction where serious investors want to be. Compliance opens doors. It does not close them. The message we send to the world is that Mauritius welcomes legitimate investment and will protect it within a framework that is transparent, robust and internationally respected. The consequences of falling short of AML/CFT standards are severe, to say the least. We cannot afford at any cost to be non-compliant. Remaining on the FATF white list is not a formality. It determines how the world sees us. It determines whether global investors view Mauritius as a safe, compliant and reliable jurisdiction. Madam Speaker, Mauritius has already paid the price of weakness, delay, complacency in this area. We were placed on the FATF Grey List. That was not minor embarrassment. It was a serious warning to the country. It damaged confidence. It increased scrutiny. It imposed costs on our institutions and our businesses. It affected the standing of Mauritius internationally. We know what it means when correspondent bank relationships become fragile and every transaction involving Mauritius is looked at with suspicion. We know what it means when legitimate businesses bear the cost of past shortcomings. This is precisely why this government is determined to ensure that Mauritius meets every international standard and demonstrate effectiveness across every immediate outcome. Let us be clear about how we got there. The previous government had years to act. It had the warnings. It had the recommendations. It had the institutional machinery. Yet, it did not act. The grey listing was the direct consequence of neglect, delayed reforms and a failure to take this file seriously when it mattered most. Even after Mauritius came out of the grey list, they treated the exit as an end in itself. They did not entrench the culture of readiness. They did not institutionalise the reforms. That was a grave failure of stewardship. This government has a different path. We are not waiting for the next crisis. We are strengthening the law, tightening supervision, improving coordination and doing the work that should have been done earlier. The threats we seek to address are real – corruption, fraud, drug trafficking, illicit financial flows, illegal betting and bookmaking, amongst others. They are present within our communities. They distort the economy. They pollute legitimate businesses. They attack the very integrity of the State. Madam Speaker, this fight cannot be left to one Ministry. It cannot be left to one regulator. It cannot be left to one committee. This is the battle of the whole country. It concerns the public sector. It concerns the private sector. It concerns our regulators, our banks, our designated non-financial businesses and professions, our cooperative institutions, and the public at large. If Mauritius is to remain trusted, then every link in the chain must halt. Madam Speaker, let me now highlight some key amendments that this Bill introduces because they illustrate the death of this reform. The Bill amends no fewer than 23 enactments. It is not a narrow or sectoral exercise. It is a comprehensive overhaul of the legal architecture underpinning our AML/CFT/CPF framework. Under the Bank of Mauritius Act, the Bill strengthens fit and proper person requirements and enhances supervisory powers. Under the Companies Act, it tightens the framework for maintaining accurate and up-to-date beneficial ownership information for companies and partnership. Under the Financial Crimes Commission, it reinforces investigation and enforcement capacity. Under the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act, it provides for the temporary suspension of suspicious transactions by the FIU giving the unit a critical tool to prevent the dissipation of illicit funds while investigations are pursued. The Bill establishes a centralised information management system for AML/CFT/CPF consolidation data across competent authorities and enabling more effective coordination. It creates a register of trust at the Financial Services Commission, addressing a key gap in the beneficial ownership framework. It strengthens the framework for target financial sanctions and asset recovery. It introduces the offence of ecocide; it requires that payments for the purchase of motor vehicles above a prescribed threshold be effected by cheque or bank transfer not by cash, closing a known channel for the laundering of proceeds of crime. The Bill also enhances AML/CFT obligations in the insurance sector, tightens supervisory requirements under the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act, strengthens the identification of controllers of associations and improves the transparency of trust arrangement under the Trust Act. Madam Speaker, I now turn to matters that specifically concern my Ministry. The Bill is also highly targeted and practical in its approach to strengthening the cooperative sector. Cooperatives occupy a unique place in the socio-economic fabric of Mauritius. Cooperative credit unions are member owned, democratically governed institutions operating on the principle of one member, one vote. They play a crucial role in fostering a savings culture and making credit accessible to their members. They are community based, industry based and they operate in Rodrigues as well. Precisely because cooperatives are close to the people, they must also be protected from abuse. Smaller cooperatives sometimes face challenges in the fully understanding their obligations under technical framework such as AML/CFT/CPF. This is precisely why as Minister, one of the first areas we tackled was cooperative supervision. The Co-operatives Act was amended under the Finance Act 2025 conferring enhanced supervisory and enforcement powers upon the register of cooperative societies, including the authority to conduct onsite inspections of cooperative societies, particularly credit unions to impose and enforce sanctions in case of noncompliance and to issue directive to cooperative credit unions to ensure adherence to the relevant AML/CFT enactments, including the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2002, the Co-operatives Act 2016 as amended, and the United Nations (Financial Prohibitions, Arms Embargo and Travel Ban) Sanctions Act 2019. Madam Speaker, following these amendments extensive outreach programmes have been undertaken. Five workshops were held between August 2025 and February 2026 with cooperative credit unions and officers of my Ministry covering the FATF recommendations, the National Risk Assessment, the Mutal Evaluation Process, customer due diligence, suspicious transaction reporting, sanctions screening and vulnerabilities faced by the sector. Cooperative unions are classified as reporting persons under FIAMLA and are required to register on GoAML platform. A dedicated training session was held on 24 February 2026 and directives were issued by the Registrar to require mandatory registration. Out of 148 cooperative credit unions, 100 have already registered. The remaining 48 are expected to register by end of April this year. This is what seriousness looks like. This is what it means to move from policy to results. The cooperative supervisory framework is no longer theoretical. It is up and running. Let me underline this point. In the space of a few months, the Cooperatives Division of my Ministry has moved from a position where the cooperative sector had limited AML/CFT awareness to a position where structured workshops have been delivered, a legal framework for beneficial ownership has been defined, directives have been issued, and two-thirds of all cooperative credit unions are now registered on the GoAML platform. This did not happen by accident. It happened because we treated this as a priority from day one. It happened because we understood that the credibility of Mauritius depends on every sector being brought into the fold, and not only the large financial institutions. During the workshops, concern was raised by cooperative credit unions that, in line with Recommendation 24 of the FATF, there is an obligation to identify beneficial ownership in the cooperative sector to ensure transparency in the control structure, yet this had not been defined in the Co-operatives Act 2016. Advice was sought from the Attorney-General’s Office. The Attorney-General’s Office advised that beneficial ownership should be defined as the Board of a cooperative society that is responsible for, and exercises ultimate control over, the cooperative society. Directives dated 25 February 2026 were issued to all cooperative credit unions, accordingly. This proposed Bill now aims at providing a legal definition of beneficial ownership in the statute itself. The Bill introduces the requirement to maintain a register of beneficial owners through a new section 25A, requiring every society to keep accurate and up-to-date information on its beneficial owners. The register shall be open for inspection by the supervising officer, members, the Registrar, the Principal Co-operative Auditor, auditors and competent authorities and a fine of not exceeding Rs100,000 is provided for non-compliance. Madam Speaker, I now turn briefly to the jewellery sector, which also falls under the responsibility of my Ministry through the Assay Office. The FATF has identified the jewellery sector, which forms part of the Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions, as one potential sector in which money is laundered. This is not theoretical. In recent years, we have all witnessed an increasing number of money laundering cases in which the jewellery sector has been used to launder the proceeds of crime. At this very moment, as I address this August Assembly, the Assay Office is involved in testing jewellery and precious and semi-precious stones retained by the Financial Crimes Commission for a current case of suspected money laundering. That is how close and how real this work is. The Assay Office assists the FCC, the Police, the MRA and the Judiciary in determining the fineness of jewellery and the carat of precious and semi-precious stones for investigation and prosecution purposes, and participates in the National Risk Assessment. Madam Speaker, since 2020, under Act No. 5 of 2020, the definitions under the Jewellery Act were amended to include precious metals and precious stones. In compliance with FATF Recommendation No. 28, a fit and proper person test is now conducted on every applicant, examining financial soundness, competence, honesty, reputation and integrity. Dealers are also required to report suspicious transactions above the threshold of Rs500,000. My Ministry is also working on the setting up of the AML unit at the Assay Office. Section 166 of the Financial Crimes Commission Act 2023 will be proclaimed shortly, whereby the Assay Office will become the regulatory body for Dealers in Precious Metals and Stones instead of the FIU, allowing the FIU to focus on its core intelligence and dissemination functions. This is a necessary step to build stronger and more specialised supervisory capacity in this sector. We want the Assay Office to be properly equipped, properly structured and properly prepared for the responsibilities that lie ahead. The principle is simple. Effectiveness first, optics second. A lot has already been done to make the jewellery sector more transparent and more accountable. My Ministry is pursuing every available avenue to address this matter. The direction we have set is clear: the Assay Office will be transformed from a purely technical body into a credible sector-specific supervisory with a fully operational AML unit – proper training, proper procedures and proper systems. This is what the FATF expects, and this is what Mauritius will deliver. Madam Speaker, the 2027 Mutual Evaluation team has already been constituted. The preparatory work is underway. The independent mock evaluation conducted in late 2025 identified areas where Mauritius needs to demonstrate greater effectiveness, and those findings are now being acted upon. But success in the upcoming evaluation will not belong to one Ministry alone. It will belong to Mauritius. It will belong to every institution that played its part, every officer who did the work, and every stakeholder who understood that a clean jurisdiction is in the national interest. Madam Speaker, I wish to assure this House and the international community that Mauritius is fully committed to meeting the requirements of the FATF standards and demonstrating effectiveness across its AML/CFT/CPF framework ahead of the 2027 Mutual Evaluation. We are not approaching this evaluation with apprehension. We are approaching it with determination and with the confidence that comes from sustained institutional effort. Madam Speaker, to conclude, Mauritius must never be perceived as a jurisdiction where illicit funds can circulate unchecked. This Bill reinforces transparency through beneficial ownership, accountability across all sectors, enforcement through stronger compliance mechanisms, the protection of our economic model, and the assurance that Mauritius remains a trusted International Financial Centre. Mauritian has learnt from the failures of the past. This Government will not be complacent. We are building permanence, not patchwork. Mauritius chooses seriousness over negligence, discipline over drift, and trust over reputational risk. The world is watching. The standards are rising. And the margin for error is shrinking. We owe it to our economy. We owe it to our institutions. We owe it to our international partners. But above all, we owe it to Mauritius. I thank you for your attention.

Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be now adjourned. Mr Mohamed rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to. Debate adjourned accordingly.

Yes, hon. Prime Minister, adjournment of the House. ADJOURNMENT

Madam Speaker, I beg to move that this Assembly do now adjourn to Tuesday 14 April 2026 at 11.30 a.m. Mr Mohamed seconded. Question put and agreed to.

The House stands adjourned! At 7.35 p.m. the Assembly was, on its rising, adjourned to Tuesday 14 April 2026 at 11.30 a.m. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POLICE STATIONS – RELOCATIONS & CONSTRUCTION – PROPOSED LOCATIONS