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. Members, normally, the Leader of the House would have been speaking much later. Let me refer you to Standing Order 39 which says – “(11) No Member shall address the Assembly on a particular question after the speech, if any, of the Leader of the House, except the mover of a motion for his or her winding- up speech, unless the Leader of the House has indicated to the Speaker his or her intention of addressing the Assembly at an early stage in the debates.” Which is the case for the hon. Prime Minister. So, hon. Prime Minister, you have the floor on the Second Reading. (4.35 p.m.)

I thank you, Madam Speaker. It is because I have to catch a plane basically. Let me first of all, Madam Speaker, commend the hon. Minister of Financial Services and Economic Planning for introducing this very important legislation, which provides for amendments to no fewer than 21 pieces of legislation. 21, Madam Speaker! The amendments are necessary to ensure that our framework for Anti-Money Laundering, Combatting the Financing of Terrorism and Countering Proliferation Financing is fully aligned with the updated Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards. They will place Mauritius in a stronger position for the forthcoming Mutual Evaluation exercise by the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group, which is scheduled to start in 2027. The House will recall, Madam Speaker, that following the Mutual Evaluation exercise carried out by the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group in 2018, Mauritius was obliged – I stress on the word ‘obliged’ – to implement the recommended action to address the deficiencies and shortcomings in its AML/CFT/CPF framework. However, after that, the previous government failed to implement the recommended actions effectively. Consequently, in February 2020, Mauritius was placed on the FATF List of “Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring”, that is, the FATF Grey List. Mauritius was also placed on the High-Risk Third Countries Lists of both the European Union and the United Kingdom. The then Government again was compelled urgently to take appropriate action to comply with the requirements of FATF. It was only then that Mauritius escaped from the Grey List; they were in the grey list before we came to power in 2005. Subsequently, the country was delisted from the European Union and the United Kingdom lists of High-Risk Third Countries. But that Government failed to draw the lessons of its inaction because nothing was further done. So, upon assuming office, we undertook a comprehensive and rigorous assessment of our AML/CFT/CPF framework in line with the revised FATF Recommendations. This Government is fully committed to the necessary action to ensure full compliance with the FATF Standards and to strengthen the effectiveness of our system in combating money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation financing. Madam Speaker, we shall spare no effort to ensure that Mauritius does not find itself on the FATF Grey List again because a return to the Grey List would have far-reaching and damaging consequences for our financial services sector and the economy as a whole. We acted decisively to implement a comprehensive set of measures to ensure our full preparedness for the forthcoming Mutual Evaluation exercise. First, we have taken immediate measures to enhance the effectiveness of our institutions. We reinstated the primacy of the Director of Public Prosecutions in its criminal proceedings, so dangerously and deliberately undermined during a decade of unconstitutional abuse. We will ensure that the Financial Crimes Commission (FCC) is able to focus on its core mandate of investigation and enforcement. Today, the statistics speak for themselves. Since November 2024, some 400 investigations have already been initiated. Very soon, we shall introduce into this House, I must say, the most far-reaching and radical reform of our systems of law-enforcement and prosecution that this country has seen, probably since the 19th century – I am sure since the 19th century. They are the most radical and far-reaching reform that this country would have seen. Those reforms will entrench a new culture of independence, impartiality and effectiveness into the detection, investigation and prosecution of serious and complex crimes. Second, we have put in place the necessary governance structure to drive our reform agenda. An Inter-Ministerial Committee, co-chaired by the hon. Attorney General and the hon. Minister of Financial Services and Economic Planning, has been set up to steer and coordinate all the preparatory efforts. This Committee provides strategic guidance on priority reforms, strengthens the coordination across the 16 Competent Authorities, and oversees the effective implementation of the national AML/CFT/CPF reforms agenda. The Inter-Ministerial Committee is further supported by the Core Group on AML/CFT/CPF, under the chairmanship of the Financial Secretary. I am maintaining a close oversight of the work carried out by both the Inter-Ministerial Committee and the Core Group. Third, Madam Speaker, within this relatively short period, we have made significant and tangible progress with critical AML/CFT/CPF initiatives. These include – (a) the completion of the National Risk Assessment, providing an up-to-date understanding of the evolving money laundering and terrorist financing risks facing our country; (b) the completion of a dedicated risk assessment for Non-Profit Organisations; (c) the formulation of a comprehensive National AML/CFT/CPF Strategy for the period 2026-2029, and (d) the development of a robust Administrative Penalty Framework to ensure that non-compliance with our legislation is effectively detected, addressed, and also sanctioned. Fourth, Madam Speaker, we have effectively enforced the United Nations (Financial Prohibitions, Arms Embargo and Travel Ban) Sanctions Act and, based on evidence gathered, already three individuals have been listed under the sanction regime for their links to terrorist financing activities. Fifth, despite severe fiscal constraints, we are providing the necessary financial resources to build capacity and recruit critical expertise to ensure the sustained implementation of our AML/CFT/CPF reforms. Madam Speaker, let me now turn to some key amendments being brought to this legislation falling under the purview of my office and that of the Ministry of Finance. First, the Bank of Mauritius Act and the Banking Act – these amendments aim to enhance the effectiveness of supervision and enforcement by the Bank of Mauritius. They also facilitate timely information sharing with law enforcement authorities where there is suspicion of an offence. Second, the Companies Act – the amendment provides for a clearer and more structured definition of a beneficial owner, ensuring consistent interpretation and application across entities. This ensures, Madam Speaker, that the true individuals, who ultimately own or control business activities, may no longer hide and operate behind corporate structures and remain beyond the reach of institutions. We see so many times, people using prête-nom. I tell them: game over! Third, the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act – the gambling sector continues to present heightened exposure to illicit financial flows. The proposed amendments are intended to reinforce regulatory oversight, strengthen control mechanisms, and enhance compliance measures, thereby safeguarding the sector against money laundering risk. Fourth, the Income Tax Act and the Mauritius Revenue Authority Act – these acts are being amended to reinforce the powers of the Mauritius Revenue Authority, enhance coordination among the competent Authorities, and ensure that illicit gains do not escape scrutiny. And fifth, the United Nations (Financial Prohibitions, Arms Embargo and Travel Ban) Sanctions Act is being amended to further strengthen the implementation of targeted financial sanctions. Madam Speaker, I should remind the House of the chaotic situation prevailing before the elections in November 2024 in the institutions which were supposed to combat fraud, corruption and financial crime. There was total incoherence in the way these institutions were operating. There was no collaboration or exchange of information among them. They had over the years developed, I think, willingly, a ‘silo mentality’ with consequences that I need not rehearse now! We all recall how drug traffickers, money launderers and those engaged in criminal activities were having a field day, while the rule of law was daily abused in our public life by the behaviour of those who were supposed to be looking after safeguarding the security. Today, our institutions are once again functioning without fear or favour and in collaboration for the public good. As I have said, Madam Speaker, the House will imminently have the opportunity to make further profound reforms to strengthen the independence and effectiveness of those institutions. It is not only domestic voices who say that. It is not just me or Members of the House. The 2026 Report of the respected V-Dem Institute (Varieties of Democracies Institute), which is based in Sweden, published recently the following observation. I quote, Madam Speaker – “The 2024 general elections brought a change in government and halted authoritarian transgressions.” “Halted authoritarian transgressions!” This is what the MSM was doing daily! It is worth dwelling on those words, Madam Speaker. Transgressions were, indeed, the modus operandi of the previous Government. So deep and so widespread was the abuse, extending to the very top of government, encompassing even those entrusted with the task of ensuring the integrity of our system of law enforcement, that the imagination shrinks from the prospect for our nation had they succeeded in their objects. This House will recall the statements I made here last year, reporting the conclusions of international experts – they have not actually concluded it completely – but on the Orwellian technology, if I may use the word, secretly installed by the previous government, illegally, to intercept and spy on the communications and social media of the entire nation. Believe it or not! We will come with proof on this. Even hon. A. Duval who is here, he was being listened to! Judges were being listened to! Well, what was happening?

You too!

Everybody, yes! Of course, me! And people in the Opposition.

(Interruptions)

Yes, but even people in the government, they were being listened to! Not just political opponents; the whole population! The House will also recall with disgust the ugly window thrown open by the Moustass leaks on the inside workings of an autocratic and immoral regime. They even went to the extent of defaming Virgin Mary. The Commissioner of Police did that. He did that! And it was tolerated. Nothing! I know, hon. A. Duval’s father went to see the former Prime Minister on this. I know that! And he told him: ‘You have to remove this guy.’ No, no, you get lost! His hands were tied! When you do dirty business with people, your hands get tied! That is the problem! The V-Dem views on Mauritius reflect the seriousness of the purpose of this Government to ensure that our institutions operate transparently and independently and never again, never again, go back to the sinister and dark path charted by that discredited regime. But I am glad to say, Madam Speaker, that in the Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI 39) published on 26 March 2026, Mauritius has now gained 8 places and ranks in the 50th position globally. This achievement did not happen by itself; it is testament to the strategic focus of this Government to enhance our regulatory frameworks and protect our reputation as a trusted International Financial Centre. Madam Speaker, I want to refresh the memory of those who seem to be suffering from selective amnesia, in particular those who are desperately trying to re-emerge on the political scene. He is not here, but Minister Patrick Assirvaden mentioned the name, Alvaro Sobrinho, described by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, and I quote…

(Interruptions)

Yeah, I will say that! Look what it says – “Angolan banker who led an Angolan bank that collapsed with billions of dollars of unexplained debts, linked to a scheme to siphon off hundreds of millions of dollars of government-backed financing”. Yet, this man was given red-carpet treatment in Mauritius, granted access to the VIP lounge, not once, not twice, 31 times! 31 times! And he was not alone. There were others of dubious background who were facilitated and feted, as investigations into the collapse of Silver Bank is now beginning to show us. In fact, I should say, Madam Speaker, this Mr Sobrinho, I did not realise because I never met him, but somehow, he found his way to the PMO. He called my secretary and he said he needs to meet the Prime Minister. It is urgent. He was not on the… When I give appointments, if I give appointments to Mr A. Duval…

You have not ...

I will see him alone. Not with somebody else! I need to know who comes in my office.

(Interruptions)

Pou li…

Non, li pann dir mwa!

(Interruptions)

Not yet. Not yet.

To bien kot to ete la!

(Interruptions)

I tell you, Madam Speaker. So, my secretary…

You have not met him yet?

Huh?

He said you did not meet him. But you have not met him yet.

No, I have not met him. I was giving an example. Even somebody in the Opposition, I will meet only on appointment.

But I raised the… I raised the…

And so, my secretary came to see me and said there is this man here, Mr Sobrinho, who says he needs to see you. I said – ‘Why? Does he have an appointment?’ ‘No!’ ‘So, why does he want to see me?’ He said to my secretary: ‘I have millions of dollars to invest in Mauritius.’ You know when you come in the Office of the Prime Minister and you say: ‘I have got millions of dollars to invest,’ what does it mean? It means: Meet me. I will give you some millions! That is what it means! That was what was happening before! And I said to my secretary, if he wants to invest in Mauritius, he does not have to come and see the Prime Minister. Go to the Board of Investment! This is where they look at investment. So, I threw him out. He was not happy, but he went. And I must say, at that time, the Board of Investment did due diligence. They thought his money was dubious, of dubious sources, and they rejected his millions that he was bringing in Mauritius. They rejected it! What did he do you think, Madam Speaker? He came back to my office and told my secretary: ‘These people at the Board of Investment do not understand anything. They have rejected my project. I must see the Prime Minister!’ So, again, my secretary came to see me. I said, tell him: ‘If the Board of Investment has rejected his demands, then, I have nothing to do with it. He must get out of the country.’ This is how I treated him! And this is the very man who came, after I lost the elections, he was given red-carpet treatment, 31 times! And he was not alone, as I said. There were others.

Karpet inn ize!

(Interruptions)

In 2015, Mr Sobrinho was granted a Global Business Licence (Category 1) and the authorisation to operate Collective Investment Schemes by the Financial Services Commission (FSC) chaired at that time by the late Dev Manraj. In 2016, Mr Sobrinho was issued an Investment Adviser (Unrestricted) Licence and an Investment Banking Licence by the same FSC. Let me remind the House who conducted, and how was the due diligence… You must do due diligence. How was due diligence done on Mr Sobrinho?

Get dan lizie!

It was done by eye contact! I quote the former Deputy Prime Minister, Ivan Collendavello, a lawyer, who said – what is all this nonsense? – he said – « (…) avoir regardé dans les yeux de [M. Sobrinho], [je peux dire que] ce dernier est crédible. » That is why I said we do not have to do due diligence! Just get this man to come and look at the other prospective investors. This is what he meant.

(Interruptions)

And he is trying to give us lessons! How can a supposedly, allegedly eminent lawyer say it is due diligence: I look at his face, I say ‘no, he is innocent’? Alvaro Sobrinho was issued an Investment Banking Licence, after those procedures had been transferred from the Bank of Mauritius to the FSC. Now, it is important to realise in what circumstances were these amendments made and why were they made. I will tell you why; because the then Governor of the Bank of Mauritius, Mr Basant Roi, flatly refused to give Mr Sobrinho an Investment Banking Licence, in spite of the pressure being put on him. He refused! Then the Banking Act was amended in catimini to remove “investment banking business” from the definition of a “bank” so that only the Financial Services Commission thereafter regulated this business. Consequentially, amendments were brought to the Financial Services Act. All this to grant Mr Sobrinho his licence that the Governor of bank then thought he should not be given such a licence. Remember how in 2017, on a Saturday morning, a special meeting of the Board of the FSC was called, chaired by late Mr Dev Manraj. It was convened to put pressure to amend the law. I must say to the House as perhaps some people do not know it. The then Solicitor General, Mr Dhiren Daby was the vice-Chairperson of the Board. He refused to be associated with the said manoeuvres in spite of all the pressures. Further to the ‘Saturday morning meeting’ when he said he would not agree, Mr Daby and three other members of the Board resigned from their position. They did not look at the money, the per diem, or whatever. They resigned from their positions at the FSC. I will tell you who the three others were – • Mr Warda Dulmar Ebrahim; • Mr Rhoy Ramlakhan, and • Mr Jacques Li Chung. These are the men of principles who resisted pressure. You know, recently when the people from the IMF were here, they were asking us: ‘But when the Finance Minister was manipulating figures, we cannot understand, this is a democratic State. Why did everybody keep quiet?’ I do not want to say the words because there are ladies here, but they did not have the guts. They kept quiet, afraid.

Ti pe manze ansam.

I always say, you know what Shakespeare said – “The cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once.” This is what we should do. We pray every day. We are a nation which prays but this is what we should do. We should not be afraid. We must do what must be done. The Sobrinho affair, Madam Speaker, involved shady dealings, investments in property schemes to the tune – believe it or not – of Rs52 million, and the purchase of luxury cars for millions of rupees. The same Mr Sobrinho was authorised to purchase 131 villas and apartments – worth more than Rs1 billion – at Balaclava, under the Vente en Etat Futur d’Achèvement. An hon. Member: VEFA!

Yes, VEFA. The above demonstrates to what extent in the 2014-2024 days, money laundered through property development and property acquisition was welcomed as if foreign investment was going up. And if you look at the list – we are looking at the list – you will see who are the people who got flats and apartments. They will have to respond. Do not think we have forgotten! It is taking time but they will have to explain all this. It is coming, I can tell you. Another example is the Silver Bank Saga! Let me mention the troubling circumstances under which a Banking Licence was issued to Silver Bank, formerly, I think, it was called BanyanTree Bank, in November 2021. First, we should ask a pertinent question: Who was it who recommended Mr Prateek Gupta to take over BanyanTree? Who was it? He came from nowhere? There was reasonable cause to believe that the capital of Silver Bank was potentially impaired and that its directors could have engaged in practices detrimental to the interests of its depositories. Silver Bank had absolutely no track record. Its Ultimate Beneficial Owners had no banking experience and the bank, which is currently under investigation by the Financial Crimes Commission, deceived thousands of Mauritians. I see some people are protesting. They should go and protest to these people who allowed this to happen. We are putting order in these things. This is unbelievable but I will tell you. Before Silver Bank came into the picture, a circular was issued by the Ministry of Finance of the previous regime requesting government- related entities to invest their surplus cash into treasury certificates because they are much safer. Issued from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Mauritius was involved, to put the money where it is safer. This very Ministry then purposedly, to create a misleading enhancement of the bank’s balance, they decided to issue a circular – this very government – to tell the related entities, that is, the Municipal Council, Sugar Insurance Fund, I think, the National Insurance Company and all that, they invested a total of Rs3.55 billion in the Silver Bank. They had issued the circular. They contradicted themselves. They issued another circular now, put the money in Silver Bank and look at the result. Who is losing money now?

(Interruptions)

Yes, but they thought this country belongs to them. They can do what they want.

Bizin donn li kout savat dodo.

Yes! This was, as I said, purposedly done to create the misleading impression of enhancing the balance of the bank’s balance sheet. This decision to invest so much money in such a bank was outright incompetence bordering on criminal offence. They had a duty to safeguard public funds. I hope speaking Kreol in Parliament will come earlier because many people do not understand. In Kreol, I could have said it better: se bann kriminel…

Voler!

… kin pran lamone lepep, inn fer investi dan enn labank ki zot ti kone pou koule divan! Sa ki zot finn fer! What is even more unexplainable, as I said, the issue in the circular, a clear dereliction of duty in safeguarding public funds. The serious mismanagement, Madam Speaker, fictitious guarantees and recklessness pertaining to loan reimbursement led to the toxicity of the loan portfolio of Silver Bank. This is how they operated and we all know what happened. We are sitting on it now. Silver Bank was placed under conservatorship in February 2024. A monthly conservatorship fee of Rs3.5 million was payable to whom? Grant Thornton Advisory Services Ltd.

Sattar!

And who was the Director? The close friend of the former Prime Minister, close friend! Outside he was making a campaign against Muslims, and yet his close friend was this man. And we all know his name – Sattar Hajee Abdoula. Hajee of all things! I need to add, Madam Speaker, that during this process several potential investors expressed the interest to acquire Silver Bank. This happened even when Mr Rama Sithanen was Governor of the bank. But then when they saw what was on the balance sheet, they all disappeared one by one. Only one prospective investor submitted an application, but his application, I can say I think, he wanted to get the bank but not take the debts. How can we do that? He was asking for more time. In the interest of depositors and creditors of Silver Bank, the Bank of Mauritius has been engaging with the prospective investor and granted several extensions to each successive deadline – there were deadlines, again deadlines and again deadlines – to enable them to see what they can do. On 30 March of this year, on the last deadline, the Bank of Mauritius did not receive any application. After careful consideration of all facts and information available, the Board of the Bank of Mauritius, on 30 March of this year, decided to terminate the conservatorship of Silver Bank. Mr Huns Biltoo of KPMG Mauritius has now been appointed as Receiver of Silver Bank. Madam Speaker, the scandals to which I referred earlier, gave a severe blow to our hard-earned reputation as a credible International Financial Centre. They illustrate the kind of occult interest and influences which were encouraged and provided by the previous regime. I think it is more than criminal negligence; it is criminal intent. There is criminal intent there. It is more serious. It is not just negligence. It is intent. In due time, these people, I say it again, will have to answer for their misdeeds. This is one of the reasons we are coming up with the National Crime Agency. You will see the difference very soon. A lot of criticisms have been levered at the level of the EDB. They say undue delay in processing applications for investment in Mauritius, so many millions are waiting. There is a due process that they follow. Maybe we could do it a bit quicker, I do not know, but let me give to the House a concrete example to show how it is extremely important to have a thorough prior check and assessment. Quite recently, a prospective investor came with a project worth nearly Rs5 billion. When they investigated, he was getting all sorts of nervousness. He was trying to contact people in high office but they found out it was a blatant case of laundering dirty money, and it was refused, turned down. But it took a long time to investigate. Madam Speaker, it is ironical that the hon. Leader of the Opposition reminded the House that “justice denied is justice delayed”. But that was the philosophy of the previous Government which cost the taxpayers billions of rupees! Not millions; billions! We remember the Betamax case. It has cost the country Rs5.6 billion of taxpayers’ money, that is, everybody who is here, their money which has gone down the drain because of the incompetency and the criminal negligence. In that case, in terms of legal costs, the State Trading Corporation paid Mr Ravin Chetty nearly Rs20 million! What do we do with these people? What should we do with these people? The delays referred to by the hon. Leader of the Opposition are the result of longstanding structural weaknesses by the former regime. And everywhere it is like that; even in the Police. That is why we are bringing new laws. We cannot afford to have these structural weaknesses everywhere. You know what happened? Look at the former Commissioner of Police. He was called by the FCC. He had already prepared an … An hon. Member: A statement?

Not a statement. He even prepared what is called in court… An hon. Member: An affidavit?

An affidavit. Before the questions were asked, he knew what questions were going to be asked! How does this happen? Leakage! These worms, who are leaking information, they will have to answer in the future. I must tell you this! We have taken decisive actions and we are going to do more. The Administrative Penalty Regulations, pending since 2022, were finalised last year. They now allow authorities to impose sanctions directly, without lengthy court procedures. Madam Speaker, hon A. Duval describes these reforms as “cosmetic”. This is not only inaccurate, but it undermines the extensive work carried out by our institutions. These amendments are the results of work undertaken by professionals from the Attorney-General’s Office, the Bank of Mauritius and the Financial Crimes Commission, in consultation with other competent authorities. The amendments take into consideration the findings of the National Risk Assessment, as well as an independent assessment of our AML/CFT/CPF framework, and are supported by a detailed mapping against FATF requirements. Therefore, with all due respect, it is not cosmetic. It is a serious, technical and coordinated reform effort. Hon. A. Duval also raised concerns regarding the motor vehicle sector and has suggested, like many others do, that the framework is inadequate in addressing the associated risks. Let me clarify that the AML/CFT/CPF framework is complex and evolving, requiring a risk-based and carefully calibrated approach. Any reforms must be properly analysed because you can get unintended consequences on economic activities and on citizens. It is precisely in this context that the Ministry of Financial Services and Economic Planning is currently undertaking a Typology Report on Motor Vehicle Trade. This exercise will enable a comprehensive assessment of money laundering risks and typologies associated with the sector, determine appropriate thresholds for cash transactions, and identify robust safeguards to prevent abuse for money laundering purposes. In this regard, a Typology Report on Motor Vehicle Trade is underway and it will assess risks, determine appropriate cash thresholds, and identify safeguards. However, we are not just saying this, Madam Speaker. Last year, the Government introduced regulations requiring traceable payment methods, with only a limited cash deposit of Rs20,000. Maybe Rs20,000 is a bit low, but we are looking at this. Let me reiterate the statistics on enforcement actions by the Financial Crimes Commission in relation to motor vehicle-related money laundering activities – (a) a total of 86 attachments and seizure orders have been issued; (b) over 300 vehicles have been seized, including luxury vehicles; (c) the estimated value of vehicles seized exceeds Rs280 million, and (d) several car rental companies have been identified and are being investigated as vehicles for laundering criminal proceeds. These are real actions delivering real results. Madam Speaker, we must remain steadfast and forward-looking, driving the reforms necessary to safeguard and strengthen the AML/CFT/CPF framework. It is, in a way, a very clear national imperative. To those engaged in doom-mongering and unwarranted criticism, let me be clear: our focus remains firmly on implementing the reforms, upholding transparency and accountability, and successfully navigating the forthcoming Mutual Evaluation exercise. There are people who actually want us to be downgraded; to go on the grey list. We must be more patriotic. The other day, I met a lady from India actually. Do you know what she said to me? She said, ‘I am very sorry for you, Prime Minister.’ I asked why. She said, ‘I see very few patriots in this country. Everybody is looking for something.’ Where is patriotism? We have to reunite the country and be patriots. As I repeatedly said during the campaign – Nou pou met lord kot ena dezord. Kwar mwa. Nou pou mete sa lord la ! Let me conclude by acknowledging the collective efforts of all the institutions engaged in this national endeavour, Madam Speaker, as well as the continued collaboration of the private sector and our international partners. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hon. Minister Subron! (5.14 p.m.) The Minister of Social Integration, Social Security and National Solidarity (Mr A. Subron): Madam Speaker, first let me express my appreciation to the Minister, the Attorney General and all the other Ministers who were part of the Interministerial Committee, who spearheaded this milestone bundle of a legislation. Various colleagues, Ministers and Members of the Government made significant contribution during the debate on this Bill. My thanks go to them too. Some elaborated on the technical and institutional dimensions while others explained the further needs for a more transparent and efficient financial sector. I will focus my intervention on a more philosophical dimension and a global historical context for this Bill to be laid on the Table of this Assembly. Let me start by addressing some issues raised by the Opposition parties. The Leader of the Opposition has essentially said, primo, that the measures contained in this Bill are fine, but the problem will lie in the implementation. My colleagues in Government have already responded to this argument. Secundo, the Leader of the Opposition went on and said, let me quote the Hansard, Madam Speaker – “On novel offences, clause 8 amends the Environment Act 2024, introducing for the first time the offence of ecocide with penalties up to ten years of penal servitude. Madam Speaker, may the House be informed as to why this clause has been introduced in this Bill.” He added – “I sincerely think that this amendment has nothing to do with AML/CFT.” To this statement, my hon. colleague and comrade, hon. Etwareea, certainly one of the most leftist-leading Members of this Assembly, spontaneously responded to the Leader of the Opposition: ‘Bizin lir impe!’, hon. Etwareea said. As a long-standing journalist with international experiences, he depicted instantly the blunder of the Leader of the Opposition. I will come back later to this erroneous statement made by the Leader of the Opposition when he stated that ecocide and environmental crimes are not part of AML/CFT framework. Tertio, the Leader of the Opposition then added that he sincerely believes that the amendment on Environment Act on ecocide has been put in this Bill to please a party in the government. Madam Speaker, one does not have to climb on the top roof of the Sun Trust Building to know that the Leader of the Opposition was referring to my party Rezistans ek Alternativ, which is the most ecologically inclined party in this government. Well, on this statement too, the Leader of the Opposition has exposed his slander understanding of politics and its dynamics, especially in this global era. As for the other Member of the Opposition who is still here – I am glad he is here – hon. A. Duval, his stand can be summarised as follows – • The present legal framework to tackle money laundering are already here and this legislation is cosmetic and has been introduced to please AML/CFT. He is wrong too. To say the least, this posture certainly exposes his political dizziness of not understanding that one of the major amendments on ecocide would lead Mauritius forward amongst the few first countries in the world to be introducing ecocide as a major crime connected to financial crime. This leaping section has not ever existed before in our statutes, and its introduction is certainly not cosmetic, nor has it been made to please this time AML/CFT. Madam Speaker, fundamental laws in society are not made to please x or y. Those in Opposition who may have made laws within this constricted vision of pleasing somebody cannot understand that fundamental local and domestic laws are the product of social struggles, in this case, of global social struggles, establishing new balance of forces, ethics and paradigm shifts. Of course, those who have never been part of or who are disconnected of social struggles, be it locally or globally, will never understand the dialectics of social struggle and legislative enactments. Major struggles have led to major law changes in the history of humanity. In colonial slavery times, the abolitionist movement has been instrumental to bring laws to abolish slave trades and system. The liberation and pro-independence struggles triggered fundamental laws to enact self- determination, especially in the global south. Global solidarity actions reinforce the local struggle in South Africa to end apartheid legal framework. Workers’ struggle gave birth to critical ILO Conventions. This piece of legislation, to be precise, this package of legislative amendments, is the direct product of global struggles, emerging at the end of the last century and the beginning of this century. It is the product of the struggle of global movements for social, economic and environmental justice in the era of limitless global capitalism dominated by net worth billionaires. The Global Justice Movement includes many organisations and networks. I will mention a few: Global Tax Justice Movement, Alternative World Social Forums, Our World Is Not For Sale, ATTAC, Third World Network, Oxfam, Friends of the Earth, Stop Genocide, Climate and Capitalism. Just to mention a few. In these global networks and struggles, my party, Rezistans ek Alternativ, and other movements in which we are part of, and, myself, as an activist in various global justice movements, have played an important role. Madam Speaker, these global justice movements are, in reality, the genesis of what we are debating today. Hon. Leader of the Opposition, this law is not meant to please my party, but my party, as part of the global justice movement, contributed to shape the new laws to better protect the people and the planet, which are being robbed by global capitalism. Yes, Madam Speaker, robbed! I mean it. Let me refer to the latest report of the prestigious Oxfam International, just published on 02 April 2026. The amount of untaxed wealth hidden offshore by the richest 0.1% exceeds the entire wealth of the poorest half of humanity, 4.1 billion people. The new Oxfam analysis published it ahead of the 10th anniversary of the Panama Papers. The findings show that a decade later, the super-rich continue to explore offshore systems to evade taxes and conceal assets, highlighting the urgent need for coordinated international action to tax extreme wealth. Oxfam estimates that 3.55 trillion in untaxed wealth are stashed offshore in tax havens and unreported accounts in 2024. This sum exceeds the GDP of France, and is more than twice the GDP of the world’s 44 least developed countries! The richest 0.1% hold approximately 80% of all untaxed offshore wealth or around $2.84 trillion. Within this timely group, the ultra-wealthiest, 0.01%, hold roughly $1.77 trillion. This isn’t just about clever accounting. It is about power and impunity. When millionaires and billionaires stash trillions of dollars in offshore tax haven, they place themselves above their obligation that binds the rest of society. The consequences are predictable as they are devastating. We see our public hospitals and schools starve of funds, our social fabric shredded by rising in equality and ordinary people forced to shoulder the cost of a system rigged to enrich a tiny few. Madam Speaker, it is because of this cruel tendency of global capitalism that global, social and ecological justice movements have fought for the regulation of offshore financial centres for more than 40 years. The AML/CFT and the FATF arose from those sociopolitical dynamics which have had to be taken on board by the political and ruling elite in many western countries. So, are some of the amendments being presently brought to this House. I will now deal specifically on three major dimensions of the emerging legal frameworks in connection with offshore financial sector and its impact in Mauritius – 1. Taxes. 2. Secrecy, and 3. the environmental crime and ecocide. Taxes. To curb tax evasion and tax avoidance, the Global Minimum Tax of 15% adopted by the OECD has been incorporated in Mauritian law last year in the form of Qualified Domestic Minimum Top Up Tax (QDMTT). As a matter of fact, the Global Minimum Tax is itself the product of long-standing struggle of global justice movement. The global justice movement which includes organisation as Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and for Citizens' Action (ATTAC), and Global Alliance for Tax Justice has been fighting to end the race to the bottom in terms of taxation. After the Global Minimum Tax, the Global Justice Movement are now currently campaigning for a UN tax convention which would move tax rule making it a more inclusive platform where developing nations have an equal vote. They are also fighting for a broad Financial Transaction Tax over the Global Minimum Tax. Unlike the GMT which targets corporate profits, the FTT will target the volume of financial trades to curb market speculation and raise funds for global public goods. Madam Speaker, maybe one of these days we will see future legislations to be debated in this House on UN Tax Convention, on Financial Transaction Tax not to please anybody, but as a direct product of the relations between global social struggle and domestic law enactment. On secrecy, the fight against tax haven secrecy has been led by a coalition of whistle- blowers, investigative journalist, non-governmental organisation who have worked for decades to export the hidden financial system of world elite. These included the global NGO like Transparency International and many media such as the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists who have been the spear heads of the global social movement against the secrecy that underpins many offshore financial sectors. Ten years ago, the Panama Papers were leaked to the world, this caused offshore finance to come under mounting international scrutiny. The Panama Papers exposed how shell companies with complex corporate structures use secrecy to launder money and avoid paying taxes. The secrecy of the Mauritian offshore, its lack of supervision was notorious. This contributed for Mauritius to be put on the grey list. Mauritius took several steps including abolishing GBC2 licenses and replacing them with a more regulated authorised company regime. The reform focused on implementing stricter substance requirements, requiring companies to have a physical presence and real activity in Mauritius. In parallel, the law on ultimate beneficial owner in Mauritius has evolved significantly, shifting from light disclosure to strict transparency to meet international compliance standard of the FATF. In 2024, the Registrar of Companies was tasked to maintain a largely confidential, beneficial ownership accessible only to competent authorities. With the amendment proposed today, in the Companies Act, the primary difference lies in moving from simple threshold- based percentage, 25%, to a broader natural person and control focus that aligns with international FATF standards. Thus, the amendment will expand, control definition. The new framework users cascade approach, looking beyond simple ownership, percentage, to include control via voting rights or other means. It attributes default senior management if no natural person is identified through ownership or control, the senior managing official must be identified as a beneficial ownership. Madam Speaker, these are real changes not cosmetic ones as claimed by the Opposition. Let me come now to the environmental crimes and ecocide. Madam Speaker, that is the introduction of environmental crime and ecocide as part of anti-money laundering framework. This is a recent and accelerated development; this again does not fall from the sky. It is due to the persistent global socio-ecological justice movement campaign after clear links have been established between environmental crimes and companies operating the offshore sectors. Many organisations such as Stop Ecocide International, Transparency International, Global Witness are part of them. Historically, money laundering was viewed as victimless financial crime. The Global Justice Movement reframed it by highlighting how illicit financial flows drain resources from developing nations. This advocacy led to the inclusion of grand corruption and environmental crime as predicate offences for money laundering. The Global Justice Movement also pushed for the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) to ensure that AML laws are not just stopping the flow of money but returning the stolen assets to their rightful citizens. The intersection of environmental crimes, ecocide and reparation represent a major shift from traditional human centred justice to a more eco-centric model that treats the environment as a victim on its own right. The inclusion of ecocide in law means criminalising the mass destruction of ecosystems thus, essentially, treating environmental devastation with the same gravity as genocide or war crimes. I will not go into the definition because of time. Madam Speaker, let me say, in this era of climate crisis, since extinction of bio- diversities, destructive extractivist-driven economy, this amendment reflects the level of consciousness attained by the people of the planet and their movement. It has become a matter of survival. By adding ecocide in our statute book, Mauritius becomes a pioneer country in socio-ecological justice and custodianship. I think, this section on ecocide and environmental crimes marks the biggest leap in Mauritian environmental law since independence. The European Union has already moved to criminalise environmental crime and countries like Belgium, France, Vietnam, Chile have already incorporated ecocide and ecocide-like legislations in their domestic law. For the hon. Leader of the Opposition who is not here but who was sincerely wondering why the inclusion of this amendment in our law for FATF compliance purpose, I will humbly request him to read, lir impe the FATF report on Money Laundering from Environmental Crime, June 2021. I will recommend him to lir impe the new Environmental Crime Directive, Directive 2024/1203. These two documents will surely enlighten him on the issue. Let me add that the amendments we are bringing to this House, beside making ecocide a crime in our law punishable by imprisonment, criminalises non-compliance to environmental protection fee. It extends the provision of assets recovery to environmental crime and the ecocide and for the first time ever, introduces reparation in our law for ecocide. The new Section 135B provides for Non-Criminal Penalties or Measures. The new section 135C provides for Recovery of Expenses. Madam Speaker, we, the people of Mauritius, who lived the first marine ecocide of our history through the oil spill arising through Wakashio shipwreck, should applaud this amendment being brought to the Environmental Act. I am sure if the previous government could be brought to court under this new law, it would have surely been condemned for ecocide. The wanton, the reckless disregard for an environmental consequence during the first 12 days of Wakashio shipwreck would have been sufficient for them to be condemned for ecocide. In any case, this law would have also opened the door for massive reparation for the prejudice caused to the people of Mahebourg and South East coast by the companies and agencies which caused this ecocidal spread of the marée noire – the oil spill after 12 days of reckless disregard for an environmental consequence. Having been on the waterfront, I know what we are talking about. Madam Speaker, this Bill gives hope to humanity and Mauritius. It shows that as global capitalism unravelled, it also generated its own contradictions that is, the rise of global people’s movement for social justice and ecological justice. It generates the very seeds to challenge its dominance and build new world with shifting paradigms. Rezistans ek Alternativ, my party and me, are proud to be in this House and to vote for this Bill. Today is a historical day because not only because of a change in seating arrangements. It is a historical day because of the piece of legislation that we will be enacting in a few moments. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Yes, let me tell everybody. I have got hon. Boolell, hon. Bhagwan and hon. Mohamed, Ministers who will have to speak and then the hon. Minister of Financial Services will be making her winding up speech. I would greatly appreciate if you could really respect the time because after that, we have to do Committee Stage. I have a statement from a hon. Minister. We are not home yet, please! Hon. Dr. Boolell! I did not want to embarrass you. (5.38 p.m.) The Minister of Agro-Industry, Food Security, Blue Economy and Fisheries (Dr. A. Boolell): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The joy of having to intervene after two eloquent speakers – the hon. Prime Minister and our good friend, the hon. Minister of Social Security, there is not much left for me to say except that I will stick to the time allotted to me. I am not saying that I will be like a jurisdiction without substance but I have a few things to say. Now, the days, Madam Speaker, of preferences and rent seeking are over. Financial services sectors, competitive. As a responsible government acting as an enabler, a facilitator of a dynamic sector which is brain gain for young ambitious graduates, we constantly have to re-engineer the sector and to gain competitive and comparative advantages – our jurisdiction has to be neat, clean and a jurisdiction of substance. Singapore, Luxembourg, Malta, Liechtenstein, Bermuda, Dubai, Ireland just to name a few – would not hesitate to ruffle our feathers to have a competitive edge – make Mauritius our preferred destination is our mantra. And, the financial services thrive in the name of effectiveness, transparency and accountability. The hon. Minister responsible for financial services and economic planning wasted no time to move 24 amendments of the Bill as recommended by the Ministerial Committee co- chaired by herself and the hon. Attorney General. And the amendments were moved 24 hours after the Bank of Mauritius announced the termination of the conservatorship of Silver Bank and the Bill is the gatekeeper of our jurisdiction. As a jurisdiction of substance, we should not be caught off the cuff – I am not going to say with our pants down but certainly not off-the- cuff. Our Financial Services Centre has taken the rung of the FATF ladder and within a year, as the hon. Prime Minister stated, has gained eight places. The Chief Executive of Financial Services Commission is confident; our jurisdiction would pass the ESAAMLG test with flying colours. May I remind the House, Mauritius was placed on the FATF grey list and black list of EU in February 2020. On the global financial index, Mauritius went on a precipitous fall from 63rd to 89th place. Why? Because MSM-led regime was a laundromat for criminals to wash, rinse, dry and spin-dry dirty money. The hon. Minister rightly so, and has to be congratulated because she conveyed strong signals in relations to – (i) Know Your Client and customer due diligence is the premium of the sector; (ii) suspicious transaction reporting; (iii) application of law to the core; (iv) and open and resilient jurisdiction; (v) confidence and integrity. I would also like to draw attention to alleged online attractive portfolio to lure investors and no one Madam Speaker, should be impervious or sensitive to change, especially to fundamental changes. I heard a good colleague, the hon. Minister of Social Security, talking of ecocide. In 2019, the Rome statue was amended to make ecocide an international crime but the previous regime never dared. The amendment brought to the Environment Act through the Bill is a testimony of affirmed commitment neither to dither nor to delay and the Bill makes provision for scrutiny of cooperative enterprises. A pillar of democracy – that is what cooperatives are. Equality, equity unfortunately has been used as a conduit for criminal activities by cronies of the MSM. The Vacoas Multipurpose Cooperative Society scandal was a pillar of big financial mess – almost Rs400 million was siphoned. It is a broad day light robbery by cronies of MSM. MSM-led regime was eternally in collusion with McMafia, Madam Speaker and McMafia operates all over and especially in the real estate. Unexplained wealth from dirty money has been invested in Dubai. The criminals have to be answerable to unexplained wealth order. The hon. Prime Minister has said it, everybody has reinforced it and it has to happen. They cannot get away with murder. Government has taken the right decision to call a Forensic Audit of Silver Bank’s past transactions. The various fraudulent practices which occurred with the connivance of persons within the bank and outside, have been exposed. Silver Bank was run by bankster and not by bankers, anointed by the former Minister of Finance with the blessings of his leader. The Internal Auditor sounded the alarm in relation to illicit activities was threatened. Madam Speaker, the singsong of Pack & Blister, Silver Bank, MIC, Alvaro Sobrinho, should not simply be a lullaby. Sobrinho, as the hon. Prime Minister has stated, was responsible for many illicit activities, but he was also responsible for a near constitutional crisis which provoked the departure of a president in 2018. Of course, as has been stated by the hon. Prime Minister, he got a Certificate of Character from the then DPM when the latter looked him in the eyes! The hon. Prime Minister has consolidated democracy and there is no price for it. The demarcation lines between democratic institutions are wide. With due respect, both prosecution and the Judiciary should know that time is of an essence. Government is Government, but Parliament is supreme. An important Bill is being moved, Parliament so decides. The nation does not want to be packed with blisters over delays while the guilty parties are enjoying armchair comfortability in Maradiva Hotel. A symbol of fraudulent practices. Madam Speaker, there have been complains made over the rigidity of the Bill by some operators. Yes, indeed, and rightly so. If not, our competitors and even MGos would go for our jugular. That was to some extent stated by our colleague, the hon. Minister of Social Security. Oxfam staged a protest against Mauritius at an OAU conference in March 2014, held in Abuja, following the report submitted by Thabo Mbeki as Chair of the High Panel on Illicit Financial Flaws. I had to stand for our friend, the then Minister of Finance. I think it was Xavier-Luc Duval, and I had to rebut and highlighted the merits of our jurisdiction as a clean, neat and a low tax jurisdiction of substance. The name of the game under the previous regime was opacity. Pockets first, country last. FATF judged Mauritius to have a low or moderate effectiveness across the 11 immediate outcomes. The mutual evaluation found that Mauritius was largely fully compliant on 14 of the 40 Financial Action Task Force recommendations while 26 recommendations were rated as partially or non-compliant. The keyword, Madam Speaker, is effectiveness. FATF’s revised methodology places a much stronger emphasis on measurable effectiveness, not only where the laws exist, but whether they deliver concrete results. The FIU has reporting obligation. The legislative amendments in 2020 enforce stricter reporting, requiring reporting persons or auditors to submit requested information to the Financial Intelligence Unit within 15 days. But under the previous regime, it was hardly enforced. Our Government, through the hon. Minister of Financial Services and Economic Planning, has said it loud and clear, without fear, favour or prejudice, all suspicious related transactions have to be reported. To be forward-looking, Government has finalised the National Anti-Money Laundering, Combatting Financing Terrorism Strategy for 2026-2029. The accompanying action plan assigns clear responsibilities to each institution and ensures preparedness for the 2027 mutual evaluation. This approach was recognised and supported during ESAAMLG Executive Secretary’s High-Level Mission in July 2025. A comprehensive technical compliance assessment was conducted in 2025 using the revised FATF methodology to identify legislative gaps, particularly in relation to the 12 recommendations leading to the introduction of the Anti-Money Laundering, Combatting the Financing of Terrorism and Countering Proliferation Financing (Miscellaneous) Bill to ensure continued alignment with international standards. Preparations for 2027 mutual evaluation are well underway. These reforms are not being pursued for the sake of only an assessment. They are essential to safeguard the integrity of our financial system, protect Mauritius’ reputation and ensure continued investor confidence. Madam Speaker, our status as a trusted International Financial Centre must be preserved through collective effort by government, regulators, private sector and the civil society. This Bill reaffirms our collective determination to deny criminals the opportunity to exploit Mauritius, to recover illicit gains and to preserve the integrity of our institutions. It confronts contemporary threats, including proliferation financing and virtual asset, while preserving space for legitimate economic and charitable activity. Madam Speaker, in the light of climate of uncertainty in the Middle East, it is an opportunity which is knocking for our jurisdiction. We have to act without fear or prejudice to ensure that we attract investors to widen the circle of opportunities in Mauritius and to make our jurisdiction a prime jurisdiction. The amendments in relation to the Bill speak volume of opportunities which are knocking. I thank the hon. Minister. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you for respecting the time. Thank you very much. Hon. Minister of Environment! (5.52 p.m.) The Minister of Environment, Solid Waste Management and Climate Change (Mr R. Bhagwan): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Will you also keep an eye on time?

I will try my best.

You will also keep an eye.

I will watch the time. Madame la présidente, l’Anti-Money Laundering, Combatting the Financing of Terrorism and Countering Proliferation Financing (Miscellaneous) Bill, c’est une nécessité absolue pour le pays et il n’y a pas de temps à perdre. Je voudrais d’amblée féliciter mes collègues, l’honorable ministre des Services financiers et l’honorable Attorney General et leurs équipes respectives pour le travail abattu pour préparer ce projet de loi qui vise à mettre toutes les lois régissant notre système financier en diapason avec les nouvelles normes internationales. Ce qui a été dit déjà. Une nécessité parce que les dérives et les magouilles sous l’ancien régime – nous ne cesserons jamais d’en parler – ont terni la réputation de notre centre financier et nous nous sommes retrouvés sur le banc des accusés. Ce projet de loi vise avant tout, Madame la présidente, à redonner confiance en nos institutions financières et bancaires, et surtout, à minimiser les risques d’abus et les dérives. Un système financier, Madame la présidente, est un peu comme le passeport d’un pays. À quoi bon avoir un passeport superbement imprimé, mais qui n’est reconnu que par une petite poignée d’états ? Un passeport trouve sa légitimité quand il est internationalement reconnu, accepté et permet au détenteur de ce document de voyager librement aux quatre coins du monde. C’est dans l’acceptation de ce passeport que la souveraineté d’un état est reconnue. Et cette souveraineté, comme le passeport, n’a aucun sens en l’absence de réciprocité. En effet, Madame la présidente, la souveraineté et la réciprocité sont les deux piliers fondamentaux de nos relations internationales du droit. Un demi-siècle de cela, ce principe était adéquat, suffisant pour être accepté dans le Conseil des nations. Mais les choses ont évolué drastiquement avec la mondialisation, la globalisation et la financiarisation de l’économie. Le commerce international a atteint en 2024, 3 300 milliards de dollars, représentant 60% du PIB mondial. Et ce commerce mondial dépend énormément des services financiers devenus eux-mêmes un élément très important des exportations. Ce vaste mouvement de capitaux à travers le monde comporte évidemment des risques et les fraudeurs sont nombreux quand les contrôles sont insuffisants. L’offshores, avec ses sociétés écrans et ses montages complexes, est devenu un terrain de prédilection pour les white collar criminals.

Prédilection.

Oui, prédilection. C’est ainsi que notre petite île était devenue une plaque tournante sous le précédent régime. Des Panama Papers en 2016 au Pandora Papers en 2021, en passant par les Mauritian Leaks ou autres Paradise Papers, la réputation de notre pays était ternie et le pays s’est retrouvé sur des listes peu honorables. Des impostes, des fenêtres et des égouts permettaient ces transactions douteuses avec la complicité tacite des institutions réduites à des rubber stamps complaisants. Les autorités dites compétentes fermaient les yeux, pire, encourageaient ces activités illicites, éclaboussant même des personnalités au plus haut sommet de l’État mauricien. Mes collègues et moi-même, nous avons posé pas mal de questions avant les élections générales et nous savions comment ce loudspeaker qui nous empêchait d’avoir des réponses. Le pays lui-même était devenu une Silver Bank, une BanyanTree Bank – un rogue State. Le smoking gun, Madame la présidente, était entre les mains des grosses pontes du MSM. Il faut impérativement mettre de l’ordre dans nos lois régissant les secteurs bancaires et financiers pour se mettre enfin en conformité avec les normes internationales. Pour que le pays ne soit plus sur la touche. Pour que notre souveraineté, sur tous les plans, bénéficie d’une réciprocité des États et de nos partenaires pour que notre passeport financier devient réellement un passepartout. Et c’est donc ce pilier fondamental dans nos échanges internationaux que ce projet de loi vient consolider. Ce projet de loi est, en substance, un texte qui permettra à Maurice de se conformer à la dernière série de normes internationales établies par le GAFI. Par l’adoption de ce projet de loi, nous renforcerons notre cadre juridique afin d’éviter que notre pays ne soit inscrit sur la liste grise des juridictions du GAFI. Madame la présidente, bien que la République de Maurice dispose jusqu’en 2027 pour se conformer aux 40 recommandations formulées par le GAFI, notre pays fait l’objet d’un suivi étroit et nous avons le devoir de faire de notre mieux et vite pour démontrer des progrès concrets année après année. Il n’est pas nécessaire de rappeler aux membres de cette Assemblée, à nos amis, les dangers liés à un non-respect des recommandations – des conséquences économiques, financières désastreuses et une image écornée pour la République de Maurice. Dans ce contexte de tensions géopolitiques et de marges de manœuvre budgétaires limitées, notre pays ne peut tout simplement pas se permettre de prendre le moindre risque de figurer sur cette liste grise. Madame la présidente, les recommandations du GAFI exigent que les infractions de blanchiment d’argent s’appliquent à un éventail le plus large possible d’infractions. C’est dans ce contexte, le GAFI a explicitement souligné que les crimes environnementaux constituent des infractions graves générant des produits susceptibles d’alimenter les opérations de blanchiment d’argent. Selon le Global Risks Report 2023 du Forum économique mondial, la perte de biodiversité et l’effondrement des écosystèmes figurent parmi les risques mondiaux qui se détérioreront le plus rapidement au cours de la prochaine décennie. À l’échelle mondiale, la nature « faible risque et forte rentabilité » des crimes environnementaux en fait une source de revenus lucrative pour les criminels. Ne croyez pas, Madame la présidente, que nous sommes à l’abri de telles pratiques. En effet, alors que certains pensent encore que le blanchiment d’argent est une affaire abstraite de chiffres et de comptes offshores, une réalité circule dans des tuyaux en PVC, remplis d’oiseaux vivants, anesthésiés pour tromper la vigilance. Oui, des serins siffleurs, jusqu’à 75 par tube PVC, échangés contre de la drogue, au cœur d’un trafic organisé entre Maurice et la Réunion. Derrière chaque oiseau, c’est un système criminel qui prospère, qui blanchit et qui corrompt. D’ailleurs, ce trafic, où un oiseau peut valoir plus de R 18 000, a été largement abordé durant le Séminaire Franco-Mauricien relative à la Lutte transnationale contre les atteintes à l’environnement, tenu à l’île-sœur au début du mois et auquel a participé la police de l’Environnement et d’autres parties prenantes mauriciennes. Ce trafic n’est pas marginal, il est le symptôme d’un crime organisé, inventif, cynique, capable de transformer la biodiversité en monnaie d’échange. Alors oui, Madame la présidente, cette loi doit frapper fort. Elle doit remonter les filières, assécher les flux financiers et briser les complicités. D’ailleurs, les rapports des Nations unies placent désormais les revenus issus des crimes environnementaux au même niveaux que ceux provenant d’autres crimes financiers graves. À travers ce projet de loi, nous prenons des mesures pour que ceux qui tirent profit de la destruction de nos terres, de notre air et de nos mers soient tenus responsables de leurs actes. Il convient de noter que les « crimes environnementaux » englobent différentes réalités. Ils incluent l’extraction illégale ou le trafic de divers éléments, qu’il s’agisse de ressources naturelles et de minéraux, de déchets ou encore d’espèces de la faune et de la flore protégées. Ils concernent également des actes susceptibles d’entrainer des dommages graves, étendus ou durables à l’environnement, tels que des marées noires majeures ou des activités nuisibles ou illégales affectant la faune sauvage. Madame la présidente, pour lutter efficacement contre ces crimes, nous devons renforcer notre arsenal législatif. À cet effet, ce projet de loi introduit des amendements corrélatifs spécifiques aux articles 128 et 135 de l’Environment Protection Act 2024. Dans un premier temps, de nouvelles dispositions seront introduites afin de sanctionner ceux qui se soustraient délibérément au paiement de la redevance de l’Environmental Protection Fee. Les nouvelles dispositions comprendront notamment – • La criminalisation de la soumission de fausses déclarations et d’informations erronées ; • L’imposition de sanctions significatives à l’encontre de ceux qui induisent ou tentent d’induire en erreur le Directeur général de la MRA ; • Une augmentation substantielle des peines pour les contrevenants condamnés, avec en plus d’amendes comprises entre R 100 000 et R 500 000 et d’une peine d’emprisonnement pouvant aller jusqu’à 10 ans, et la possibilité pour la Cour d’ordonner le paiement d’un montant pouvant atteindre le double de la différence des sommes dues. Madame la présidente, à la suite de consultations avec le bureau du Directeur des poursuites publiques et celui de l’Attorney General, nous intégrons de nouvelles dispositions à l’Environment Protection Act 2024 relatives à l’écocide. Madam Speaker, our pride as Mauritians – whatever community we belong to, whatever political ideologies, whatever religious beliefs we might have, and whatever our age – is our unique environment. Our environment – our beaches, seas, mountains, fields, trees or birds – is something we all cherish. We all have fond memories of afternoons spent at the seaside or walks in our forests or hikes up our mountains. And we all know that our environment is fragile. We all remember, a few years ago, how the Wakashio incident deeply affected all of us. More importantly, it made us realise how vulnerable we all were. The immediate reaction of all Mauritians was then commendable. Still, we can remember the contribution of Rezistans ek Alternativ and all the friends of Eco-Sud and others. Across the island, people volunteered their time, and, some of us, even their hair to try to contain the noxious marée noire.

Yes!

Again, this shows how dear the environment is to all of us Mauritians. Quite a lot of laws in Mauritius do offer protection against all categories of violence against people. Mauritius mare noir, again this shows how dear the environment is to all of us, Mauritians. Quite a lot of laws in Mauritius do offer protection against all categories of violence against people. Sadly, violence, whether wilful or negligent against our environment, is not adequately criminalised. The existing laws, at best, only marginally punish those who harm nature. Existing offences against our environment are not even considered as a crime in our statutes but only as a misdemeanour. This has to change. This law, creating the crime of ecocide, changes that. The crime, inspired by growing global movement, led by small island nations, is crafted in such a way as to capture all possible harms against nature. There will be no more legal loopholes and no more impunity. It targets unlawful or wanton acts causing severe widespread or long-term environmental damage. The punishment is extremely severe. Those found guilty risk a maximum of ten years imprisonment. Another novelty is that there is no maximum fine. Instead, the fine will be proportionate to the damage caused. The law also provides for remedial actions or compensation. The law, Madam Speaker, ensures accountability for environmental disruption, deters against future harm, protects human lives and aligns our country with the FATF expectations. Lastly, this crime aligns itself with a promise this Government made which prominently features within the Government Programme 2025-2029 – to recognise the importance of our environment and protect it. I am here focusing on the inclusion of the right of nature within the constitutional and legal frameworks of the Republic of Mauritius. Pending the work of the Constitutional Review Commission, the consequential amendments proposed by the currently Bill are a step taken towards mainstreaming the rights of nature within our legal fabric, especially by criminalising ecocide. We, however, recognise that environment protection duties are shared amongst various institutions. Indeed, technical competences and enforcement duties are shared across various authorities as described within the Fifth Schedule of the Environment Act 2024. While the Office of the DPP will lead prosecution of offenders, we are ensuring a whole of government approach where technical competences from competent authorities are integrated within our judicial process. We are aware of potential logistical challenges such as the need for specialised experts to assess environmental damage. These will be duly called upon if the need arises. However, the United Nations Environment Programme advocates technical hurdles should not serve as an excuse for environmental impunity. The planetary crisis requires us to be bold. Madame la présidente, mais aussi collective, vigilante et citoyenne, c’est précisément le sens du programme ‘Service à L’écologie’ qui sera bientôt lancé par mon ministère. Notre ambition est de fédérer à travers toute l’île des éco pôles rassemblement des experts, formateurs, mentors, professionnels, retraités, académiciens, chercheurs et citoyens engagés pour créer un véritable réseau d’alerte de transmission d’actions sur le terrain, au plus près de réalité. J’appelle donc, à chaque citoyen, engageons-nous à faire émerger une société mauricienne lucide, formée, mobilisée, capable de détecter, dénoncer et de protéger. Un pays où chacun, Madame la présidente, devient gardien de l’environnement et de sa biodiversité. Madame la présidente, ce projet de loi ne concerne pas uniquement la conformité financière, il touche à l’âme-même de notre état océan d’une superficie de 2.3 millions de kilomètres carrés. J’envoie un message clair – notre capital environnemental n’est pas à vendre. Les braconniers et les autres criminels qui cherchent à tirer profit de sa destruction ne dormiront plus tranquille. Madame la présidente, ce projet de loi est un grand pas pour la mise en conformité de notre system financier mais un plus grand pas pour la protection de notre capital environnemental. Sur ce, je soutiens vivement ce projet qu’a présenté mon collègue.

Merci, monsieur le ministre d’avoir respecté le temps. Hon. Minister for Housing and Lands! (6.10 p.m.)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Indeed, it is an important piece of legislation, and from the very outset, I also, would like to congratulate the hon. Minister for bringing this piece of legislation to this House. As far as my Ministry is concerned, we are to refer to Clause 18 of the present Bill, that talks about the Real Estate Agency Authority. And, what I would like to address, I am of the view, is of utmost importance. Having listened to everyone, every single person has made a very important contribution to this democratic process but allow me at the outset to make reference to the interesting exchange at the time that the hon. Prime Minister was addressing the House and in front of him was the hon. A Duval. Mention was made of recordings, audio recordings and I saw how comforted hon. A. Duval was when he said, from a sitting position, all of us heard him said that he was himself victim of those recordings. Fact. Very true. The hon. Prime Minister also talked about the former Commissioner of Police. Once again, I looked at my good friend, hon. A. Duval, and saw the smile on his face where, once again, he tried to explain that he has been victim of the acts and doings of certain people at the time but what shocks me, apart from the fact that I am sad and that he is not here right now, but what is even more saddening, Madam Speaker, is that he chose, knowingly, to side with those that were spying on him. Now what does that show? I fail to understand, I mean, I would have huge difficulties sitting next to those who have championed the cause of spying unlawfully, …

(Interruptions)

That has nothing to do with spy, I can assure you because a spy would have been quiet.

This happens but try and keep it quiet.

So, I fail to understand how he could do that. I mean, I wish he could, at some stage, explain and tell the people and the House how has he put that aside because, at no time, did I hear anyone from the former regime apologise. At no time did I hear the Leader of the Opposition whom he sits shoulder-to-shoulder say – “Sorry, I did not know but I condemn what was happening.” At no time, have we heard any member of the MSM condemned the fact that there was such unlawful behaviour from those at the very top of our executive in those days but then, we have also heard about the whole issue of Álvaro Sobrinho. True. Once again, hon. A. Duval, in a sitting position, said – “Not Assirvaden, I am the one who brought it up.” Good for you and true it is, I did hear him bring it up. True it is that, the then Leader of the Opposition, who was Xavier Duval, did also question the Prime Minister of the day on that particular issue. There was crossing of swords between the Prime Minister of the day and the Leader of the Opposition and there was hon. Collendavelloo who was sitting there in a very squared position feeling so proud of himself. I remember those days. But then again, how is it that hon. A. Duval, not only him, but his whole party sat shoulder-to-shoulder with those who supported Álvaro Sobrinho? How did he stand on the same electoral platform as the person who said – “ I only get li lizie dan lizie and I gave him a due diligence exercise?” How could he do that? How could you forgive? How could you forget so easily? Today, you want to take the position, your high moral position of supposedly representing the right side? But you should always choose the right side of history. You should believe in those positions that you adopt. You should believe and act accordingly! It is sad because my good friend, hon. Adrien Duval, has chosen to forget the moral of the ground or has a different definition than I have. I shall deal with it at the end of my intervention. Madam Speaker, to come to this legislation, clause 18, let me say it is necessary to understand how we have arrived at the current state of play in real estate sector. Back in 2018, ESAAMLG Mutual Evaluation Report highlighted a very important fact, let me quote this. I quote – “Mauritius does not have a specific legislation which requires real estate agents to be registered. The only requirement is that anyone wishing to operate this business must obtain a general business registration certificate. On the other hand, with respect to real estate agents and dealers in precious stones, there are no specific measures in place to prevent criminals and their associates from entering the market and being beneficial owners or holding a management function in this sector.” The vulnerability rating from the 2019 National Risk Assessment was thus high (high in bold and underline). What did the government-of-the day then do? Despite the shortcomings identified in ESAAMLG, no credible action was undertaken by the then government across all sectors. As a result, we were eventually placed on the FATF Grey List and also on the EU Black List. This is what the hon. Leader of the Opposition pretends not to remember or not to know. He puts that aside as though it never happened. He tries to rewrite history, but this is the truth. He cannot run away from that truth. So, the Real Estate Agency Authority Act was enacted in 2020 to establish a dedicated authority for real estate sector, with a view to both regulating the activities of the real estate agents, including developers and promoters. I will try to explain as I go along why this is of utmost importance. So, what did the government do? I have a document which is Proclamation No. 10 of 2020. I have it here, signed by the President of the Republic of the Day. So, the Act comes into force as from 01 November 2020. Sections 1 to 11 are proclaimed. Sections 17, 20, 33, 41, 43, 45 and 47 are proclaimed, but the other sections of the law are not proclaimed. Therein I start putting questions. The whole idea is to clean up the sector to ensure that we comply with what we have to comply with, to ensure that there is monitoring, that there is surveillance, supervision, and that we comply with the law, that we are a clean jurisdiction, at least, in that particular sector. But why is it that the government-of-the day decides not to proclaim those sections? What are those sections of the law that was not proclaimed? Section 16 was not proclaimed. Why? This concerns registration requirements. Section 18 was not proclaimed. It concerns the establishment of a register of real estate agents. Why? Section 19 – mandatory written contracts between real estate agents and their clients – contracts, mandatory entre les clients and the estate agents –, why was that not proclaimed? Why was there, therefore, the need, Madam Speaker, to create a situation where there was no need for a mandatory written contract between real estate agents and clients? Who did they try to protect? What did they try to hide? What were the transactions that were about to take place when they were in power? And they could not, therefore, afford to proclaim that very section! What were they hiding? Section 21 – keeping of accounts and audit provisions. What was so difficult to ensure that accounts and audit provisions were complied with? Sections 23 and 24 – c’est la folie – suspicious transactions reporting and AML/CFT breaches. That is what we are here for. That is what the hon. Minister is working for. That is why the co-chair, the hon. Attorney General, is there working and helping us to achieve. Why was it do difficult? Why did they not at least try to proclaim Sections 23 and 24 pertaining to suspicious transactions reporting and AML/CFT breaches? What were they trying to hide? I wish they would at least come out and tell us the truth. The hon. Leader of the Opposition representing the rot, the rot, that is, the MSM, has chosen to be absent again. And his partner, shoulder to shoulder with him, is also absent today! Keep on spying on me, he says. Keep on listening to what I have to say. I shall say I am not happy with what you are doing, but I will sit next to you and I will espouse your positions. This is what he is saying! Is it a coincidence that they choose not to be here today together? So, I say it again: Sections 25 to 32, why were they not proclaimed? Disciplinary framework for professionals’ misconduct and review of decision by the authority. Madam Speaker, Section 44, Offences and Penalties, was not proclaimed. Section 46 the Transitional Provisions for existing practitioners was not proclaimed. If you want to have the secret recipe as to how to create a bulldog sans dent – this is the masters of it – is the one who represents the MSM, who had as Prime Minister someone who is guilty of all those offences in my view. Because it is an offence against the nation not to proclaim. It is an offence against the people of this country to put us in a situation of risk again in the name of protecting who and in the name of hiding what? That is the question. So, what is the point, therefore, of having created the authority? To pay people to sit in there and do nothing? Madam Speaker, what is the objective of this government? For one thing, it is not to replicate the mess, but to create a situation where we wipe the mock that they have left behind for us. We have to wipe it clean. The Real Estate Authority has to be empowered to investigate. That, they did not want. We have to ensure, and we are doing it. We have to ensure that the authority can conduct disciplinary proceedings, impose sanctions, control the register and prosecute. They did not want that. You see, Madam Speaker, the amendments in clause 18, since 2025, we have done everything possible to ensure that the Real Estate Authority becomes operational as soon as possible. Most of the remaining sections of that Act will now be proclaimed once we are done with this Bill and it becomes a law so that registrations can be effected. It will be in action once the relevant sections of the Act are amended as per the miscellaneous provisions. It will empower the authority to adopt a look through approach, meaning the authority will not only ensure that agents are properly registered, but also that employees of agents who carry out agency work adhere to minimum standards – the very standards that the MSM did not want to hear of. It is unfortunate that there is no legislation that can enable any government to prosecute those who have caused a crime against the nation because this, is incompetence, but this, is criminal negligence. Furthermore, the Bill will now extend the AML/CFT compliance obligations to State institutions for real estate transactions on a risk sensitive basis. Madam Speaker, the way forward. We will finally have a proper register of agency including developers and promoters, allowing for proper entry screening to ensure that only individuals with a proper track record may operate within the sector. Can you imagine, Madam Speaker, that some of the sections that were not proclaimed – and I say so, purposefully, knowingly, – were sections between 25 and 32. The Act sets a clear framework to sanction misconduct, dishonesty, gross negligence, misuse of another real estate agent’s information, failure to produce record, false statements, misrepresentations of ownership, acting without consent, accepting secret commissions, and acquiring interest on property without disclosure. So, they did not want all of this transparency. They were allergic to it! And this is precisely what we will not do again. This will put them, not only their wrongdoing, belongs to the past but we are, therefore, obliged, duty-bound to ensure that this does not happen again. Madam Speaker, you see why I am so passionate about this. I will say so.

I can see.

Because I am aware as Minister that there are many properties belonging to the State that was given out by the former regime. You know, many people today say, there is almost no State Land available on our coastline, on the beaches. True! Why? Because the former regime finn dilapid tou. Inn done. Dal mo done doub. Tou inn done.

I can see creole is getting on.

(Interruptions)

You see, when gave it all out and I know for a fact that many of those properties were developed. The question is how many of those people’s friends to whom they gave State Lands to develop in order to become millionaires, billionaires overnight? How many of them have registered at the authority when they could not have done it because it was not proclaimed in the law? How many would have had to have contracts between their clients’ agents? How many of those promoters would have had to have written contracts? Then clearly, cannot, and will not, because they were not obliged to have it because the law was not proclaimed. How many billions of rupees have been really made sur le dos des contribuables? And how many of those billions have been siphoned off outside the country? That is my question! And then, they tried to bring their heads out from under the stone. They tried to pretend to be cleaner and holier than thou – paragons of virtue. Madam Speaker, I would like to say that we have been left with a with a Herculean task. It is not easy to clean up the mess. The easy part is making the mess without even thinking of tomorrow because this was their attitude. They did not think that they had think of tomorrow. They just made the mess. That was the easy part. Now creating confidence in institutions, ensuring that institutions work independently, ensuring that each of those institutions are given the right resources, capacity building, monitoring ability, enforcing ability, supervision ability, all this, it is for us to do. So, the work is for those who believe honestly in change that we will do it. They can go out there and pretend that they are, as I said, they are cleaner and they are the champions of the truth, but in fact, they are exactly the opposite. Now, let me conclude to say.

Yes.

I congratulate the hon. Leader of the Opposition for his absence. I congratulate his hon. friend sitting next to him shoulder to shoulder for his absence, but I heartily congratulate the hon. Quirin who is here because he is true to himself and he is present.

(Interruptions)

I, therefore, once again, ask everyone in this House to congratulate the hon. Minister for the excellent piece of work, together with her officers, that she has produced, and the officers of the hon. Attorney General’s Office in the drafting of this legislation. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Yes, hon. Minister. That was a mouthful. Up to you now! (6.31 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, let me thank the hon. Members from both sides of the House for their valuable comments and appreciation of this important Bill. Because important it is, Madam Speaker. Important not only in its own right but as a matter of national interest. And this is why I wish to put on record my appreciation to all the hon. Members for their support of this Bill. Madam Speaker, let it be clear, money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing are not merely regulatory concerns. They are fundamentally matters of national security. Illicit financial flows fuel organised crime, sustain drug trafficking networks, entrench corruption, and in more severe instances facilitate acts of terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Madam Speaker, this Bill is comprehensive in scope and transformational in effect. As we conclude our deliberations to that, I will address the concerns raised and set out the safeguards, implementation roadmap and expected outcomes of this legislation placing these measures in both national and international context. Allow me to reassure the House that this important piece of legislation, amending no less than 23 pieces of legislation, reflects a structured and progressive legislative process aligned with national and international obligations. This Bill is a strategic response to an evolving global and economic environment. Since our removal from the FATF’s Increased Monitoring list in October 2021 the FATF standards and methodology have continued to evolve to meet increasingly sophisticated financial crimes and emerging risks, and ever since this Government took place, we have been continuously assessing and updating our exposure to those risks. The hon. Prime Minister just elaborated the work being done by the 16 competent authorities, by the Core Group, by the National Committee, by the Interministerial Committee, under the oversight of the hon. Prime Minister himself, and the Cabinet. The whole thing commences with the publication of the National Risk Assessment Report in May 2025 which, let me remind the House, was due since 2022 as the NRA is meant to be published every three years and the last one was published in 2019. In the 2025, NRA report, technical compliance gaps were identified to the FATF standards. Reforms to strengthen the AML/CFT framework in preparation for the ESAAMLG mutual evaluation were also announced as far back as the last Budget 2025/2026. Works have been ongoing since then to ensure that the drafting of this Bill, as well as consultations have been going on. These processes give a clear indication that the work on preparation and readiness of the mutual evaluation never stopped. I said this, Madam Speaker, because during the past few months, it has been said repeatedly and publicly that Mauritius has been at major risk of going on the grey list and the hon. Prime Minister also referred to that. Not only was this narrative repeated over and over again, bringing or trying to bring our government to disrepute, as if we were sitting and doing nothing but more gravely and more seriously, it has been putting the reputation of our country at risk, creating a fear factor and scaring investors. This has been nothing but irresponsible behaviour. We must sustainably assess evolving risks to keep our international financial centre safe, secure and reputable. These assessments inform our legislative amendments, which in turn, provide necessary safeguards to our financial system. The 2025 NRA delivers a clear actionable diagnosis. It identified risks or operational realities as recent high-profile investigations and asset seizures have shown, whether through misuse of GBCs, complex trust structures, layering via cross-border transfers or exploitation of cash intensive sectors. The patterns of abuse demand faster, smarter and more integrated responses. Madam Speaker, this Government has been proactive. Not only have our regulatory authorities strengthened AML/CFT supervision and improved compliance culture among stakeholders but we are also introducing the necessary changes ahead of the mutual evaluation to ensure that no sector under FATF purview remains exposed or under- supervised. These reforms are designed to ensure Mauritius aligns with international standards and is fully prepared for the forthcoming mutual evaluation. Madam Speaker, allow me now to address specific concerns raised during proceedings. Section 68A, Investigative Powers – concerns were raised about the speed at which the Financial Crimes Commission may request account information by email and the perceived removal of judicial oversight. It is important to emphasise that this measure is not a new unchecked power. The provision is carried forward from the repealed Asset Recovery Act. Before any request is made, the Commission must satisfy a three-part test – (i) Reasonable grounds to suspect criminal property; (ii) That the information is of substantial value to the investigation, and (iii) That the request is in the public interest. These three statutory thresholds are meaningful safeguards designed to prevent arbitrary use of this power while enabling timely investigations into proceeds of crime. Section 56, FCC Police Investigation Coordination – questions were asked about potential overlap between the FCC and the Independent Police Complaints Commission and whether cross-investigations erodes independence. The framework already existed but has been strengthened to close gaps and bolster accountability. Cross-investigation protocols are designed precisely to avoid conflicts of interest. The FCC investigates Police officers to prevent Police self-investigation and the Police investigates FCC officers where appropriate. This reciprocal arrangement preserves impartiality, protects integrity and sustains public confidence. Property of Corresponding Value and Protection of Third Parties – concerns were raised that the definition of “property of corresponding value” might sweep in innocent third parties. The statute explicitly protects Bonafide purchases. Paragraphs in the definition exclude property held by Bonafide third parties. The law is therefore targeted at knowing participants in financial crimes, not innocent third parties who acquire assets in good faith. The FCC guidelines ‘shall’ versus ‘may’ – concerns were expressed about the wording of the FCC guidelines using ‘may’ while the statute uses ‘shall’. Let me clarify the matter to the hon. Member on the other side of the House who has raised this concern. The statutory obligation remains binding. Legal persons shall put in place adequate procedures to prevent financial crime. Guidelines, by contrast, are illustrative and discretionary instruments. They outline acceptable means of compliance, reflect international best practice and assist entities in designing risk appropriate controls. The permissive language in guidance preserves flexibility for diverse businesses while the ‘shall’ in statute preserves the unambiguous legal duty to have effective procedures. Responsibility for sufficiency test rests with the legal person. The guidelines are complementary tools, not substitutes for the statutory duty. Next, the Declaration of Assets, Valuation of Works of Art and Digital Assets – on valuation concerns for work of assets and digital assets, the Declaration of Assets Unit of the FCC has a mandate to monitor declarations, to detect unexplained wealth, not to certify precise market values. Declarants are required to declare works of art exceeding Rs500,000 which balances proportionality and detection of high value concealment. Where declarations raise red flags, cases will be referred to the FCC Investigation Division which may engage specialist valuers through expressions of interest to establish market value and support further inquiry. Madam Speaker, concerns were also raised regarding the exemption from penalty payment in cases of voluntary declaration of asset under section 10(3) of the Declaration of Assets Act. I believe there is merit in the concern raised and I shall be coming forward with an amendment to that provision during the committee stage. The relevant provision regarding voluntary disclosure proposal will be amended to include three binding safeguards – (i) A strict six-month time limited window for relief after the prescribed deadline; (ii) Exclusion of any person already under investigation for offences under the DOA Act from eligibility, and (iii) A one-time only application per declarant. So, these measures preserve the incentive for timely compliance while offering limited control relief to genuine late filers or administrative oversight. Madam Speaker, with regard to the provision regarding cases to be dealt with and I quote: “de die in diem”, I shall be coming forward with an amendment during committee stage to the effect that the Supreme Court and the Intermediate Court shall proceed expeditiously with the trials, if possible, de die in diem. In other words, it will be up to the courts to decide whether the hearing will be de die in diem. Regarding the concerns of administrative burden, the risk of overreporting and an increase in cost of compliance, Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the concerns raised regarding administrative burden and the potential complexity that may arise due to enactment of these amendments. I am myself a big champion of striking the right balance between regulatory compliance and ease of doing business. Too much compliance can undermine ease of doing business. However, let us be clear, the reputation of Mauritius has no price. The long-term benefits of strengthening our position as a credible and internationally recognised financial centre will far outweigh any short-term compliance cost. This position is consistent with international best practices and recognises the inherently low-risk and private nature of such structures. By adopting a targeted approach, we ensure that regulatory efforts remain focused where the risks are highest, rather than imposing blanket obligations that may unnecessarily burden legitimate and low-risk entities such as family offices. This not only alleviates compliance costs, but also preserves the competitiveness and attractiveness of our jurisdiction for investment.

I am sorry, hon. Minister. It looks as if you got quite a lot to go.

I do, yes. I mean another 10 minutes, maybe.

Another 10 minutes! I don’t think so. I think if you go through these pages, it will take … I hate to stop you, but c’est un peu inhumain aussi. Let us say we go until 7 o’clock. Let’s see. We will go until 7 o’clock because we are still…

(Interruptions)

Hon. Minister, I am sorry.

So, let me focus on the amendments that will come at Committee Stage because I have to explain that.

Yes, because we still have to go through Committee Stage.

Yes, let me just do the …

I have a statement, and I also have people who will speak after adjournment. So, I don’t know when…

So, let me focus on explaining why we are proposing some amendments.

Yes, because I think most of what you have been saying, you have said it at the beginning when you introduced the Bill, it seems to me. Yes, come with the amendments!

So, insurance brokers being licensed under Insurance Act fall within the statutory definition of a financial institution for the purposes of FIAMLA. The general insurances businesses do not fall under the definition of activities of financial institution as defined by FATF. As such, their inclusion in the AML/CFT Framework is derived from the legislation itself. The existing definition does not sufficiently distinguish between life and non-life insurance activities. I shall, therefore, come up with an amendment during Committee Stage to remove these activities from the definition of financial institutions under FIAMLA. There was also a remark made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition on unchecked power of regulatory authorities under the Bill which, I think, is important that we deal with. Hence, I would like to remind the House that the mentioned authorities are statutory bodies and they are subject to judicial review. So, they have an obligation not to act in accordance to the provision enshrined in empowering legislation, but also reasonably and justly and in accordance with the law of natural justice.

Judiciously.

Madam Speaker, on the Opposition side, there was also a valuable suggestion made regarding motor vehicle dealers and leasing companies. The hon. Prime Minister spoke about it. I just wanted to add that work is going on at our Ministry’s level, at the Ministry of Commerce’s level and at the inter-ministerial level, there is a committee working on that. We will be coming with amendments and proposals to regulate this sector, which, as we all know, has been or is being used for anti-money laundering. Allow me to deal with two comments. One was the FATF being a colonial style legacy where countries are coerced into adopting these international rules by developed countries. It is important to emphasise that FATF standards apply universally. They are not directed at developing countries alone. Every jurisdiction, developed or developing, is subject to the same evaluation framework. In fact, many developed countries have, themselves, faced serious scrutiny and periods of enhanced monitoring. There are various examples of countries that have been subjected to that: Iceland, Monaco, British Virgin Islands, etc. I would also like to respond to one important clarification. There was also a comment made regarding the balance between direct tax and indirect tax. It was said that it is not true that the offshore sector is the biggest tax contributor in Mauritius. That is not true. What I had said in my speech and I always repeat that, and that’s actually proven in an economic impact assessment report done by the University of Mauritius last year, which showed that 65% of corporate tax revenue in Mauritius comes from the financial services sector and 34% of the PAYE revenue comes from the financial services sector. So, now, one can argue that the balance of direct and indirect taxes is not right in Mauritius. I checked with a few other countries. We are quite aligned with some countries. But I agree and we have been campaigning on that that VAT has too much of a burden in our country. Who pays VAT? It’s the citizens, the people of the country. We have campaigned on that that the economic model, the fundamental model of our country is wrong. Madam Speaker, for example, in Mauritius, 30% of our tax revenues are from direct tax revenue from PAYE and corporate tax, and 53% is through indirect tax. For us, of course, we want more direct tax and less pressure on the consumers, so, less indirect tax. But how do we do that? We are consumption-driven economy. This is where we need to change the economic model. We need to come with a production-driven economy. We need more enterprises investing, we need more exporting, and we need more jobs so companies can pay taxes and employees can pay taxes. That is how we can increase the direct taxes component and reduce the indirect taxes of VAT tax components. So, Madam Speaker, let me reassure the House that this legislative package is focused on clear practical goals and guiding principles. Let me skip that, Madam Speaker, because it is going to repeat what I have said and many speakers have said again. So, in the interest of time, I will skip those.

Hon. Minister, I am sure there will be a lot of opportunities for you, in the future, to come back on the very important issues that, obviously, you would like to deal with. So, today, it is the Bill. We have circulated the amendments. Everybody has the amendments? Okay!

Okay. So, let me conclude, Madam Speaker, by saying that this Government is being proactive by bringing the necessary changes before the next mutual evaluation so as to ensure that no segment under the purview of the FATF remains exposed or under supervised. I respectfully urge the hon. Members to support this Bill. By doing so, we will – • strengthen the integrity of our financial system; • protect our national security and public institutions; • preserve investor confidence and our international standing, and • ensure that Mauritius remains a jurisdiction where legitimate commerce flourishes and criminals are denied refuge. In closing, let me reiterate our commitments – • We will implement these reforms swiftly and transparently; • We will resource and train our institutions; • We will monitor outcomes and adapt where necessary, and • We will cooperate fully with international partners to demonstrate measurable effectiveness. Madam Speaker, with this, I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE (Madam Speaker in the Chair) THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, COMBATTING THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM AND COUNTERING PROLIFERATION FINANCING (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (No. III of 2026) Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 (Companies Act amended). Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill.”

Madam Chairperson, I move for the following amendment to clause 4 – “in clause 4, by inserting, after the words “is amended”, the words “, in section 2, in subsection (1),”;” Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 (Courts Act amended). Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill.”

Madam Chairperson, I move for the following amendments to clause 6 – “in clause 6 – (i) in paragraph (b), in the proposed new section 41AA, in subsection (3), by deleting the words “Supreme Court proceed with the trial de die in diem” and replacing them by the words “Supreme Court shall proceed expeditiously with the trial and, if possible, de die in diem,”; (ii) in paragraph (d), in the proposed new section 80E, in subsection (3), by deleting the words “Intermediate Court proceed with the trial de die in diem” and replacing them by the words “Intermediate Court shall proceed expeditiously with the trial and, if possible, de die in diem,”;” Amendment agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 (Declaration of Assets Act amended). Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill.”

Madam Chairperson, I move for the following amendment to clause 7 – “in clause 7, in paragraph (f)(ii), by repealing the proposed new subsection (3) and replacing it by the following new subsection – (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where a person referred to in section 4(1) or (3) or 6(1)(b) fails to submit a declaration within the specified period and thereafter makes a voluntary declaration or makes a declaration not later than 6 months after having been notified by the Commission, he shall not be liable to any penalty, provided that he is not the subject of an investigation under this Act.” Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 (Financial Crimes Commission Act 2023 amended) Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill.”

Madam Chairperson, I move for the following amendments to clause 9 – “in clause 9, in the proposed new section 68A – (i) in subsection (1), by deleting the word “and” at the end of paragraph (b) and replacing it by the word “or”; (ii) in subsection (2), by deleting the word “request” and replacing it by the word “requested”;” Amendment agreed to. Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 (Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act amended). Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill.”

Madam Chairperson, I move for the following amendments to clause 10 – “in clause 10 – (i) in paragraph (b), in the proposed new subsection (5), by deleting the words “which may compromise or influence its operational independence”; (ii) in paragraph (d), in the proposed new subsection 10A, in subsection (2), by deleting the words “Subject to subsection (2), a temporarily” and replacing them by the words “Subject to subsection (3), a temporary”;” Amendment agreed to. Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 11 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill. First Schedule Motion made and question proposed: “that the first schedule stand part of the Bill.”

Madam Chairperson, I move for the following amendments to First Schedule – “in the First Schedule, in the proposed Fifth Schedule, by adding the following new items – 12. Insurer conducting General Insurance Business 13. Insurance Broker with respect to General Insurance Business 14. Professional Reinsurer 15. Insurance Broker with respect to Reinsurance Business” Amendment agreed to. First Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Second Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. The title and enacting clause were agreed to. The Bill, as amended, was agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with Madam Speaker in the Chair, Madam Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Anti-Money Laundering, Combatting the Financing of Terrorism and Countering Proliferation Financing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. III of 2026) was read a third time and passed.