Madam Speaker, Sections 56 and 113 of the Financial Crimes Commission Act provide that where in the discharge of their functions, the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and the Mauritius Revenue Authority (MRA), amongst others, have reasonable grounds to suspect an illicit source of income, they shall refer the matter for investigation to the Financial Crimes Commission (FCC), which has been empowered to seize assets, pursuant to section 61 of the Financial Crimes Commission Act. Madam Speaker, the FIU is responsible for receiving, analysing, and disseminating financial intelligence. It analyses Suspicious Transaction Reports received from regulated financial institutions and, where indicators of financial crimes are identified, refers cases along with supporting evidence, that is, the intelligence reports, to the FCC for investigation and enforcement. Madam Speaker, in so far as the MRA is concerned, it is responsible for the administration and enforcement of revenue laws, including the collection of taxes, duties, contributions and levies. MRA plays a key role in combating tax evasion and related financial offences. In cases where there are reasonable grounds again to suspect the commission of a money laundering offence or the existence of unexplained wealth, the MRA refers such matters to the FCC for enquiry, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Financial Crimes Commission Act. Madam Speaker, it is opportune to highlight that in accordance with Section 132 of the Financial Crimes Commission Act, there is provision for the setting up of a National Coordination Committee under the chair of the Director-General of the Financial Crimes Commission for combating financial crimes which consists among others, the Director of the Financial Intelligence Unit and the Director-General of the Mauritius Revenue Authority. Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that these institutions operate in a totally independent manner, so, it would not be in order to provide the information requested by the hon. Member.

Thank you, hon. Prime Minister. Yes!

Madam Speaker, may I ask the hon. Prime Minister, there have been many, many seizures in the last few months, which is a very good thing, but it highlights a major problem. There are tens of millions of assets being bought in car dealerships by persons who are being prosecuted at the moment for money laundering. The question is whether the hon. Prime Minister has received information for the need to severely strengthen and toughen KYC legislations and requirements on car dealers whether brand-new cars or second-hand cars because it is not normal that there are – if you look at yesterday’s seizures, nearly Rs100 million of cars…

Just question!

… bought at one dealer whether he finds it normal and whether he does not find the need now to come with severe and stronger legislations?

Be short and direct, please! Yes!

No, I do not find it normal and we hope that we will catch all these people but the law is very, very strong already on this. It is very pertinent to look at the law and to see what are the penalties that are being given. So, there is no need to again go and consolidate a law that is already very severe.

Madam Speaker, if I may ask a second question? May I ask the hon. Prime Minister, if the law is sufficiently strong at the moment, why is it then that persons who were involved in drug trafficking – suspected – are allowed to go and to buy a car for Rs20 million and goes 3 or 4 cars at one dealer? How is the law now working in that sense? May hon. Prime Minister say whether any prosecutions have been laid against any of those persons who have facilitated those transactions of money-laundering by selling such high value assets to people who are clearly using tainted proceeds?

That is clear as you said. They are in possession of the cars. There is no evidence that they have actually bought the cars.

Okay! Alright, hon. Jhummun, you did not have anything else? Hon. Beejan! SCEs, PS, DPS, AS – POSTING & RESHUFFLING – POLICY, PROTOCOL & CRITERIA