Madam Speaker, with your permission, I will reply to PQs B/194, B/201 and B/209 together as they relate to the same subject matter. But I will seek the indulgence of the House as the reply is quite lengthy. Madam Speaker, during the period 20…

Hon. Minister, I am sorry. Would it not be possible to communicate the reply?

You want me to circulate it?

Circulate it? No, you do not want. You want to question him? Alright! But we do not have much time!

I cannot, unfortunately, give an abridged version of my reply. Thank you very much. During the period 2014-2024, the priority of the then regime was land speculation. Consequently, there was massive encroachment upon fertile and prime agricultural land. Post COVID-19, food production in Mauritius should have been a national priority. Unfortunately, it was not. Our government is restoring food security as a central pillar of national policy. My Ministry has adopted a proactive and a resilient-driven strategy to protect the food supply of the country in the face of global uncertainties. Rs800 million has been allocated to the Ministry during the Financial Year 2025-2026 to support farmers, planters, breeders through various schemes and assistance programmes. These, amongst others, include sheltered farming, purchase of agricultural equipment, installation of CCTV camera, seed subsidies and reengineering of accompanying measures. The Ministry organised the Assises de l’Agriculture in January 2026. The report of the assises will feed into a food security programme for the year 2026-2029. Discussions during the assises focused on unlocking new resources, identification of new technologies as well as how to achieve diversification to reduce dependency on existing markets. Six strategic priorities were, accordingly, identified during the forum – (i) Food sovereignty and security; (ii) Agriculture/climate and environment nexus; (iii) Environment/plant/animal health; (iv) Value chain and youth engagement; (v) Technology and innovation, and (vi) Good governance and institutional coordination and policy coherence and financing. As soon as the war situation in Iran unfolded, Madam Speaker, I convened an emergency coordination meeting on 03 March 2026 with the relevant technical services and institutions of my Ministry. The utmost priority is for the achievement of quick wins and making sure our local produce is readily available for sale, given the numerous uncertainties. In this context, an action plan has already been prepared by the Ministry regarding immediate actions or low-hanging fruits, medium-term measures and longer strategies that will be considered in view of the conflict in the Middle East or Gulf countries. I, therefore, wish to reassure the House and the public at large that in the immediate future, there is no shortage of affordable vegetables and staple vegetables like onions, potatoes and garlic. There is full supply of fish, poultry meat and eggs from local farms. Moreover, increase in quantities of venison meat will be available on a yearly basis. The Agricultural Marketing Board has already secured additional seed potatoes from France and Netherlands, which are expected to arrive in May 2026, allowing planting to start by early July 2026. This initiative is expected to generate an additional 2,000 tonnes of potatoes over and above the estimated 13,000 tonnes normally produced annually. As at February 2026, the Barkly Experiment Station has a strategic stock of 2 tonnes of vegetable seeds of more than 20 different types of vegetables that can be used to plant over an area of around 2,300 arpents. These seeds are being sold to planters at a highly subsidised price. But we have to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. For example, the National Farmers Union of UK estimates that the world is about to see the biggest spike in food prices since Russian invasion of Ukraine due to the soaring costs of gas, diesel and fertiliser, and the disruption of shipping routes. Any crisis in the Middle East or Gulf countries sends shockwaves through the global economy. Today’s disruption to the gulf oil supply is already bigger than those of 1970’s. We have to brace ourselves as most oil crises lead to recession. Madam Speaker, my Ministry is actively focusing on the first two strategic priorities, that is, sovereignty, in order to boost local agriculture production along the agriculture/climate/environment nexus to address climate change. Hence, an emergency plan has been prepared by the Ministry to be implemented in the short-term. The plan focuses on import substitution policies and optimising production under the present challenges. These programmes include – • new land resources; • strategies to boost production of local staples such as potato, sweet potato, cassava, bean fruit; • a precision farming scheme which will allow entrepreneurs to access emerging technologies such AI-driven precision farming, use of sensors, drones and high- yielding seeds. May I remind the House that under the Labour-led government, low-glycemic rice was grown in Cluny and on sale in supermarkets. A Household Food Security Scheme will be launched to allow backyard farming. I will now elaborate on a number of concrete measures which are being implemented, namely – 1. Creation of an agricultural land bank at my Ministry and mobilisation of land by the State Investment Trust, Rose Belle Sugar Estate and Landscope Mauritius Ltd for the cultivation of potatoes and other strategic crops so as to increase the strategic buffer stocks of essential crops such as potatoes, onions, garlic from six weeks to nine weeks. 2. Provisions of grant provided by Food and Agricultural Research and Extension Institute, and Small Farmers Welfare Fund to help farmers to modernise the agricultural activities, improve both productivity and adopt locally manufactured fertilisers. 3. Distribution to farmers at highly subsidised prices of fast-growing crops such as beans, cowpeas, leafy vegetables, cabbage that can be harvested within two to three months. 4. Strengthening cold chain storage systems and agro-processing capacity for the transformation of key crops in order to reduce post-harvest loses from small farmers and extend the shelf life of agricultural produce. The Ministry is presently engaging with private sector operators such as CopeSud and Best Foods on this issue. 5. Diversification of import sources and procurement arrangement for potatoes, onions and garlic to reduce supply risk. 6. Monitoring of prices in consultation with the Ministry of Commerce and Consumer Protection and to ensure there is no abusive practices. 7. Reliable access to irrigation water and improve agricultural yields by developing irrigation schemes through this Irrigation Authority and encouraging farmers to exploit boreholes in the fields. 8. Improving the ease of doing agri-business through small planters through one stop shop strategy. The Small Farmers Welfare Fund will act as a facilitator. Madam Speaker, food security also concerns the availability of meat and livestock products. In this regard the Division of Veterinary Services of my Ministry has initiated the diversification of import sources for livestock. The Division has explored the possibility of importing parent poultry stock from Kenya and Zambia.

Hon. Minister, may I? We already…time is…

If time is up, I would have circulated. My friend insisted that I should...

How long more do you have?

Well, if time is up, time is up, okay. I would circulate.

Yes, thank you. We won’t be able to have a supplementary. Time is up! More than a few minutes anyway. So, time is up now. Thank you very much, hon. Minister, sorry.

That’s alright. I am used to that now.

It was a very important question. I now have to announce, hon. Members, I have a series of questions that have been withdrawn, of course. So, now I will list them: B/195, B/196, B/197, B/202, B/204, B/205, B/206, B/207, B/208, B/210, B /211, B/212, B/214, B/215, B/216, B/217, B/219, B/220, B/222, B/223, B/225, B/228 and B/229. Thank you very much. Hon. Members, I want to tell you that if I close my eyes, it’s because of the lights. The Broadcasting lights which you don’t get but I get. I will try and get special glasses. MOTION SUSPENSION OF S.O. 10(2)

Madam Speaker, I beg to move that all the business on today’s Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order 10. Mr Mohamed seconded. Question put and agreed to. PUBLIC BILLS First Reading On motion made and seconded, the National Research and Innovation Institute Bill (No. IV of 2026) was read a first time.

I think maybe it would be better at this stage that we break for tea because we don’t want the hon. Minister to start and then we stop her in the middle. It’s much better. Thank you very much. At 4.11 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 4.52 p.m. with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

Yes, hon. Minister. Second Reading THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, COMBATTING THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM AND COUNTERING PROLIFERATION FINANCING (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (No. III of 2026) Order for second reading read. (4.52 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, I beg to move that The Anti-Money Laundering, Combatting the Financing of Terrorism and Countering Proliferation Financing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill ((No. III of 2026) be read a second time. Madam Speaker, our financial services sector is at the heart of the Mauritian economy; contributing 12.4% of GDP, employing 20,000 highly skilled professionals directly and many more indirectly, generating 65% of Corporate Tax Revenues and 34% of PAYE revenues. It’s a source of pride, strength and stability, enabling us to stand tall in the world. Our financial services system has not only proved an immense source of prosperity in the past; it is also fundamental to fulfilling our ambitions for the future. So, I stand before this House to present this important Bill, which brings forward a fully comprehensive and forward-looking set of reforms to safeguard the strength, integrity and resilience of our financial services. And this could not be more timely, more relevant or more necessary. Reaffirming our financial standing, reinforcing our credibility and reminding the world of our commitment to reform in the face of new incoming financial threats. Showing our commitment to combatting money laundering, the financing of terrorism, and the financing of proliferation. Madam Speaker, the world is changing faster than any of us can imagine. Financial crime is evolving. It’s becoming ever more sophisticated, technologically enabled and cross border. In such an environment, maintaining the status quo is not an option. We must continuously strengthen our legislative and institutional frameworks to remain ahead of emerging risks. Madam Speaker, at its simplest, this Bill is about protecting Mauritius from dirty money and the harm it brings. Money laundering and the financing of terrorism may sound too technical and daunting to many but these are not distant or abstract concepts. They are what allow crime, corruption, and illegal networks to survive and grow. When illicit money flows unchecked, it does not just affect banks and financial institutions; it distorts our economy, undermines honest businesses, and erodes trust in our institutions. For a country like Mauritius, whose strength lies in its reputation as a clean, well- regulated and trusted financial centre, this is not a just technical matter; it is a national priority. In an increasingly interconnected world, financial crime is evolving at an unprecedented pace. Illicit financial flows can move rapidly across borders, criminal networks operate with growing sophistication, and new technologies are reshaping the risk landscape. Faced with this, no jurisdiction can afford complacency. It is therefore incumbent upon us to ensure that our legal and institutional frameworks remain robust, adaptive and capable of responding effectively to emerging threats. Madam Speaker, the global standards in this domain are set by the Financial Action Task Force whose recommendations continue to evolve in response to new risks. As part of its latest round of Mutual Evaluations, the FATF has introduced significant amendments, placing stronger emphasis on effectiveness, risk-based supervision, transparency, international cooperation, and critically, the integration of proliferation financing risks. These developments signal a clear shift. It is no longer sufficient to have laws in place. We must demonstrate that they actually work in practice. Madam Speaker, Mauritius went on the FATF Grey List in February 2020. Whilst we came out of the Grey List in October 2021, I can say that it can leave lasting damage to our global reputation, so there is no place for complacency. Today, Mauritius stands as a jurisdiction of substance, fully aligned with international standards. We are compliant with 26 out of the 40 FATF recommendations and largely compliant with the remaining 14. This reflects the strength, coherence and maturity of our legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks but in a world where financial crime is becoming more sophisticated and more global, standing still is not an option. If we do not keep improving, we fall behind. This Bill is therefore about staying ahead, closing gaps, strengthening enforcement, and ensuring that our laws keep pace with new emergent risks. Madam Speaker, compliance is not the destination; it is the foundation. The focus has now shifted to effectiveness, particularly under the FATF’s Immediate Outcomes. In this regard, areas such as supervision, beneficial ownership transparency, financial intelligence, and the confiscation of criminal assets remain key priorities for Government. In addition, Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, we are facing threats that are evolving, transnational and technologically enabled. Criminal actors and malign state-backed networks exploit opacity, legal ambiguity and delay. They convert illicit proceeds through complex corporate and trust structures. They hide assets behind nominee arrangements. They exploit weaknesses in non-profit and cooperative sectors, and benefit from slow or fragmented cross-agency responses. And, to meet these challenges, we must modernise our statutory framework so that our supervisors, investigators, prosecutors and courts can act swiftly, effectively and fairly. Madam Speaker, it is precisely within this context that this Bill must be understood. Following the completion of our Second National Risk Assessment in 2025, Mauritius now benefits from a more refined and up-to-date understanding of the money laundering and terrorism financing risks within our jurisdiction. The findings of this assessment have been instrumental in shaping the reforms before this House. This Bill addresses the gaps identified while also aligning our framework with the latest amendments to the FATF Recommendations. It has been developed through extensive consultations with all competent authorities, regulatory bodies, and key stakeholders, as well as, with international and regional partners including the ESAAMLG Secretariat. Madam Speaker, the Bill strengthens our risk-based approach by introducing a more dynamic and continuous framework for risk identification and mitigation. It enables targeted and sector-specific assessments and ensures that critical risk information is disseminated effectively across all relevant authorities. A key feature of this Bill is the full integration of proliferation financing risks within our legislative framework. It introduces a clear statutory definition, imposes obligations on reporting entities to assess and mitigate such risks, and empowers supervisory authorities to ensure proportionate compliance. Madam Speaker, the Bill also significantly enhances our enforcement and asset recovery capabilities. It strengthens the powers of the Financial Crimes Commission. It introduces mechanisms for the temporary suspension of suspicious transactions. It reinforces provisions for the attachment and confiscation of illicit assets. The principle is simple and firm: crime must not pay. In parallel, the Bill advances transparency by strengthening beneficial ownership requirements and enhancing accountability within legal persons and arrangements, including trusts. It also introduces a more refined, risk-based approach to the oversight of non-profit organisations, protecting legitimate activities while addressing potential vulnerabilities. Madam Speaker, an additional and forward-looking reform contained in this Bill is the provision for the establishment of a centralised information management system. This system will consolidate concise, reliable and timely data from all competent authorities into a single, coordinated platform. The importance of such a mechanism cannot be overstated. Effective supervision, risk assessment, policy formulation and enforcement all depend on the availability of accurate and accessible data. By enabling better data integration, analysis and sharing, this measure will significantly enhance our ability to monitor trends, identify risks earlier, support evidence-based decision-making and demonstrate effectiveness under international standards. Madam Speaker, the reforms extend further to supervisory and regulatory frameworks. They introduce group-wide supervision, enhance the powers of regulators and strengthen coordination across institutions. They introduce group wide supervision, enhance the powers of regulators and strengthen coordination across institutions. They also address emergent risk including those linked to virtual assets and new technologies, ensuring that our frameworks remain future ready. Equally, the Bill reinforces both domestic and international corporation through improved information sharing mechanism supported by clear safeguards to ensure confidentiality and proper use. Madam Speaker, allow me to introduce the Bill clause by clause, explain what these amendments seek to achieve and set out the public interest that underpins these changes. I kindly ask the indulgence of the House given that we are amending 24 existing legislations. I start with the Bank of Mauritius Act. The amendment in the Bank of Mauritius Act aims at clarifying the bank’s confidentiality obligation so that where it is necessary to make a complaint, lodge a report or provide information about a person involved or suspected to be involved in an offence. Secondly, introducing a transparent administrative sanctions process that requires written notification of the intended sanction. Thirdly, setting out the grounds and terms. Fourthly, affording the licensee 21 days right to make written representations where a sanction may be imposed. Banking Act, including central bank provisions. The Banking Act is being amended in order to, firstly, clarify the definition of foreign exchange dealer in order to remove licensing and supervision ambiguities. Extend AML/CFT obligations to explicitly encompass proliferation financing and ensure new products, group programmes and customer due diligence measures reflect this obligation. Thirdly, strengthen confidentiality and information sharing provisions to permit both spontaneous and requested exchanges. The Companies Act is being amended to provide a more encompassing UBO definition which enhances corporate transparency, improves customer due diligence across reporting sectors and materially assists law enforcement and regulatory tracing. Madam Speaker, the Co-operatives Act is being amended to empower the Registrar to conduct outreach and training on AML/CFT obligations and require co-operative societies and credit unions to maintain a register of beneficial owners subject to supervisory access with penalties for non-compliance. The Courts Act is being amended to expand the criteria for referral to the Financial Crimes Division to cover offences involving public officials, high profile penetrators, foreign nationals or where the offence is grave or complex. Require fair and timely determination of matters by providing for expeditious conduct of proceedings de die in diem, progression after plea and adjournments only when it is in the interest of justice. Madam Speaker, the Declaration of Assets Act is being amended to, firstly, permit electronic submission of declarations, broaden definitions, for example, spouse and certain assets classes, and strengthen powers to request supporting information and documents. Secondly, introduce a narrowly framed voluntary disclosure relief for late filers who come forward before an investigation is underway and increase penalties for deliberate non- compliance. Madam Speaker, the Environment Act – as environmental crimes can be lucrative and may generate proceeds that feed into broader money laundering schemes, the Environment Act is being amended to introduce an offence of ecocide for unlawful and wanton acts that cause severe widespread or longer-term environmental damage with proportionate fines and custodial penalties of up to 10 years alongside non-criminal remedies such as restoration, compensation and exclusion from public funding. The Financial Crimes Commission Act is being amended to address operational gaps, improve clarity and enhance effectiveness. The definition of property of corresponding value is being introduced in order to enable recovery where original proceeds of crime cannot be located, traced, dissipated or held by bona fide third party. This significantly strengthens our asset recovery capability in line with international standards. The amendments also improve coordination between enforcement agencies by removing rigid statutory thresholds for referrals between the Commission and the Police. The provisions relating to unexplained wealth are also strengthened by broadening their scope to include residents and legal persons, and by introducing more flexible evidentiary mechanism to handle complex cases. Madam Speaker, the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act (FIAMLA) is being amended to refine the definition of financial institutions and expand transaction to cover professions and gambling and add clear definitions for non-profit organisation, proliferation financing and virtual assets and virtual assets service providers. Amendments are also being proposed to – • require reporting persons to address PF risk; • mandate a centralised information management system for AML/CFT/CPF data; • introduce consolidated group supervision; • improve domestic and international information sharing safeguards, and • provide procedural fairness and appeal rights for administrative penalties, tighten customer due diligence for existing customers and adjust sectoral reporting thresholds. The Financial Reporting Act is being amended to provide explicit powers to the Mauritius Institute of Professional Accountants to inspect its licensees, enable issuance of remedial directions with procedural safeguards and allow compounding of offences with appropriate oversight and escalation to law enforcement agencies where compounding is declined. Madam Speaker, the Financial Services Act is being amended to introduce a register of domestic trust and foreign trust having at least one qualified trustee. Clarify that the Commission may facilitate or permit foreign counterparts to conduct group level enquiries and extend supervisory information, exchange powers with safeguard on dissemination. Madam Speaker, the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act, the Income Tax Act and the Mauritius Revenue Authority Act amendment. The Gambling Regulatory Authority Act, The Income Tax Act and the Mauritius Revenue Authority Act are being amended to require beneficial ownership details at license application stage for gambling operators, introduce cash transaction limits and enhance fiscal investigation powers with carefully circumscribed search and seizure provisions and appropriate safeguards. Madam Speaker, the National Payment Systems Act is being amended to clarify endorsement and due process by allowing operators, participants and payment service providers to seek judicial review for administrative penalties and actions. The Real Estate Agent Authority Act is being amended to vest the authority with the responsibility of approving compliance officers in addition to MLROs and deputies, and formalising information sharing arrangements with other bodies for the purpose of tightening AML/CFT oversight, improve inter-agency co-operation and ensuring that transactional actors are properly regulated. Madam Speaker, the Registration of Associations Act is being amended to – (i) empower the Registrar to collect fundraising/financial/programmatic data; (ii) enable risk-based inspections and information sharing; (iii) provide a right of judicial review against administrative sanctions, and (iv) record fundraising/disbursement activity to enhance NPO transparency and TF risk mitigation. Madam Speaker, the United Nations (Financial Prohibitions, Arms Embargo and Travel Ban) Sanctions Act is being amended to provide for – (i) definition of risk to be expanded to cover proliferation and proliferation financing; (ii) and the speeding up of UN sanctions implementation, and strengthen coordination. Finally, Madam Speaker, the Value Added Tax Act is being amended to secure interagency cooperation while preserving safeguards. Madam Speaker, if these amendments are enacted and effectively implemented, we can reasonably expect – (i) A clear reinforcement in the effectiveness measures to prevent Mauritius being used as conduit for illicit finance by closing identifiable legal gaps; (ii) More rapid and effective investigations, better preservation of evidence and timely asset recoveries; (iii) Greater resilience of our financial sector and strengthened confidence among international partners and investors; (iv) Enhanced transparency and accountability across corporate, cooperative and public office contexts, and (v) Stronger compliance with FATF and related international standards, protecting our market access and reputation. Madam Speaker, this Bill addresses vulnerabilities identified in our National Risk Assessment and in international evaluations. It is urgent because criminal actors do not wait. It is measured because each enhancement is accompanied by safeguards and oversight. Our goal is not to punish legitimate business or hamstring legitimate commerce. Our goal is to deny criminals, the tools to exploit our jurisdiction, to preserve investor confidence, and to protect citizens from the corrosive effects of illicit finance on public institutions. Madam Speaker, the amendments I present today are the product of careful diagnosis of real operational problems and of comparative international practice. They are designed to work together – to make our supervisory regime clearer and more effective, to make prosecution and asset recovery practicable, prompt and to ensure our legal framework remains responsive to emerging risks such as virtual assets and proliferation financing. At every stage, we have built in safeguards to protect procedural fairness and individual rights. I invite hon. Members of the Assembly to examine each amendment on its own merit, to engage constructively with the Bill’s provisions, and to support this endeavour so that Mauritius remains a safe, credible and resilient financial jurisdiction. One that protects its citizens, honours its international commitments, and attracts legitimate investment and commerce. Madam Speaker, we, on our part, we are also investing significantly in capacity building to ensure that the successful implementation of the measures that I have just elaborated. Through training programmes, outreach initiatives, and collaboration with international institutions and development partners, we are ensuring that both the public and private sectors remain equipped to respond effectively to evolving risks. This whole-of-system approach is critical to sustaining effectiveness. So, Madam Speaker, taken together, these reforms represent a decisive and strategic step forward. They move us beyond technical compliance towards demonstrable effectiveness. They strengthen our institutions, enhance transparency, and reinforce our ability to prevent and combat financial crime in all its forms. Above all, they reaffirm our commitment to maintaining Mauritius as a credible, resilient and internationally respected financial centre. Madam Speaker, the message we send today is clear: Mauritius will not be a weak link in the global financial system. We will be a jurisdiction of integrity, of substance, and of trust. Now, Madam Speaker, before concluding let me make an important final point. I am conscious that whenever we bring forward legislations of this nature, there may be concerns from the industry. Some will say we are over-regulating. Others will argue that we are acting under external pressure. And some may worry about the burden on businesses. Coming from the private sector myself, I am very conscious of striking the right balance between compliance and an enabling business environment. Let me address this directly. First, this Bill is not about over-regulation – it is about smart and targeted regulation. It is about focusing on real risks, not creating unnecessary obstacles for legitimate operators. Second, this is not about doing things for others. It is about acting in our own national interest. A strong AML/CFT framework protects Mauritius – our economy, our jobs, and our international standing. And third, Madam Speaker, this Bill is designed to support – not stifle – genuine businesses. A clean and credible jurisdiction attracts more investment, lowers risk, and creates long-term opportunities for our people and our businesses. So, Madam Speaker, the choice before us is clear. We can either be reactive – waiting for problems to arise and then scrambling to respond in the future. Or we can take proactive, deliberate and decisive steps to safeguard our health today. This Bill chooses the path of responsibility, credibility and confidence. It takes decisive actions and it sends a clear and strong message. A clear message to investors – that Mauritius is a strong, safe and secure place to do business. And a clear message to those who would do our nation harm with dirty money or illegal finance – the message is – STAY AWAY! You have no place in Mauritius. The Mauritian economy is an economy built on integrity, honesty and the rule of law. An economy which is strong, stable and secure. An economy where legitimate enterprise can thrive, not just survive. So, delivering our wealth, our prosperity and an improved quality of life. Madam Speaker, with that I, now commend this Bill to the House. Mr Bhagwan rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to.

Thank you. You did very well! (5.23 p.m.) The Leader of the Opposition (Mr G. Lesjongard): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This Bill is not merely another piece of legislation as it concerns the very integrity of our financial system, the reputation of our international financial centre and ultimately, Madam Speaker, the economic security of every citizen of this country. Like the hon. Minister said earlier, today we are amending 24 Acts. We are being asked to debate on and vote this Bill in very peculiar circumstances. First, Madam Speaker, recently the hon. Deputy Prime Minister resigned and made some very serious accusations of corruption against political nominees. And a few days ago, I will have to come back to that, the hon. Minister and therefore a Member of the Cabinet of Ministers made more accusations of corruption and this time, stating that the situation is even worse than what described the former hon. Deputy Prime Minister, and of course, Madam Speaker…

(Interruptions)

The hon. Prime Minister himself for ten years on still has to explain to our justice system and the population at large where does his Rs220 billion come from.

(Interruptions)

Madame la présidente, on ne peut pas tolérer des accusations pareilles au sein du Parlement !

(Interruptions)

Hon. Juman, try and be… He is the Leader of the Opposition. Today, he is the Leader of the Opposition. An hon. Member: So, talk about the Bill.

(Interruptions)

We do not know! We do not know! Please, carry on!

Et en plus de cela, Madame la présidente, notre agence de lutte contre la corruption, je pense, n’est pas armée convenablement puisque le responsable de cette entité ne répond pas aux qualifications requises selon la loi. Et lors d’une Private Notice Question, j’avais posé une question supplémentaire à l’honorable Premier ministre concernant le renouvellement du contrat du directeur et tout récemment, malheureusement, le Vice-Premier ministre démissionnaire a confirmé qu’une tactique malsaine avait été utilisée pour le reconduire à ce poste.

(Interruptions)

Madame la présidente, je n’ai rien contre cette personne. Il a de l’expérience dans le domaine, mais il ne répond pas – une chose est sûre – aux critères établies par la loi. Madam Speaker, we agree that this Bill is necessary in order to reinforce our preparedness for the next major mutual evaluation by the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti- Money Laundering Group (ESAAMLG) scheduled next year. However, as custodians of the public trust, it is our duty as Members of this House to scrutinise not only the intent but also the substance, the implications and the potential consequences of the legislative framework we are being asked to endorse today. To properly evaluate this Bill, Madam Speaker, it is imperative that we recall with honesty and humility the episode that brought this nation to a very critical juncture, our placement on the FATF’s list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring, commonly known as the Grey List in February 2020. The question, Madam Speaker, why was Mauritius grey listed? These are the reasons pointed by FATF – • a lack of effective risk-based supervision of financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses and professions; • limited and timely access to accurate and up to date beneficial ownership information for legal persons and arrangements; • an insufficient oversight and monitoring of non-profit organisations to prevent their misuse for terrorist financing, and lastly, Madam Speaker, • a general ineffectiveness in conducting money laundering investigations and prosecutions, particularly those that are complex and transnational in nature. These are the very reasons we were put on the Grey List and the consequences of that listing, Madam Speaker, were immediate and severe. Our reputation as a prudent, compliant and well-regulated jurisdiction was tarnished. Correspondent banking relationships came under strain with some international financing institutions applying enhanced due diligence or in some cases, derisking by reducing their exposure to Mauritian entities. The cost of compliance for our local financial institutions increased exponentially. Investor confidence, the most fragile of commodities, was shaken. The Grey List was not merely a technical designation, it was an economic sanction imposed by the market with real impacts on jobs, investment and growth. Madam Speaker, the response of the Government of the day and indeed, of the nation as a whole to this challenge was commendable in its urgency and comprehensiveness. A high- level committee led by the then Prime Minister himself was established to expedite the implementation of the FATF Action Plan. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I understand that this committee does not exist to date. The legislative machinery was activated at an unprecedented pace. Amendments were brought to the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act, the Companies Act, the Financial Services Act and other relevant enactments. The Financial Intelligence Unit was strengthened in terms of resources and operational capacity. The Registrar of Companies was empowered to enforce the collection and verification of beneficial ownership information. A risk-based supervision framework was developed and rolled out across supervisory authorities, Madam Speaker. Extensive training and awareness programmes were conducted for reporting institutions, legal practitioners, accountants, and other stakeholders. Mauritius also enhanced its international cooperation, engaging proactively with the FATF and ESAAMLG and also other partner jurisdictions. This concerted effort of Government bore its fruit, Madam Speaker. In October 2021, a mere 20 months after being grey listed, the FATF announced the removal of Mauritius from its list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring. This was a record time for delisting, a testament to the political will at that time and also to the technical competence and national unity that was marshalled to address these deficiencies. It was a victory for Mauritius, a validation of our commitment to international standards and a restoration of confidence in our financial system. However, Madam Speaker, the removal from the Grey List was not an end point. It was a milestone on a continuous journey. Compliance is not a destination but a process. Mauritius remains under enhanced follow-up by the FATF and is preparing for its third mutual evaluation by the ESAAMLG which is scheduled for next year, that is, in 2027. This upcoming evaluation will be conducted under the FATF’s revised methodology of 2022 which places greater emphasis on the effectiveness of the country’s AML/CFT/CPF regime, not merely its technical compliance with the 40 recommendations. It is against this backdrop, Madam Speaker, that we must examine the Bill before us today. How does this Bill, that is, the 2026 Bill compare with the legislative framework that guided us through the grey listing episode and subsequent delisting? What new elements does it introduce, and what are their potential advantages and disadvantages? I wish to draw the attention of this House to specific clauses that warrant detailed scrutiny. On a general note, Madam Speaker, I have the impression that some institutions, under this legislation, like the Bank of Mauritius, the MRA, the FCC, the FIU and the FSC, are being given wide unchecked powers, under their respective acts, to enable investigatory fishing expedition, with an erosion of judicial control on them. On the definition of “beneficial ownership”, and here, I refer to clause 4, where this Bill is amending the Companies Act redefining “beneficial owner” to include any natural person who ultimately owns or controls a company or on whose behalf a transaction is conducted. It explicitly includes control through voting rights, debt instruments or positions held within a legal person. Similarly, Madam Speaker, clause 5 amends the Co-operatives Act to mandate a register of beneficial owners for societies, and clauses 12 and 20 amend the Financial Services Act and Trusts Act, respectively, to require detailed registers of trusts, including settlors, protectors and beneficiaries. The advantage here is clear, Madam Speaker. It closes the loopholes that previously allowed opaque structures to hide illicit wealth. It directly addresses one of the key deficiencies cited during our grey listing. However, the disadvantage lies in the administrative burden. Madam Speaker, the definition is broad, capturing effective control which can be subjective for legitimate family offices or complex investments structures, determining the natural person at the end of the chain, can be legally complex. If the guidance is not clear, we run the risk of over-reporting or inaccurate reporting, which defeats the purpose of transparency. Madam Speaker, furthermore, while clause 12 states that this information shall not be made accessible to the public, the sheer volume of data required to be maintained by trustees and service providers increases compliance costs significantly. Secondly, Madam Speaker, on asset recovery and confiscation powers. Clause 9 amends the Financial Crimes Commission Act of 2023, introducing the concept of “property of corresponding value”. This allows for confiscation, even if the original proceeds of crime cannot be located or have been dissipated or are held by a third party. It also empowers the Commission to require financial institutions to provide customer information within 48 hours under Section 68A. The advantage is a robust deterrent. Madam Speaker, criminals often hide assets behind nominees or convert them into different forms. This clause ensures that crime does not pay, even if the specific cash is gone, Madam Speaker. However, the disadvantage is the potential impact on third party rights. The definition of “property of corresponding value” is wide enough to include lawfully acquired property. While there are safeguards, the burden of proof shifts significantly, and we must ensure that innocent third parties, who acquire assets in good faith, Madam Speaker, are not inadvertently penalised. Madam Speaker, I refer to clause 9, where reference is made to an amendment to be brought to section 56 of the FCC Act. The question is: why was the Independent Police Complaints Commission created if now we shall have the Commission investigating on the police and vice versa? Madam Speaker, I note that in Section 64 (1) wide powers are being given to the Financial Crimes Commission. I hope that this clause will be used by the FCC judiciously, Madam Speaker. On a positive note, Madam Speaker, I note that clause 9, Section 104 introduces for the first time a Compensation Order, allowing courts to compensate persons who suffer loss due to serious default or gross negligence by commission officers. This, Madam Speaker, is a crucial safeguard that was lacking in previous legislation, and must be highlighted as a significant improvement in balancing enforcement powers with individual rights. Let me, now, refer to clause 68A which concerns power to require information for asset recovery investigations. We understand that now, through this Bill, by a simple notice which can be sent by electronic means, that is, an e-mail, the FCC can obtain customer information from financial institutions as compared to a judge’s order. Madam Speaker, this is very dangerous! Thirdly, on operational efficiency and FIU powers, clause 10 amends the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act. It introduces section 10A, allowing the FIU to order a temporary suspension of a suspicious transaction for up to 72 hours and can be extended by a judge. It also establishes, Madam Speaker – and the hon. Minister earlier mentioned that – a Centralised Information Management System, which is under Section 19EA of the Bill. Now, with regard to the administration and management of the system, it is stated that “The Ministry shall”. May we be informed which Ministry are we referring to? I believe it is the Ministry responsible for the subject of money laundering. Is it the Ministry of Finance? Madam Speaker, in the past, by the time the FIU analysed a report and law enforcement acted, funds had often moved offshore. A 72-hour freeze allows time for investigation. Definitely, the CIMS will improve data sharing between competent authorities, addressing the silos issue often cited by evaluators. However, the disadvantage is the risk to legitimate commerce. A 72-hour suspension, if used frequently and without precise intelligence, can disrupt legitimate business transactions, damage commercial relationships and expose reporting institutions to liability from their clients. The clause mandates non-disclosure of the suspension order, which is necessary for investigation but adds to the compliance, complexity for banks who must manage client expectations without revealing regulatory actions. Fourthly, Madam Speaker, on judicial efficiency clause 6 amends the Courts Act inserting section 41AA and section 80E, mandating that criminal proceedings before the Financial Crimes Division be conducted expeditiously de die in diem, once a plea is entered with strict requirements for granting adjournments. The advantage is undeniable and we do welcome this amendment. One of the criticisms during the grey listing period was the length of time taken to prosecute financial crimes. Delays often led to evidence degradation or witness attrition and as we say: justice delayed is justice denied, Madam Speaker.

(Interruptions)

This clause forces a timeline on the judiciary…

(Interruptions)

Madam Speaker, I cannot make my speech if somebody is barking behind me.

(Interruptions)

Come on! Come on!

This has happened too often, Madam Speaker!

I know!

(Interruptions)

Il doit retirer ! Il doit retirer ces mots-là !

Mr Jhummun, please! An hon. Member: Withdraw!

Both of you…

(Interruptions)

Members…

(Interruptions)

Both of you…

(Interruptions)

Mr Jhummun, please…

I did not say anything.

You didn’t say anything?

I did not say!

I am asking you to say that…

Ce n’est pas moi !

Ce n’est pas vous ?

C’est un chien !

(Interruptions)

S’il se prend pour un chien qu’est-ce que je peux faire ?

Non, alors là ça ne va pas ! No, hon. Minister …

Cheap barking…

Tout marchait très bien là et l’honorable Jhummun fait comme si je suis sourde ! Bien sûr, je l’ai entendu !

Ce n’est pas moi, Madame !

Mais il n’aboie pas, Madame.

Vous, vous n’avez pas dit les mots qu’il ne fallait pas mais vous l’avait interrompu ! An hon. Member : Il a dit qu’il faut le mettre en prison le plus vite possible !

Qu’est-ce-que je vais faire ?

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: Retire le mot ‘barking’!

No, I am willing but he should withdraw! But he should stop the way he is behaving…

I have told you in the past!

No, I don’t think so!

Yes, I have told you in the past, Mr Jhummun!

But this time it was not me, Madam!

It was not you!

(Interruptions)

Everybody knows it was you! Hon. Leader of the Opposition, just carry on! I won’t ask him anything because everybody is not being honest! Please!

Then I won’t withdraw what I said!

No, just terminez votre discours! An hon. Member: Terminez! Terminez!

And he was actually on a good… autant que j’ai pu comprendre. Il félicitait…

The word ‘barking’, he can use barking in the …

No, you cannot!

Yes, but nobody uttered that! Madam Speaker, it is said in a sense that nobody…

Okay, je perds patience. J’en ai marre ! Je lève la séance ! Vous n’avez pas compris ce qui se passe-là ? Soit, vous me laisser tranquille, nous savons très bien qu’il y a eu deux fautes. On reste tranquille ! On continue ou je lève la séance ? À vous de voir !

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: Be a gentleman!

Ça suffit!

No, if he agrees he has said what he said earlier, interrupting me, then I am willing to withdraw otherwise I won’t withdraw. If nobody said…

Non, mais…

(Interruptions)

Ce n’est pas lui ?

Alors, si ce n’est pas lui, celui qui a dit ça doit me dire qui c’est. On va voir qui s’est ?

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: Pran kredi la tomem ! Ale Babajee, pran kredi la tomem !

Mais c’est ce que je dis. Franchement, soit M. Jhummun pense que je suis totalement à l’ouest et il me fait croire, tout le monde sait que c’est lui !

Madame la présidente, pour trouver un compromis, je prends la responsabilité de ce qui s’est passé.

(Interruptions)

Okay!

I withdraw what I said, Madam Speaker!

De toute manière…

Let me come back to my speech, Madam Speaker…

Please, withdraw that word!

I said I withdraw, Madam Speaker!

Oh, you withdraw, I didn’t hear! Because everybody is shouting! De toute manière, cet après-midi je vais aller regarder, nous avons enregistré, je vais aller regarder cet après-midi. Mais vous avez retiré le mot, c’est très bien. Franchement, il est déjà 17h50.

Madam Speaker, I was talking…

Yes, take it in …

… about de die in diem concept and I was saying that this clause forces a timeline on the judiciary and the parties concerned. However, the disadvantage is the potential pressure on the justice system. Complex financial crimes involved voluminous documents and expert witnesses. We also know that considerable logistic is required if we have a certain number of cases being dealt with concurrently. Therefore, Madam Speaker, my question to the hon. Minister is – whether the judiciary was consulted in the drafting of this section. Madam Speaker, forcing de die in diem trial without adequate preparation time could compromise the quality of justice or lead to appeals based on unfair trial conditions. We must ensure the Judiciary is resourced adequately to handle this accelerated pace, Madam Speaker.

I hope everybody, I think it’s the Latin that got everybody like very odd, the de die in diem thing. We are used to this. Aren’t we Attorney-General?

Fair play, Madam Speaker…

Allez-y!

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. I sincerely think that this amendment has nothing to do with AML/CFT and I think maybe…

Bizin lir impe!

… this has been put in this Bill to please the Party in Government. Madam Speaker, the disadvantage is the enforceability of ecocide which is a very complex concept involving scientific evidence of severe, widespread or long-term damage. Prosecuting this requires specialised experts that our current law enforcement may lack, Madam Speaker. Clause 7 amends the Declaration of Assets Act expanding the definition of work of art to include digital arts and collectables and increase in penalties for non-declaration. The advantage is that it expands the scope of predicate offences for money laundering. Toutefois, on est en droit de poser la question, Madame la présidente, est-ce qu'on a à Maurice les évaluateurs d'objets d'art, de tableaux etc. Madam Speaker, valuing digital arts for asset declaration is highly subjective and may lead to disputes between declarants and the Commission. Finally, Madam Speaker, I must address the safeguards regarding administrative penalties. Clause 2 amends the Bank of Mauritius Act requiring the Bank to notify financial institutions of its intention to impose penalties and granting them 21 days to make written representation before the penalties imposed. This is a vital addition. In the previous regime, there were concerns about the immediacy of sanctions without adequate recourse. This clause introduces a layer of due process that protects institutions from arbitrary regulatory action. It is a disadvantage only in the sense that it may slightly delay the imposition of sanctions but it is a necessary trade-off for fairness and legal certainty. Madam Speaker, I must now address the elephant in the room. The prospect of Mauritius being grey listed, again, following ESAAMLG Mutual Evaluation schedule in 2027 is in front of us. Et je ne suis pas en train de crier au loup comme certains.

Prophète de malheur.

The Comsure Group notes that Mauritius is currently undergoing ongoing enhanced follow-up and the 2027 assessment will evaluate both technical compliance and effectiveness across 11 immediate outcomes with a more prominent focus on counterproliferation financing. The Platform Africa Report highlights that this evaluation will be conducted under FATF’S revised 2022 methodology which is more rigorous and outcome- focused. What are the present possibilities of a relisting Madam Speaker? The risk is not negligible. The FATF and ESAAMLG will be looking for evidence that our laws are not just on paper but are effectively implemented and enforced. They will assess whether our financial institutions are truly applying risk-based supervision, whether our authorities are successfully investigating and persecuting complex money laundering cases and whether our beneficial ownership information is accurate, timely and accessible. The inclusion of CPF as a core component of this Bill, is a proactive step in this regard. However, legislation alone is insufficient. The effectiveness of this Bill, Madam Speaker, will depend entirely on its implementation – the training of officers, the allocation of resources, the coordination between agencies and the culture of compliance within the private sector. If today we pass this Bill, but fail to adequately resource the FIU, the Financial Crimes Commission, the police and the supervisory authorities, we risk creating a façade of compliance that will not withstand the scrutiny of and on site ESAAMLG evaluation in 2027. Conversely, if we pass this Bill and couple it with a sustained well-funded and coordinated implementations strategy, we cannot only avoid relisting but position Mauritius as a regional leader in financial integrity. Madam Speaker, time will tell whether we have succeeded. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this Bill represents a necessary and timely evolution of our legal framework. However, we must legislate with our eyes wide open. The disadvantages, the increased compliance burden, the risk of regulatory overreach, the potential impact on business cost and privacy are real and must be mitigated through careful drafting, clear guidelines and ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders. Most importantly, Madam Speaker, we must recognise that this Bill is not a silver bullet. Its success will be determined not in this House but in the offices of regulators, the courtrooms of our judiciary and the compliance department of our financial institutions. When we vote for this piece of legislation today, Madam Speaker, let us do so with the solemn pledge to implement it with wisdom, proportionality and an unwavering commitment to both security and justice. For, in safeguarding our financial system Madam Speaker, we are safeguarding the prosperity and dignity of every citizen in this country. I am done, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, very much. Yes, hon. Minister of Labour. (5.59 p.m.)

Madame la présidente, j’allais commencer mon discours en regrettant l’absence de l’ancien Deputy Prime Minister, qui avait parlé longuement sur les risques d’un downgrade de Grey listing de Maurice sur la liste de GAFI mais en écoutant l’honorable leader de l’Opposition, je vois qu’il y a eu beaucoup de concertation parce qu’en l’entendant, je croyais croire que c’était l’ancien Deputy Prime Minister qui était en train de parler. Et ce n’est pas une coïncidence parce que ce matin aussi, lors du PNQ, c’était ex DPM, ex DPM, ex DPM comme-ci l’alliance a déjà été conclue entre l’ex DPM et le MSM.

(Interruptions)

Le leader de l’Opposition a commencé son discours en faisant référence au Financial Crimes Commission et la lutte contre la corruption. Excusez-moi, Monsieur le leader de l’Opposition, vous êtres très mal placé pour venir parler de lutte contre la corruption. Mais ce qui est de votre commentaire sur le Directeur Général, je vais reprendre ce que l’honorable Premier ministre avait dit en réponse à vote PNQ. Le Directeur Général présent, intérimaire du Financial Crimes Commission a été nommé selon les procédures établies par la loi, dans un premier temps, pour neuf mois et dans un deuxième temps, pour une deuxième période de neuf mois. Pourquoi ? Parce que le gouvernement est en train de préparer une nouvelle loi – le Financial Crimes Agency qui va absorber le Financial Crimes Commission. Donc, ce n’est pas la peine maintenant de nommer quelqu’un à la tête de la Financial Crimes Commission si dans quelques semaines, quelques mois, on aura à nommer quelqu’un d’autre à la tête du Financial Crimes Agency. Mais ceci dit, le gouvernement a déjà pris les mesures nécessaires pour amender la loi, le Financial Crimes Commission, pour renforcir les pouvoirs du Director of Public Prosecution pour qu’il n’y ait plus des cover-up, pour qu’on ne puisse plus ranger les cas de corruption dans les tiroirs. On a aussi amendé la loi pour permettre à la police et cela, en réponse à une des critiques de GAFI. On a permis à la police de faire des enquêtes parallèles dans des cas de fraudes, dans des cas de blanchiment d’argent. Madame la présidente, le leader de l’Opposition et c’est bon qu’il nous ait parlé de l’ile Maurice s’étant retrouvé sur la liste grise en 2020, mais il choisit de ne pas dire pourquoi. Moi je vous dis pourquoi. Monsieur le leader de l’Opposition, c’est parce que vous étiez dans ce gouvernement.

Adressez-vous …

Vous vous souvenez, Madame la présidente, de cas de Alvaro Sobrinho ? Jean-Claude Bastos de Morais, Quantum Global, Dos Santos, le Angola Sovereign Fund. An hon. Member: Mémoire courte.

Démantèlement de la BAI, ingérence du gouvernement dans les enquêtes. C’est la raison pour laquelle qu’on s’est retrouvé sur la liste grise en 2020. Heureusement qu’il y a eu Covid et on n’a pas eu à avoir tout l’entendu de l’impact d’être sur la liste grise. Aujourd’hui le leader de l’Opposition nous dit qu’il n’y a plus de comités présidés par le Premier ministre comme c’était le cas sous le régime précédent. Mais je suis sûr qu’il doit lire le compte rendu des décisions du cabinet. Le 7 novembre 2025, le cabinet a pris note de la composition d’un comité interministériel sur l’anti-money laundering, combatting the financing of terrorism and combatting proliferation of financing, qui est coprésidé par la ministre du Service financier et l’honorable Attorney General et dont fait partie pas moins de six ministres de ce gouvernement et 16 représentants des competent authorities. Je parle, par exemple, de la Banque de Maurice, de la Financial Services Commission, du Registrar of Companies, the Registrar of Association and the Registrar of Corporatives. Seize ! Dont la Financial Intelligence Unit. Et c’est ce comité, Madame la présidente, qui, aujourd’hui, a accouché du projet de loi que vous avez. C’est un travail d’équipe, bien sûr, présidé par les deux coprésidents, Madame la ministre du Secteur financier et l’honorable Attorney General. Mais tous les ministres et les competent authorities ont eu l’occasion de faire des commentaires sur ce projet de loi. Donc, c’est un projet de loi qui fait l’unanimité parmi les law enforcement agencies. Et oui, on espère qu’avec ce projet de loi, on va pouvoir répondre aux attentes du GAFI, l’année prochaine, en 2027, à travers l’ESAAMLG, qui va à nouveau nous passer en examen. Mais qu’est-ce qui s’est passé, Madame la présidente, depuis 2020 à aujourd’hui ? L’honorable leader de l’opposition a raison de souligner le risque qu’on se retrouve sur la liste grise. Pourquoi ? À qui la faute ? Peut-être que l’honorable leader de l’opposition oublie le fameux homme d’affaires : Mamy Ravatomanga, pendant dix ans sous le gouvernement MSM !

7.3 milliards !

7.3 milliards ! Ce monsieur a pu circuler librement à travers des sociétés écrans à Maurice. Donc, qui était responsable de cela ? L’autre cas : Banyan Tree Bank, la Silver Bank. Hier même, Madame la présidente, on a reçu un communiqué de la Banque centrale, qui a remplacé le conservateur par un receiver. Mais Banyan Tree, en 2020, avait premièrement forcé la Banque de Maurice de nommer un conservateur. Il avait gelé tous les comptes. Tous les comptes étaient gelés. Et qu’est-ce qui s’est passé après ? La Banque centrale, sous l’ancien régime, dont le gouverneur général est sous un mandat d’arrêt aujourd’hui, et l’ancien ministre des Finances est aussi sous un mandat d’arrêt, qu’ont-ils fait ? Ils ont agréé à un transfert d’actions entre les actionnaires de Banyan Tree aux nouveaux actionnaires de la Silver Bank. Et puis, ils ont fait pression sur des agences gouvernementales pour qu’elles gardent leurs dépôts avec la Silver Bank. Ils ont fait pression sur la municipalité de Port Louis et sur la municipalité de Curepipe pour qu’elles renouvellent leurs dépôts avec la Silver Bank. Je sais de quoi je parle parce que j’étais le président du Public Accounts Committee et on avait fait remarquer dans notre rapport; ils l’ont dit : « Ils ont reçu la pression, des instructions, venant du ministère des Finances, de renouveler leurs dépôts avec la Silver Bank. » Alors que ce même ministère des Finances avait dit dans une circulaire que n’importe quel corps paraétatique et municipalité qui a un excédent d’argent devait investir dans des bons du Trésor. Au final, dans une réponse à une PQ, l’honorable Premier ministre, c’était en date du 2 décembre 2025, a annoncé à la Chambre qu’un montant de R 3.35 milliards, appartenant à des government related entities, a été placé dans la Silver Bank sous leur gouvernement.

Padayachy!

Après, aujourd’hui, il vient dire que Maurice risque d’être sur la liste grise ! On risque d’être sur la liste grise ? À cause de vous et de votre gouvernement précédent !

Shame !

Ar sa pou al fer lalians la ein!

Madame la présidente, j’ai un petit peu souri lorsque le leader de l’opposition nous a demandé pourquoi on est en train d’introduire une nouvelle disposition d’écocide. Il va même plus loin pour dire que si on le fait, c’est sous la pression d’un de nos partenaires au gouvernement. Si le leader de l’opposition avait pris la peine de consulter le GAFI/FATF, les experts, il aurait su que depuis 2012 – je ne parle pas depuis 2025, quand on a pris le pouvoir –, depuis 13 ans, le GAFI n’arrête pas de tirer la sonnette d’alarme concernant les crimes contre l’environnement, qui sont devenus un racket international. Je parle de deforestation. Je parle de trafic d’ivoire et du trafic des animaux protégés.

Bois de rose !

Je parle justement du trafic de bois de rose.

Bois de rose ! J’avais posé la question !

Du trafic des bois de santal qui, aujourd’hui, selon le GAFI, je cite FATF de son website – “Environmental crime is one of the most profitable criminal enterprises, generating around USD 110 to 281 billion in criminal gains each year. It covers a wide range of unlawful activities such as illegal logging, illegal wildlife trade and waste trafficking.” Mais à Maurice, ce n’est pas un crime ! C’est ça le problème. Sous le précédent régime, ils n’ont jamais légiféré pour qu’il y ait un crime contre l’environnement. Et puis, ils se disent être des grands défenseurs, des grands écolos, un parti vert ! Depuis 2012, le GAFI vous dit qu’il faut légiférer pour avoir un environmental crime. C’est ce que nous sommes en train de faire aujourd’hui ! Ecocide ! Aujourd’hui, quand on passe une loi pour venir dire que toute infraction sera punie d’un penal servitude de dix ans, automatiquement, cela devient un crime. Pourquoi est-ce important que ce soit un crime ? Parce que sous la Financial Intelligence Crime, quand on est en train de combattre le blanchiment d’argent, la définition, c’est ‘proceeds of a crime.’ Donc, auparavant, toutes les infractions sous l’Environment Act n’étaient pas des crimes. Maintenant, avec cette loi, on aura un crime. Maintenant avec cette loi, on aura blanchiment d’argent pour tout ce qui est en train de tuer mère nature. Voilà, M. le leader de l’opposition, si vous aviez fait votre homework, vous auriez su pourquoi on a mis cette disposition dans notre loi. Madame la présidente, le leader de l’opposition a aussi fait une remarque par rapport à toutes ces nouvelles provisions qu’on a dans cette loi : « que le business sera encore plus difficile. » Il le dit : « Il faudra collecter toutes les informations, les partager. Ça prend du temps. Ça prend de l’argent. » Mais, Madame la présidente, la réputation de Maurice n’a pas de prix ! An hon. Member: Exactement !

Eux, ils ont grandi, ils ont régné dans l’opacité. Nous, on change. On règne dans la transparence. C’est ça la différence !

Tu as compris, Joe ?

(Interruptions)

…zot tou seki…

Si c’est un coût d’opération, si effectivement il y a un compliance cost, mais…

(Interruptions)

Chut !

Mais les bénéfices qui décolleront dans notre secteur financier comme un centre financier crédible international reconnu va excéder tout le risque d’augmentation du coût. Autre chose, et là j’étais vraiment très surpris, c’est le commentaire de l’honorable leader de l’Opposition concernant la justice. Vous savez, Madame la présidente, on veut être une juridiction crédible. Donc, on vient avec une loi pour que tous les cas de Financial Crime soient disposés le plus rapidement possible tout en respectant le droit des accusés. Donc, on est en train d’introduire le concept du procès continuel – tous les jours.

De die in diem.

C’est cela le fameux de die in diem. Mais ce n’est pas un nouveau, on l’a déjà en ce qui concerne les assises. Donc, simplement, maintenant on va appliquer le même raisonnement pour les financial crimes. D’autant plus que très souvent dans les financial crimes, on a des témoins qui sortent de l’étranger pour venir à Maurice parce que les crimes de blanchiment d’argent international, il y a la coopération de différent pays. Et on a su, quand il y avait, par exemple, le cas Boskalis, comment c’était difficile parce qu’à chaque fois M. Maunthrooa renvoyait le procès. Donc là, on introduit des mesures pour justement terminer au plus vite possible. Mais la remarque du l’honorable leader de l’Opposition qui me dérange, c’est qu’il est en train de suggérer qu’on puisse, nous, donner des directives au Chef Juge, au Juge. On ne peut pas le faire.

Je n’ai jamais dit ça, Madame la présidente.

Non, suggérer qu’on est entre de mettre pression sur le Judiciaire. On ne ...

(Interruptions)

Non, ce qu’il a dit, c’est est ce que le Judiciaire a été consulté. Nous savons qu’il y a la séparation des pouvoirs. Allez-y !

Le Judiciaire, je peux vous donner la garantie, et au l’honorable leader de l’Opposition, le Judiciaire va demeurer indépendant et il n’y aura aucune ingérence de notre gouvernement et jamais, au grand jamais, vous allez entendre l’honorable Premier ministre ou n’importe quel ministre de ce gouvernement venir critiquer la décision d’une magistrate comme l’ancien Premier ministre l’a fait.

(Interruptions)

Mais c’est vrai ! L’honorable leader de l’Opposition a la mémoire courte. Madame la présidente, brièvement je vais parler du deux aspects de ce texte de loi qui, un, suscite quelques controverses et c’est les provisions concernant le Trust – l’honorable leader de l’Opposition a fait référence au Trust. Madame la présidente, j’ai eu la chance de faire partie du steering committee en 2000, qui était venu avec le Financial Services Commission et j’étais dans l’équipe qui a rédigé le Trusts Act. Je me souviens très bien que 25 ans de cela, il avait une forte pression pour garder de la confidentialité autours…

(Interruptions)

Il doit report to the ex-Deputy Prime Minister. An hon. Member: Asiz zot!

(Interruptions)

Pas de Jacques Brel là ! Pas de Jacques Brel !

Donc, quand on était dans ce comité, c’était très important de préserver la confidentialité des informations concernant les Trusts et c’est pourquoi vous allez voir, je crois, de mémoire, que c’est à la Section 23 du Trusts Act qu’il faut passer par un ordre de la Cour Suprême pour avoir des informations concernant l’identité du settlor, des bénéficiaires et l’administration du Trust. Mais, cela c’était 25 ans de cela – depuis, les choses ont évolué. Même l’Angleterre, où dans un cas – je suis sûr que quand vous étiez à l’université, vous avez entendu des secrets trusts, half secrets trusts. Donc, cela n’existait même pas les Trusts. Il n’y avait aucune obligation de venir déclarer des trusts, encore moins de les enregistrer mais aujourd’hui même en Angleterre, il y a une obligation d’enregistrer la plupart des express trusts avec Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs Service. Donc, les choses évoluent et nous, à l’île Maurice aussi, on a du modifié nos lois pour créer ce registre de Trusts qui sera avec le FSC mais on a essayé de préserver la balance entre la nécessité de bien réglementer le secteur mais aussi préserver la confidentialité et donc ce n’est pas tout le monde qui aura accès à ces données. Ce n’est que la Financial Services Commission et les autres regulated entities, par exemple, les banques qui ont besoin d’avoir des informations sur les Trusts. Donc, on est en train de ménager les deux. Et puis, finalement, Madame la présidente, un mot sur le secteur qui concerne mon ministère, le Registrar of Association. Le Registrar of Association qui est concerné par la recommandation 8 on Preventing terrorism financing in non-profit organisations. Donc, le GAFI a souligné que les institutions charitables et les sociétés, les associations qui tombent sous mon ministère ont un risque d’être utilisés abusivement.

Manipulés.

Manipulés, pour le financement des activités terroristes. Notamment, il y a tout un scandale avec le financement d’Al Qaïda dans le passé. C’est pourquoi, aujourd’hui, on fait des amendements, on apporte des amendements au Registration of Associations Act pour assurer que toutes les associations qui sont à risque fassent un risk based asssessment et prennent les mesures nécessaires. En même temps, les officiers de mon ministère vont faire des inspections et s’assurer que les associations à Maurice, surtout les associations caritatives, religieuses ne sont pas manipulées et utilisées. En même temps, on a profité pour enlever une provision qui était assez archaïque qui permettait au ministre de décider si une association qui n’était pas en conformité avec la loi pouvait continuer à exister. Ce n’était pas le cas, par exemple, pour les compagnies. Pour les compagnies, si vous n’êtes pas compliant, the Registrar of Companies vous deregister. Mais par contre pour les associations, le Registrar of Associations n’avait pas ce pouvoir, c’était le ministre de tutelle. La conséquence, il y a plusieurs milliers d’associations qui ne sont pas compliant à Maurice et qui existent toujours. Donc, avec cet amendement, on retire ce pouvoir subjectif de la main des politiciens et on les met dans la main du régulateur, le Registrar of Associations. Donc, je vais conclure, Madame la présidente, en félicitant ma collègue pour cette excellente loi et j’espère que, maintenant, avec cette loi on va passer facilement le technical assessment. Maintenant, on va s’assurer au niveau des Law Enforcement Agencies qu’on passe aussi l’examen d’effectiveness. Merci.

L’honorable Rookny, c’est à vous! (6.22 p.m.) Mr K. Rookny (Third Member for Pamplemousses & Triolet): Madam Speaker, let me put the introduction of this Bill in the current context. We are a small island of 1.2 million without much natural resources and our main assets being our human capital. Our financial sector contributes around 12% our GDP and employs tens of thousands of people directly and indirectly which we need to protect as much as we can. Prior to 2014, we were really a jurisdiction of choice for many financial activities but since then, by a sheer incompetence of the Jugnauth government, we lost a battle and allowed our DTA with India, with South Africa to be renegotiated against our interests and other DTAs were just terminated. I cannot quantify enough the negative impact this has had on our sector. This has contributed in chasing away major international banks like the Deutsche Bank from our financial landscape whilst others have aborted their venture here. To make matters worse, comme mes amis avant moi l’ont archi dit, in 2020, the FATF placed us on its grey list. The trust that we had built over the years of constant hard work took a serious blow. It is very pertinent to ask whether we are still considered as a credible financial hub. We all remember 2020 when Mauritius was placed on the FATF Grey List. Correspondent banking relationships came under strain, transaction costs grew, the reputational cost was immediate and measurable. Investors asked hard questions, some walked away. Ce n’est pas une question abstraite, Madame la présidente. Quand la réputation financière d’un pays est entachée, c’est le citoyen ordinaire qui en paye le prix, pas seulement les grandes institutions. We came off that list but a country that has been grey listed once, carries a scar. This Bill is in part digressing on that scar. For that reason alone, it deserves to pass. Be it as it may, we are rebuilding and we need to reengineer. However, let us be honest, we are dutybound to introduce this legislation. This is an FATF compliance legislation. I am not saying we should not have brought this legislation but leadership goes beyond mere compliance. This is a serious Bill. It deserves a serious engagement and that is what I intend to offer today in support of its broad objectives. We have to admit that we had laws, albeit fragmented but it is on implementation that we have had issues in the past. Now, this Bill takes us from isolated measures to five interconnected pillars – • data strategy; • asset recovery; • transparency; • expanded regulatory scope, and • judicial speed. Madam Speaker, let us begin with what is perhaps the most consequential, conceptual expansion in this Bill. For decades, our regulatory framework spoke of Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT). This Bill now adds the letter ‘P’, Countering Proliferation Financing. This is not an acronym change for the sake of paper work. As we speak, the Middle East burns. Wars are being fought with weapons financed through structures that look on paper to be perfectly legitimate. The same instruments used to hide a corrupt official’s kickback can and have been used to fund the acquisition of technologies capable of mass destruction. Now that proliferation is in the game, those who are responsible in the relevant institutions will have not only to look at where does the money come from, where the proceeds come from, whether they come from legitimate or illegitimate proceeds. They should also be thinking about whether the proceeds of a legitimate business are going to be used for the wrong intent. Maybe they are buying aluminium tubes but instead of going for the manufacturing of a farm, it will be going for the manufacturing of a nuclear enrichment plant. Mauritius as an international financial centre cannot be naïve about this. We cannot say it happens elsewhere. Everywhere financial flows move is potentially a transit point. The addition of proliferation financing to our compliance obligations is a necessary, mature and courageous step. Madam Speaker, I want to bring this discussion down to earth because financial crime does not always announce itself in the language of weapons programmes and offshore foundations. Sometimes it arrives in a lorry, parfois tractopelle aussi, sometimes it enters through a port and sometimes it enters with the blessing of the State itself. I refer to the matter of the importation of ti papier, the rolling paper commonly used to smoke cannabis. That was authorised under the previous administration. This was not a grey area import. This was the product of essentially no legitimate commercial application in the volumes imported, which was staggering and which raised no alarm. No alarm bells and without my dear colleagues, then in the Opposition, this would have remained unknown to the public. Madam Speaker, the volumes imported would have represented at commercial wholesale prices, approximately Rs460 million. The question was never satisfactorily answered. It is not just where the product went. The question is where did the money come from. Who funded this? How was it declared? What due diligence was performed by the institutions that process those payments? That, Madam Speaker, is precisely the kind of transaction that the amendments to the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act now seeks to capture. The new provisions require reporting persons, banks, financial institutions, licensed dealers to conduct rigorous customer due diligence to identify beneficial ownership, to flag transactions that make no obvious commercial stance. A transaction of that scale for a product of that nature should have been a red flag on the first day it crossed a Compliance Officer’s desk. Ce genre d’affaires, Madame la présidente, n’est pas le résultat d’une erreur isolée. C’est le résultat d’un système qui n’a pas posé les bonnes questions. This Bill, if properly implemented, ensures those questions get asked. Madam Speaker, I want to speak plainly about something that every Mauritian sees and that our legal system has historically been unable to address – • The person who drives a luxury vehicle that costs several million rupees on a salary that would barely cover its monthly insurance premium. • The individual who resides in a property that, by any rational calculation, would require decades of their declared income to acquire. • The family whose lifestyle bears no relationship to their formal professional track record. This again, is not an abstract phenomenon. We have seen it so many times recently. It exists, it is visible and for too long, our institutions have lacked both the tools and at times, the will to pursue it. The amendments to the Financial Crimes Commission Act introduced in this Bill are directly targeted at this reality. The concept of property of corresponding in value means that when a convicted person has hidden or dissipated the proceeds of their crime, the State is no longer powerless. It can reach their clean assets, their inherited property, their registered vehicles, their legitimate investments to satisfy the debt they owe to the society. Je suis tenté de dire pour ceux qui ont mal utilisé les proceeds de la MIC, ils doivent trembler. Madam Speaker, one of the architecturally significant reforms in this Bill is the strengthening of beneficial ownerships requirements. The amended Companies Act, the Co- operatives Act, the Trust Act, the Foundations Act, all now carry more rigorous obligations to identify, record and report the actual human being who ultimately owns or controls the legal entity. We really are looking at the mind who is behind the thinking process and who is instructing the commission of the crime. This matters because the classical structure of financial crime is not a man walking into a bank with a bag of cash. It is a chain of legal purses, each one owned by other, each one incorporated in a different jurisdiction, each one obscuring the last until the actual beneficial owner is buried beneath layers of legitimate- looking paper work that no single institution can see them. This Bill addresses that. It defines beneficial ownership broadly and intelligently, capturing control through debt instruments; through differential voting rights; and through the power to appoint senior management. These are precisely the mechanisms sophisticated criminals use when they want to own something without appearing to own it. I have the feeling that what this legislation wants to do is to be able to lay the hands of the law on everybody who can take a decision or who can cause a decision to be taken to commit a crime. I hope this will even go beyond debt instruments. It will probably even go towards a big client who can account for 70% of your revenue and thereby can dictate how you should take your decisions. Madam Speaker, I must raise a concern that colleagues examining comparable legislations internationally will recognise immediately. In the European Union, under AMLD5 and AMLD6, beneficial ownership registers are partially public and crossed-linked across jurisdictions. In the United States, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network maintains a mandatory beneficial ownership registry with a real enforcement. In Singapore, the Monetary Authority maintains an integrated supervisory intelligence framework. What we have in this Bill is still fundamentally a system of self-declaration. So, when the financial institution is implementing a structure, it will potentially ask its potential client: ‘Who is your beneficial owner?’ It will ask, in the process, to be provided with a share register to ascertain who are the shareholders. As regards the beneficial ownership, it can only rely on the declaration of the client. So, we have a system which still relies on self- declaration. We ask entities to declare their beneficial owners. We do not, as yet, build in robust, independent verification mechanisms: cross-database checks against tax records, customs data, and immigration information. We collect the data, but we are not yet weaponizing it. Nous déclarons les bénéficiaires économiques. Nous ne les vérifions pas encore de manière systématique. Et un criminel sophistiqué le sait très bien. Madam Speaker, I want to borrow a distinction that I think is fundamental to understanding the limitations of this Bill. There is a difference between compliance-driven AML system and an intelligence-driven AML system. This Bill moves us towards the former. It does not yet deliver the latter. A compliance system asks – • Did the bank fill out the form? • Did the real estate agent submit the report? • Did the trust update the register? These are necessary questions, but they are not sufficient. An intelligence-driven system asks – • What does the data tell us? • Where are the patterns? • Which sectors? • Which structures? • Which nationalities of beneficial owners are showing anomalies? The United States, through the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, moved explicitly towards intelligence-led enforcement, integrating data analytics, enabling information sharing between private institutions and creating a feedback loop between the FIU and reporting entities. Madam Speaker, some of the most consequential financial crime investigations in the world were broken open, not by regulators, not by prosecutors, but by insiders. People within institutions saw something wrong, had the courage to speak and paid a personal price for doing so. That is why countries like the US go further. They incentivise whistleblowers. To conclude, Madam Speaker, I would like to say, I support this Bill. I support it because our financial system must be clean. I support it because the person living in an inexplicable palace, driving a vehicle their salary could never finance, must finally feel that the law is watching. I support it because the institution that allowed ti papie importation of that scale to proceed without scrutiny must now operate in a framework that makes that kind of institutional sleep impossible. I support it because compliance with FATF standards is not a technicality. It is the price of admission to the global financial community, and we have paid the cost of exclusion before. We should never pay it again. Nous avons les institutions. Nous avons l’intelligence. Nous avons la volonté. Ce qu’il nous faut, maintenant, c’est le courage de ne pas nous arrêter à ce qui est suffisant et de poursuivre ce qui est excellent. Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Thank you very much. Hon. Etwareea! (6.40 p.m.) Mr R. Etwareea (Third Member for Grand' Baie & Poudre d'Or): Merci, Madame la présidente. La concurrence entre classes financières internationales est actuellement féroce. Que ce soit entre Genève et Port Louis, que ce soit entre Seychelles et Singapour, que ce soit entre New York et Durban, cette concurrence est vraiment féroce. Si nous voulons rester dans cette course, nous devons continuellement montrer patte blanche. Si nous voulons préserver nos emplois, les 20 000 emplois ; si nous voulons préserver le 12 % de cette industrie dans notre PIB, nous devons continuer à montrer patte blanche. Donc, je salue l’initiative de l’honorable ministre des Services financiers pour ce projet d’amendement qui va justement dans le sens de maintenir cette tâche financière propre et irréprochable. Cette initiative, évidemment, ne tombe pas du ciel. Elle découle de sa volonté, de la volonté du gouvernement de colmater les brèches qui existent dans la législation telle qu’elle existe aujourd’hui. Les amendements proposés ciblent 24 lois et règlements avec un objectif clair : améliorer l’arsenal juridique et l’efficacité de la lutte contre la criminalité financière. Cet exercice, disons-le, se fait dans le cadre d’autres exercices qui auront lieu tout bientôt. La première dans le cadre de l’ESAAMLG de la SADC qui aura lieu l’année prochaine. Et le second, par le Groupe d’action financière (GAFI) de la place financière mauricienne. Donc, ces deux évaluations arrivent et autant prévenir, autant agir avant que des évaluations négatives puissent nous arriver. Je dois dire – comme l’a dit mon ami et collègue, l’honorable Uteem – qu’on aurait bien voulu avoir, aujourd’hui, dans l’hémicycle l’honorable Paul Bérenger. Malheureusement, il est absent dans l’hémicycle. Il nous a beaucoup parlé des risques du grey listing. Le grey listing veut simplement dire que nous tombons dans une liste de pays qui ne respectent pas les normes établies par le GAFI. Plus concrètement, cela voudrait dire que notre pays pourrait être utilisé pour blanchir de l’argent sale. Mais on n’en est pas là. Quand l’évaluation du GAFI arrivera, il y aura un rapport et le rapport fera un point sur la situation. Si besoin, ce rapport fera des recommandations pour qu’on puisse rectifier le tir. C’est seulement en cas de refus pour prendre des mesures correctives que le GAFI procéderait au grey listing. Je ne dirais pas qu’on est en train de crier au loup mais, disons, qu’on peut donner la chance au gouvernement, à l’honorable ministre, de gérer la chose et puis être prêt pour ces évaluations. Il y a une très bonne nouvelle, Madame la présidente. Permettez-moi d’évoquer cette bonne nouvelle qu’est le classement Global Financial Centres Index 39, c’est-à-dire 2026, qui vient d’être publié le 26 mars dernier. Maurice occupe désormais le 50e rang gagnant huit places sur une année dans les classements mondiales des 120 pays. Mais sur un classement régional, c’est-à-dire Afrique, Moyen-Orient, nous occupons une belle cinquième place derrière Dubaï, Abu Dhabi, Doha et Casablanca. L’avenir nous dira si nous allons faire mieux que le pays du Golfe qui se trouvent, malheureusement aujourd’hui, dans le tourment à cause de la guerre israélo-américaine contre l’Iran. Je ne dirais pas que les malheurs des uns font le bonheur des autres mais cette guerre a de quoi rabattre les cartes et éventuellement, aider Maurice à se positionner comme une alternative au centre financier du Golfe. Le Global Financial Centres Index 39, qui vient d’être publié, met aussi en évidence quelque chose de très intéressant. Maurice se retrouve à la neuvième place sur une liste des 15 pays qui vont gagner en importance ces prochaines années. Il faut le dire, il y a 10 ans dans ces classements, Maurice occupé le 73e rang sur une liste de 86 pays. Donc, Madame la présidente, ne faisons pas la fine bouche et saluons ce bond en avant. Mais voilà comme je-vous ai déjà dit dans le passé, je me méfie de ces agences occidentales qui nous distribuent des notes par ici et des notes par là. Je ne jette pas le bébé avec l’eau du bain, mais je peux affirmer que ces agences imposent leurs propres critères à des pays comme le nôtre qui n’ont pas d’autres choix que de s’y conformer. N’oublions pas que le Global Financial Centres Index, dont je viens de parler, est une affaire lucrative de l’entreprise privée qui s’appelle Z/Yen. Je me demande en effet quel est le prix, si on paye, qu’on paye chaque année pour être listé dans cet indice. Je parlais auparavant du GAFI. Il s’agit d’une initiative du G7, initiative lancée en 1989, si je ne me trompe pas. 1989, Madame la présidente, vous vous souviendrez le monde venait de traverser une grosse crise financière née de la crise de subprimes aux États-Unis qui a balayé l’Europe et qui a créé la récession partout dans le monde. Et puis là, on a vu que les caisses des états étaient vides mais les entreprises étaient très riches et là les états, à commencer par le G7, a décidé de mettre en place le GAFI qui hébergeait aujourd’hui à l’OCDE à Paris pour régulariser, pour amender, pour contrôler les places financières internationales. Évidemment, comme je disais au début, les places financières internationales, je parle de Genève, Jersey, Londres, Monaco et puis une autre des nouvelles places financières comme Maurice, Singapour, Seychelles, nous sommes en concurrence avec les places financières traditionnelles, si vous voulez. Donc, l’OCDE a le pouvoir de nous white list, de nous grey list, de nous black list à leur guise alors qu’il devrait aussi balayer devant leur porte. Londres, Jersey, Monaco, Genève ne sont-ils pas aussi des machines formidables à blanchir de l’argent sale ? Est-ce que leur place financière n’abrite pas l’argent provenant de l’évasion fiscale et des fraudes fiscales ? Est-ce qu’on a déjà entendu parler du GAFI black-listant Genève ou grey-listant Genève ou Londres ? Souvenez-vous, Madame la présidente, je suis sûre que vous vous souviendrez du livre du sociologue Jean Ziegler, ami du leader du MMM…

Il est venu à Maurice !

Il est venu à Maurice d’ailleurs. Son livre intitulé ‘La Suisse lave plus blanc’. Vous pouvez dire qu’il s’agit d’un ouvrage qui est dépassé maintenant. Certes, mais voilà les vieilles habitudes sont tenaces et nous apprenons régulièrement que des fonds illicites ont atterri dans telle ou telle banque à Lugano, à Zurich, ou à Genève. Madame la présidente, mais tout cela ne doit pas nous empêcher de maintenir une place financière irréprochable chez nous. L’enjeu est de taille, on l’a déjà dit, 20,000 emplois cols blanc avec des salaires très élevés. Un secteur qui contribue 12,7 % à notre PIB et les amendements proposés par l’honorable ministre des Services financiers visent effectivement à faire le ménage. Car malgré les renforcements constants de nos législations à la matière, nous découvrons aussi que nos banques, les fonds d’investissement et autres véhicules spéciaux qui sont présents chez nous abrite des fonds douteux et qui portent atteinte à la réputation de notre industrie financière. Nous venons d’apprendre que les fonds liés au douteux financière américain Epstein aient pu transiter chez nous ou encore l’homme d’affaire malgache Mamy Ravatomanga qui détiendrait les dizaines des comptes bien garnis chez nous à travers des sociétés-écrans. Nous connaissons aussi le cas de Jean-Claude Bastos, la famille Santos et il y a autant d’enquêtes qui ont lieu ici localement et internationalement. Due diligence, Madam Speaker, bonjour, les fonds arrivent malgré le fait que nous prétendons que nous avons une place financière propre. Un article publié l’an dernier, en décembre dernier par l’agence financière Bloomberg affirme que notre belle île compte sur une population 1,2 millions d’habitants, quelques 5,000 millionnaires, venus d’Afrique du Sud, Chine et ailleurs, attirés par un taux d’imposition forfaitaire, attirés par l’absence d’impôts sur la plus-value, attirés par les successions sans frais, sans compter les sociétés domiciliées à Maurice qui bénéficient parfois des exonérations pouvant aller jusqu’à 95%. Je ne dis pas qu’ils en touchent les mains sales, mais le cas de Mamy Ravatomanga, arrêté fin 2025, devrait nous interpeller. Il montre que notre place financière est poreuse. Ce n’est pas un problème si tel ou tel homme d’affaires place son argent chez nous parce qu’il a confiance de notre place financière mais c’est un problème lorsque cet argent provient de l’évasion ou de la fraude fiscale de la part de particuliers ou d’entreprises multinationales. Et que voyons-nous, Madame la présidente, après les paradise papers qui avait ébranlé l’offshore mauricien en 2017 ? Le consortium international des journalistes d’investigation dénonçait deux ans plus tard, en 2019, la plate-forme mauricienne permettant aux multinationales de recourir à toutes sortes de pratiques comptables créatives pour minimiser les assiettes fiscales là où elles exercent leurs activités, de rapatriés leurs bénéfices à Maurice, qui applique une forte concurrence fiscale avec un taux d’imposition comprise entre 3 et 15 pour cent. Ce sont ainsi des milliards qui échappent au fisc de ce pays, notamment pays africains pour atterrir chez nous. Ce n’est pas un service que nous rendons à l’Afrique avec qui nous voulons établir des liens économiques privilégiés car il s’agit bien d’un continent d’avenir. On ne peut pas dépouiller l’Afrique pour faire croître notre place financière. Madame la présidente, les pays africaines ne sont pas dupes par rapport à notre industrie financière et c’est pourquoi, plusieurs d’entre eux ont déjà dénoncé ou renégocié les accords de double imposition signés avec nous. Madame la présidente, savez-vous que la minuscule île Maurice figure dans les top cinq des investisseurs pour 17 des quinze économies d’Afrique sub-sahariennes. Donc, nous sommes parmi les plus grands investisseurs en Afrique. En République Démocratique de Congo, Maurice est à l’origine de 63% des investissements directs étrangers surtout dans les secteurs miniers. Pourtant ces entreprises minières n’ont pas pignon sur rue. Ici, ils sont basés en Chine, ils sont basés au Kazakhstan ou en Suisse. Tous les cuivres, tous les cobalts, 67%, en effet, des cuivres et des cobalts et d’autres matières premières exploitées, les sièges de leur société se trouvent ailleurs et pas à Maurice. Mais l’argent de leurs bénéfices arrive dans notre place financière. Selon la banque mondiale, les investissements étrangers effectués à partir de Maurice s’élevaient à 312 milliards de dollars en 2022 soit plus de 24 fois notre produit intérieur brute qui s’élevait alors à 13 milliards de dollars cette même année. Je crois aussi que nous sommes où nous étions jusqu’à que quelques changements interviennent. Nous étions le premier pourvoyeur des investissements directs en Inde. Allez savoir pourquoi et comment. Madame la présidente, en tant que petite île au moyen limité, nous n’avons pas de choix que de conformer aux exigences du GAFI ou de l’Union européen. C’est dans ce contexte même que nous sommes partie prenante de l’accord BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) signé en 1993 à St-Petersburg. C’était à la suite du sommet du G7 à Paris où les chefs d’états avaient parlé du BEPS. Donc, au sommet du G20 à St-Petersburg, en présence des plusieurs chefs d’états donc Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, et beaucoup chefs d’états mais surtout occidentaux avaient signé le BEPS. Et je disais comme avant, le monde sortait à peine d’une grosse déprime et il fallait vraiment trouver de l’argent et là, les dirigeants mondiaux ont pensé qu’il faut taxer les multinationales. Il ne faut pas permettre les multinationales de shifter leurs bénéfices dans des pays à juridisation plus facile en matière d’impôt. Il fallait donc mettre de l’ordre dans les régimes fiscaux, éliminer la concurrence fiscale déloyale, lutter contre la fraude et l’évasion fiscale et faire de sorte que les multinationales qui brassent des milliards, payent des impôts là où ils font les bénéfices. Malheureusement, Madame la présidente, c’était la théorie. En réalité, la mise en pratique et le respect de BEPS est toute une autre affaire. Ce n’est pas le cas aujourd’hui. Et des pays, des places financières comme le nôtre, nous profitons de ces bids c’est-à-dire les multinationales continuent à apporter leurs bénéfices ici alors qu’ils ont gagné ces bénéfices dans d’autres pays où ils échappent aux fiscs. Il y a un manque de justice et c’est cela que je suis en train de décrier. C’est pourquoi, Madame la présidente, pour conclure, je plaide que notre place financière se consolide à travers les amendements proposés ; créer des emplois – on a encore besoin d’emplois –, attire des investissements et s’épanouisse non pas en profiteurs des législations insuffisantes et poreuses ici et ailleurs mais en construisant une place financière solide, digne de confiance, crédible, sans compromis, sur la transparence et sur l’éthique, sans complaisance et donc, respectée dans le monde entier. C’est pourquoi je dis un grand oui au réforme législative proposée par notre collègue, l’honorable ministre des Services financier.

Merci beaucoup.

Madam Speaker, I beg to move for the adjournment of the debates. Mr Mohamed seconded. Question put and agreed to. ADJOURNMENT

Yes, hon. Prime Minister.

Madam Speaker, I beg to move that this Assembly do now adjourn to Tuesday 07 April 2026 at 11.30 a.m. Mr Mohamed seconded. Question put and agreed to.

The House stands adjourned! I have two Members who want to make adjournment matters. Mr François, then you. MATTERS RAISED (6.59 p.m.) RODRIGUES – AIR MAURITIUS LANDING PERMIT – REPATRIATION OF HUMAN REMAINS Mr J. F. François (Second Member for Rodrigues): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to address a matter of concern to the hon. Prime Minister, with regard to Air Mauritius landing permit and the repatriation of human remains to Rodrigues. I am informed that out of the four ATR aircrafts currently in operation, only one, the oldest, is accommodating stretches and coffins. Madam Speaker, an inhabitant of Rodrigues, one late J.C.B., passed away last night in hospital in Mauritius. Although at times, landing permit approval takes time, in this particular case, it has already been secured. However, the family has been advised that the remains of the late J.C.B will now only be repatriated to Rodrigues by Friday or could be later. In some of the instances, delays extend to even more days. One can appreciate the distress and additional burden such delays impose on already vulnerable and aggrieved families in Rodrigues. Madam Speaker, two key issues arise in this regard. First, the difficulty in obtaining landing permits during weekends and delays and second, the delay in the repatriation of human remains within a reasonable timeframe. In most circumstances, such repatriation could and should be effected within 24 hours. Madam Speaker, is it not time for government to consider a special medical service by air? In light of the above, may I respectfully request the hon. Prime Minister to cause his good office to look into this matter with a view to taking the necessary remedial actions so as to ensure a more timely, humane and efficient service for aggrieved families in the future? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, it causes a lot of distress, I am sure. I can’t understand why. I know there was a problem with the aircrafts; one of them had a hard landing but that does not explain why. So, I will take up the matter with Air Mauritius.

Thank you.

Yes, hon. Ramkalawon. (7.01 p.m.) CONSTITUENCY NO. 9 – LAVENTURE ELDERLY SHELTER – DEPLORABLE STATE – MEASURES Mr C. Ramkalawon (Third Member for Flacq and Bon Accueil): I have a humble request to the hon. Minister of Social Security regarding the shelter for the elderly used by the Laventure Senior Citizen Associations in Constituency No. 9, which is in a pitiful state in terms of its infrastructure, lack of ventilation, rusting of iron sheet and poles, water leakage and others – whether a site visit can be done by officers concerned and needful measures be adopted. Thank you. The Minister of Social Security, Social Integration and National Solidarity (Mr A. Subron): The needful will be done and you can accompany us when we do the visit.

Okay. Hon. Beechook, please. (7.02 p.m.) CWA – WATER CONNECTION REQUEST – FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION Mr R. Beechook (Second Member for Flacq and Bon Accueil): So, Madam Speaker, my request is addressed to the hon. Minister of Public Energy and Utilities qui gère la CWA. Madame la présidente, lorsque ceux qui font une demande de connexion à l’eau courante que ce soit résidentielle, agricole ou commerciale, doivent passer sous un processus. Ils ont besoin de l’approval, de ce qu’on appelle MOD. Et à la suite de la gestion de ce dossier, ils sont appelés à faire une contribution financière. Mais souvent, on se retrouve face à des situations où ceux qui veulent investir dans le secteur agricole que ce soit hydroponique ou la culture vivrière ou même industrielle, ils sont obligés de payer ce qu’on appelle financial contribution. Therefore, I would request the hon. Minister to, first, try to expedite all requests pertaining to agricultural sectors and secondly, if he could levy this financial contribution for all requests for connection related to our agricultural sector because very often, I take this case of one person who wants to have one small hydronic project and he is being requested pay Rs 50,000 as financial contribution. Maybe this bill could be passed on to those people who sell villas at 40 or 50 million rupees but those who are willing to invest in the sector of agriculture.

You are asking to waive it or levy it?

Waive it. I am sorry. Yes. Thank you, hon. Minister. So, can the hon. Minister please waive this financial contribution at least to those requests pertaining to the agriculture sector? Thank you.

Madame la présidente, je vais reprendre l’affaire avec le MOD committee de la CWA.

Thank you. At 7.05 p.m. the Assembly was, on its rising, adjourned to Tuesday 07 April 2026 at 11.30 a.m. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION – SEIZED MOTOR VEHICLES– NOVEMBER 2024-MARCH 2026