In the tradition of his wind-up remarks in the annual “Budget” debate on Friday night, Prime Minister Owen Arthur injected a personal assault on Opposition Leader David Thompson. After a number of exchanges and counter-accusations between the two, Mr Thompson then asked Mr Arthur to explain the circumstances surrounding a cheque payable to the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) in an amount which exceeded a political candidate’s statutory limitations, and which was allegedly deposited to his account at a bank in Speightstown, St Peter.
In responding, Mr Arthur admitted personal receipt of a cheque which he said had been endorsed and deposited to the BLP’s account. He in turn asked Mr Thompson to reveal what sum had been given to the DLP by CLICO, a corporate name long alleged to be funding that party.
Read Full Nation Article
Much has been said and written about the clash between Arthur and Thompson at the wind-up of the budget debate earlier this year. BU, in one of its earlier commentary said, it was the first time in Arthur’s career that he stumbled in any parliamentary debate. It was also Thompson’s first time, after having numerous encounters with the Prime Minister, that he was able to deliver an uppercut, which knocked the wind out of Arthur. It is BU’s view that Arthur is still wounded. After reading a document in the Financial Times this week, it triggered the motivation to write this piece. BU wish to thank that special person who assisted in the preparation of this piece!
A warning to Opposition Leader David Thompson… never underestimate a wounded political animal.
We have read over at Barbados Free Press, and our sources have indicated that the cheque Arthur deposited to an account, which he has at First Caribbean International Bank, was a very large sum indeed. Those who should know about these things are whispering the figure of USD750, 000.00+. We have reported in another article that we’ve been advised by our sources that depositing donations to the accounts of the candidates is a common practice. At some point, the candidate will transfer those monies into the party account. The observation to be made is, how accurate can this practice be?
It concerns BU a great deal that a disclosure of this magnitude could be made in a country, which boasts of an education system that has produced a “literate” population of over 90+%. Where is the media, what about the many groups in the society that claim to be the protector of the people, the lawyers who should be concerned with justice, the Church? The disclosure having been made in the highest chamber in the land makes the silence of the society much difficult to accept. We have become a society so fattened with self-interest that we have become numbed to the irregularities of our directorate. BU should emphasize that this current state spans political, civil service, private enterprise and non-government organizations; in other words, it spans the full spectrum of our society.
Enough of the preamble!
After the tragedy of 911, the USA became consumed with how funds were being used to finance terrorists’ activities around the world. The USA passed the US Patriot Act, which requires US financial institutions to focus on the reporting of financial transactions to detect the financing of terrorism and money laundering activities. Because financial institutions have to do business with banks in the USA, it means that the Patriot Act has had global implications. Arising, we have seen the creation of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) established by countries around the world to share information, which ensure that criminals who use money for illegal activity can be traced.
Stay with BU folks, we are getting there.
To ensure that the FIUs track monies deposited in the financial sector, deposits of $10,000.00 and greater must be accompanied by a document called the Declaration of Source of Funds/Wealth. Preferential customers are usually given higher limits, which allow the bank to wave the requirement of submitting the document. For example, lawyers and real estate agents who deal in large financial transactions are given bigger limits so that they can avoid the hassle of completing many forms-see below. BU would imagine that for customers to get their limits increase, they would have to satisfy the banks of their credibility in business.
The Declaration of Source of Funds/Wealth form requires the source of the funds deposited; if the source is not provided, the bank receiving the deposit must approve the transaction. Now this is where it gets interesting. BU is proceeding on the basis that the cheque deposited by Arthur was $750,000.00 plus. It is unlikely that Prime Minister Arthur, whose annual salary is around $200,000, would have need for the bank to assign a deposit greater than $750,000.00. BU conclude that the Prime Minister, to comply with the laws of Barbados, should have been required to complete the Declaration of Source of Funds/Wealth Form by his bank manager. If by chance Arthur used the aura of his office to intimidate his banker by not completing the form, the bank would have had a duty to treat the transaction as suspicious. In such case, the form should have been completed by the bank and submitted to the FIU in Barbados for their attention.
So, let BU paint the options available in this transaction as we understand them. BU readers can feel free to question our suppositions.
Scenario 1: Prime Minister completed the Declaration of Source of Funds/Wealth form; he recorded that the source of funds was from a party contributor, stating the name of course. We would imagine that Arthur could have
declared that the funds were deposited to his personal account at FCIB and transferred, maybe next day to the party account. This position although believable is still questionable because a donation of $750,000.00 should have required our Prime Minister to ask the donor to make the cheque payable to the Barbados Labour Party. Seem the common sense thing to do!
Scenario 2: Prime Minister did not complete the Declaration of Source of Funds/Wealth form, in which case FCIB would have completed the form on his behalf, and the bank manager would have approved the transaction. The question at this point is whether the bank manager completed the form. BU suspect that the Prime Minister of Barbados, Primus inter pares is often not expected to complete routine acts like completing forms!
So where does this leave us?
In Scenario 1: The Declaration of Source Funds Form was completed. The Prime Minister can ask the FCIB bank manager for a copy of the form. BU suspect that Barbadians may be interested in the “source of funds” but also the length of time it took to transfer the funds from his personal account to the BLP party account.
In Scenario 2: The role of FCIB comes under the microscope. If the Prime Minister did not/refused to complete the Declaration of Source/Wealth form, what action did the bank take, if any? A Prime Minister working for $200,000.00 annually, and deposits a cheque for $750,000.00 should trigger some questions from his banker. Is this a case of the bank breaking the anti-money laundering laws of Barbados by not following the guidelines? Is there a possibility that there might have been collusion? All things considered, if the Prime Minister has done a transaction, which is above board, then it becomes a simple matter, and here is the question Prime Minister Arthur.
Did you complete the Declaration of Source Funds Form and if so, what did you record as the source of the funds on the form? If the Prime Minister recorded the source of funds as BLP party contributor, then the Prime Minister is INNOCENT. Prime Minister! BU and all of our readers, who currently number in the thousands, wait for your response.
Related Stories:
Prime Minister Arthur Should Resign
Prime Minister The Master Of Spin~Does Anyone Feel Dizzy?
David Thompson Has Owen By The “Balls”~When Will He Squeeze?
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.