A GUY'S VIEW - Confession of a money launderer

Money laundering has been criminalised in most of the western world. That includes the United States of America as well as Barbados. This is usually regarded as a white collar crime which sometimes may be regarded as victimless, although that is an unfortunate characterisation.

Money laundering is not one of the traditional crimes of which one would find expression in the common law, having existed from time immemorial. This species of crime is a creature of statute and as such carries the definition given to it by those who frame it in legislation.

Countries that follow the dictates of the Financial Action Task Force have been forced to establish elaborate anti-money laundering infrastructure, much of which is often unnecessary. Given its nature, one of the pillars of any anti-money laundering regime must be commitment by the political directorate to address it. This is reflected, not just in statements, but in policy and the personal financial habits of those in leadership, both politically and in the commercial sector.

Much of the world’s attention has been focused on the political scene in the United States of America since the election of Donald Trump to the presidency. Trump came to politics boasting of his wealth and strong business acumen. As a businessman, there have long been dark clouds over him.

Trump’s unorthodox style of leadership has shocked the world, for nothing like him has ever been seen before. At least not in living memory. Americans who have not signed up to protect him at all costs, as well as observers around the world, have nearly run out of negative superlatives to describe him and his presidency. However, this period may be a lesson for the rest of the world.

At least once a week Trump does or says something that would have ended the presidency of any person who has served in that office before him. And yet he keeps right on with no sign of slowing down or diverting from his path. What might we learn from his success?

I once heard a Prime Minister tell one of his Ministers that she must keep repeating her story and eventually people will believe it. Donald Trump apparently learnt that lesson too. The Trump difference is that he has so many stories which are inconsistent with each other that he cannot find a single one to tell. So, rather than a single story, he practices sophism as a general rule and is sticking to it.

The frequent firing of advisers and other staff of independent thought has become necessary because of his scrambling to preserve himself in his job and to stay out of prison. However, his latest addition to his legal team has opened eyes to a technique of money laundering that should be helpful to those whose task it is to make sense of Trump’s questionable money management.

Rudy Giuliani, an Attorney-at-Law, told the media that Trump reimbursed his attorney, Michael Cohen, the $130 000 which Cohen paid to the porn star who said that she had a relationship with Trump, by paying him for work that was not being done. According to Giuliani, Trump was paying Cohen although Cohen was doing no work for him.

Giuliani described a classic money laundering technique which he said was being employed by Trump. There has been no information given on the source of the funds used by Trump to pay Cohen for not working, but it tells observant investigators that Trump is familiar with money laundering techniques. Where did he learn this financial dishonesty? Was it used for the first time in dealing with Cohen?

Many commentators in the States have opined that Trump was never as rich as he claimed to be. If there is any merit to this observation, questions may be legitimately raised about the source of the money to which he lays claim.

It was reported that Trump bought a property in Palm Beach, Florida, for $40 million, held it for four years, and then sold it to a Russian for close to $100 million. To earn a more than one hundred per cent profit on a property in four years is a fantastic return. But if this property sale was a money laundering scheme, and its proceeds were comingled with his other funds, any funds paid to Cohen disguised as fees could be the subject of money laundering. I do not believe that I am saying anything that American investigators do not know.

The principal actor identified here is the American President, but that should not cause us to lose sight of the application of the principle elsewhere. Until Trump, the Americans mouthed that no one was above the law. While Trump may be disproving this as it relates to America, it is hoped that no one else is willing to follow suit.

Leading up to our elections, Opposition elements have taken up the mantra of corruption in an effort to bring down the Government. This is just one aspect of the Democratic Labour Party 2008 campaign which has been adopted by the current Opposition in 2018. One stark difference, however, is that in 2008, the then Opposition DLP was able to produce evidence of the corrupt practices of which they spoke. There were cheques and other documentary evidence that formed the basis of their allegations. In 2018, persons have been making the rounds on talk shows and alleging that there is corruption in Barbados, but, as far as I know, no evidence has been produced.

If those rumour mongers had objective hosts, they would be asked for evidence. What is the nature of the corruption of which they speak? Is it bribery? If so, who are
the persons offering the bribes? Every bribery involves two parties. There must be an offer and acceptance. Both parties in such a case are guilty of a crime. If Government
officials are accepting bribes, who are the persons offering and paying the bribes?

The dangerous, underhand nature of these allegations cannot be addressed because the persons who spread these nasty rumours never identify any person so that no action can be taken against those they accuse or them for defamation. They use the cloak of reputation and complicit radio stations and newspapers to spread their stories while never exposing their heads. These snipers and their stories should be treated as what they are – dishonest nonsense.

In America, reporters have been able to point to the Trump Florida property on which he made the staggering profit mentioned and accepted as true by Trump. In Barbados, our unfortunate press take pictures of ordinary citizens’ homes and plaster them on their pages and declare that they are the property of Government Ministers. And people still read a publication like that.

In America, the authorities are in the process of investigating the activities of Trump associates because they have been given evidence of alleged wrongdoing on which they can act. In Barbados, the persons who talk of corruption have not given any evidence of such activity to any authority, and thus, there is nothing to investigate. Here, we hope to destroy reputations and Governments by rumour.

God help us.