The Bahamas Attorney General on the arrest of Sam Bankman-Fried

Attorney General of The Bahamas Sen. Ryan Pinder KC Statement on the arrest of Sam Bankman-Fried

On 12 December 2022, the Office of the Attorney General of The Bahamas is announcing the arrest by The Royal Bahamas Police Force of Sam Bankman-Fried (“SBF”), former CEO of FTX.  SBF’s arrest followed receipt of formal notification from the United States that it has filed criminal charges against SBF and is likely to request his extradition.

As a result of the notification received and the material provided therewith, it was deemed appropriate for the Attorney General to seek SBF’s arrest and hold him in custody pursuant to our nation’s Extradition Act.

At such time as a formal request for extradition is made, The Bahamas intends to process it promptly, pursuant to Bahamian law and its treaty obligations with the United States.

Responding to SBF’s arrest, Prime Minister Davis stated, “The Bahamas and the United States have a shared interest in holding accountable all individuals associated with FTX who may have betrayed the public trust and broken the law.  While the United States is pursuing criminal charges against SBF individually, The Bahamas will continue its own regulatory and criminal investigations into the collapse of FTX, with the continued cooperation of its law enforcement and regulatory partners in the United States and elsewhere."
 

December 12, 2022
Office of The Attorney General &
Ministry of Legal Affairs
Commonwealth of The Bahamas

FTX Digital Markets Ltd (“FDM”) - Under The Control of a Court-appointed Fiduciary in The Bahamas

The Securities Commission of The Bahamas will continue to investigate the facts and circumstances regarding FTX’s liquidity crisis and any potential violations of Bahamian law and hold any responsible companies and individuals accountable, in cooperation with other regulatory agencies and law enforcement both in The Bahamas and in other affected countries in connection with their own investigations

Securities Commission of The Bahamas 

Poinciana House
North Building, 2" Floor
31A East Bay Street
P.O. Box N-8347
Nassau, The Bahamas

Securities Commission Statement on Transfer Motion In FTX Digital Markets Chapter 15 Proceedings

Nassau, The Bahamas, Wednesday 23 November 2022 - The Securities Commission of The Bahamas (“the Commission”) issues the following statement with respect to certain remarks made by FTX Trading Ltd. and certain of its affiliates, in connection with their motion to transfer the venue (the “Transfer Motion”) of the Chapter 15 proceedings of FTX Digital Markets Ltd. (“FDM”) that were commenced to assist the provisional liquidators appointed by the Supreme Court of The Bahamas in the discharge of their duties with respect to FDM.

FDM was incorporated in the Commonwealth of The Bahamas on 22 July 2021; it was duly registered as a digital asset business under The Bahamas’ Digital Assets and Registered Exchanges Act, 2020 (the “DARE Act”).

Pursuant to Bahamas law, on 10 November 2022, the Commission determined that the customers and creditors of FDM were in need of the protection of the DARE Act, and suspended FDM’s license to conduct business and subsequently filed a petition before the Bahamian Supreme Court to place FDM into provisional liquidation. This action — the first commenced globally against an FTX entity — placed FDM under the control of a court-appointed fiduciary and removed prior management from exercising any authority over FDM.

Given the nature of digital assets, and the risks associated with hacking and compromise, the Commission determined that placing FDM into liquidation was not sufficient to protect the customers and creditors of FDM.  Accordingly, on 12 November 2022, the Commission sought an additional Order from the Supreme Court of The Bahamas for authority under the DARE Act to transfer all digital assets of FTX into digital wallets under the exclusive control of the Commission for the benefit of clients and creditors of FDM.

It is unfortunate that in Chapter 11 filings, the new CEO of FTX Trading Ltd. misrepresented this timely action through the intemperate and inaccurate allegations lodged in the Transfer Motion.  It is also concerning that the Chapter 11 debtors chose to rely on the statements of individuals they have (in other filings) characterized as unreliable sources of information and potentially “seriously compromised.”

Further, the statements made by the purported officers of FTX Trading Ltd. and the other purported Chapter 11 debtors — that they have suffered significant thefts, that their systems were compromised, and that they continue to face new hacking attempts — reinforces the wisdom of the Commission’s prompt action to secure these digital assets.

The Commission will continue to evaluate the situation, continue to act in accordance with directions issued by the Supreme Court of The Bahamas, collaborate with other supervisory authorities and take such further actions as needed to preserve the assets of FDM and to safeguard the interests of customers and creditors of FDM.

In addition, the Commission will continue to investigate the facts and circumstances regarding FTX’s liquidity crisis and any potential violations of Bahamian law and hold any responsible companies and individuals accountable, in cooperation with other regulatory agencies and law enforcement both in The Bahamas and in other affected countries in connection with their own investigations.  The Commission also looks forward to continuing to cooperate with the authorities in other jurisdictions to ensure the cooperative and vigorous resolution of all necessary proceedings to effectuate those ends.

Source

Shanendon Cartwright, Deputy Leader of the Official Opposition - Free National Movement - FNM, Condemns National Security Minister Wayne Munroe public utterances on how the law should be interpreted with regard to adults who prey on underage girls

FNM DEPUTY URGES PM TO "REIGN IN" NATIONAL SECURITY MINISTER

I join with all right-thinking Bahamians in condemning the utterances of Minister of National Security Wayne Munroe with regard to how the law should be interpreted with regard to adults who prey on underage girls.

His opinions on consent are repugnant and have no place in a civilized country.

What the minister should be doing as a lawmaker is advocating for stronger laws to protect children, and a no tolerance approach as the minister of national security, as opposed to alerting child predators as to how they can beat the system.

If he cannot advocate on behalf of protecting children and law abiding citizens, then he should reconsider his current career choice.

The prime minister must urgently reign his national security minister in.

Shanendon Cartwright, M.P.

Deputy Leader

The Free National Movement

Local Journalists Welcome The Suggestion of The Constitutional Review Commission that Freedom of The Press and Access to Information in The Bahamas Receive Constitutional Protection

Advocates Want Freedom of The Press to be Included as part of the Principle of Free Expression in The Bahamas

Constitution May Protect “Freedom Of The Press”

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

27 March 2006

Local journalists, long frustrated by what they see as a general lack of access to public documents, are welcoming a suggestion by the Constitutional Review Commission that freedom of the press and access to information receive constitutional protection.

"I have to say that it is a pity that we need a constitutional amendment or an amendment to the law at all to ensure what should have been the prevailing situation all along," said Sir Arthur Foulkes, a veteran journalist, who is also a former Cabinet Minister and a former diplomat.

Sir Arthur was a member of the opposition delegation at the Constitutional Conference in London in 1972.

The Constitutional Review Commission, which presented its report to Prime Minister Perry Christie last Wednesday, said it heard from a number of advocates who want freedom of the press to be included as part of the principle of free expression.

"It cannot be denied that a free and unbridled press is one of the most important institutions in a democratic society, and may be deserving of constitutional protection," the report says.

It would be in line with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees "the freedom of worship, of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition to the government for redress of grievances."

The Constitutional Review Commission’s report also pointed out that with freedom of speech must come access to public information.

"The right of free expression embraces the right to impart and receive information, and thus it is not surprising that some Constitutions link the right of freedom of information to that of free speech," the report says.

"Some provide for extensive rights of freedom of information, such as the South African model, which provides a right of access to information held by the state.  Others do not elevate it to a constitutional right, but have adopted freedom of information laws."

Wendall Jones, CEO of Jones Communications Network, believes that a Freedom of Information Act would be "a step in the right direction."

"It has taken the framers of the constitution or those who are interested in constitutional reform a long time to really put forward something that should have been enshrined in the constitution from Independence of 1973," Mr. Jones said.

"Of course we always assumed that we had freedom of the press in this country.  We know that we do not have a Freedom of Information Act, but once we have a Freedom of Information Act in The Bahamas it is hoped that people would understand what the Act is all about and it would not simply be something on paper, but that public servants in particular would understand that the press has a right to certain information."

Jerome Sawyer, a highly-regarded journalist who is the news director of Island FM and Cable 12, said access to information would give rise to much better reporting.

"We would be able to accurately give information that we normally now have to get from unnamed sources and people who are secretly giving [us] information," Mr. Sawyer said.

"I think it would also give some more credibility to our work because a lot of times we are operating just off of hearsay information we receive as opposed to being able to access actual data and actual information."

Mr. Sawyer said making freedom of the press a constitutional right would benefit, not just journalists, but all Bahamians.

"I think many people in the press are intimidated by the possibility of legal action and for that reason a lot of stories are not even touched," he said, but added that responsibility must always be a priority of every good journalist.

Carlton Smith, deputy general manager of news and special projects at the Broadcasting Corporation of The Bahamas, also spoke of the importance of journalists exercising a "serious level of responsibility".

"Freedom without responsibility is a dangerous weapon and it could destroy as opposed to build a nation," Mr. Smith said, "but freedom with responsibility is a catalyst in helping in the positive growth and development in a developing society."

He believes that enshrining freedom of the press in the constitution "would be a significant accomplishment in helping to promote true democracy and assist in the national development of our country".

With respect to freedom of the press, Mr. Jones opined that there are many press people who have abused their freedoms even though there is nothing enshrined in the constitution.

"It is hoped that when it is enshrined in the constitution and when we do have a Freedom of Information Act, that members of the press would be responsible and understand that even though this is enshrined in the constitution they have a duty to the public to be very responsible," he said.

Sir Arthur, meanwhile, said there is a culture of secrecy in government that goes back many decades.

"It’s a culture where civil servants seem afraid to give people information that rightly belongs to them and that they ought to have access to," he said.

"That should have been the ordinary state of affairs.  It’s about time that culture is broken and it’s about time that [members of] the public [are] allowed through the press to have all the information to which they are entitled."

Sir Arthur also expressed disappointment that there is no press association in The Bahamas although there has been a lot of talk about establishing one.

"[We need] to speak with one voice as it regards the rights of the press and the duty of journalists and the media to report to the Bahamian people," he said.

"Somebody put it like this: we’re like the amplifier, the loud speaker to broadcast to people what is happening with their affairs." 

Suisse Security Bank & Trust Ltd (SSBT) Loses its License Revocation Appeal

High Court Explains Why It Dismissed Suisse Security Bank Appeal

 

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

15th November 2004

The Governor of the Central Bank acted in conformity with the law when he revoked the license of Suisse Security Bank & Trust Ltd. (SSBT) more than three years ago, the Court of Appeal says in its newly released written response to SSBT’s appeal.

The high court on June 29, 2004 reaffirmed the 2003 judgment of Supreme Court Justice Austin Davis who ruled that SSBT failed to prove any grounds of its appeal.

Controversial Iranian businessman Mohammed Harajchi, who is still fighting to get his license back, owns the bank.

The Governor revoked the bank’s license on April 2, 2001 after determining that SSBT was carrying on its business in a manner detrimental to the public interest and the interest of its depositors or other creditors.

In the written response, Justice Milton L. Ganpatsingh said despite the submission of SSBT, the Governor could not have been acting in bad faith when he revoked the license.

The main reasons stated for the revocation included the failure of SSBT to report that US $1.6 million of its assets had been frozen in a trust account pending the outcome of litigation in the United States; and that US $3 million of SSBT’s assets had been attached in an account at a brokerage firm in New York in an action to which the company was a third party defendant.

These sums together made up 74 percent of the bank’s capital base.

The reasons also included a failure to provide the Central Bank with evidence of collateral to its satisfaction and evidence that the risk presented by the potential loss of US $3 million was covered by insurance.

The Central Bank has also reported that Mr. Harajchi’s bank continuously failed to provide it with a financial statement.

The first ground of appeal brought by attorneys for SSBT was whether the governor’s power to suspend and revoke the license of SSBT was temporarily suspended by an interlocutory injunction granted by Supreme Court Justice Hartman Longley on March 2, 2001.

But the Court of Appeal said this ground for appeal failed because there were more serious issues outside the limited terms or scope of the injunction and the Central Bank still possessed its general regulator powers and was free to act on them.

The second ground of appeal was that Justice Davis erred in holding that the governor’s power to suspend and revoke SSBT’s license was exercised in accordance with the Bank and Trust Companies Act 2000.

SSBT argues that under law, it should have received notice about the revocation and should have been afforded the opportunity to state its objection in writing.  But the court said this was not necessary, as pointed out by the Central Bank, because of certain practical reasons, including preventing loss to depositors and a run on the bank.

SSBT also maintained that the Central Bank Governor failed to give any or adequate reasons as required under law for revoking the license.

But the Court of Appeal, in support of Justice Davis’s view, disagreed.

It pointed out that SSBT had been made aware of all the concerns of the Central Bank and was not only “adversarial, but disingenuous in its response, so much so that it had initiated judicial review proceedings.”

“We do not agree that it was essential for the governor to set out a chronology of events touching and concerning the issues in order to establish that the regulatory demands had not been complied with,” the response from the high court said.

SSBT’s attorneys also submitted that there was no rational basis for the governor’s decision and that he failed to take into account certain important considerations before making his decision.

But the Court of Appeal held that the failure of SSBT to comply with certain regulatory requirements and the failure of the bank to inform the Central Bank of the US litigation involving US $3 million of the bank’s assets were “relevant considerations” in the governor’s determination.

“Both of those failures were as much a fact as the state of one’s digestion and demonstrated conduct which fell below the statutory requirements,” the judgment said.

Another ground of appeal was that Justice Davis erred in law in holding that the Governor did not act unreasonably or abused his power or acted in bad faith.

But the Court of Appeal justices said they can only judge the governor’s conduct in light of the prevailing circumstances.

“In the first place, it was entirely a matter within the Governor’s discretion to decide on reasonable grounds firstly, what would be required to protect the capital base of SSBT in terms of collateral to meet regulatory requirements;

“And secondly, what arrangement it would be necessary to put in place for Central Bank to obtain reliable and full information, which SSBT had failed to provide so far, concerning the US litigations,” the judgment said.

The final ground of the SSBT appeal was that the Supreme Court Justice erred in holding that the notice issued was not unlawful in that an officer of the Central Bank issued it.

But the judgment of the Court of Appeal said, “We do not understand the Governor to have delegated his power to suspend and revoke in the circumstances of this case by virtue of the fact that the notices were attached to a letter signed by an officer of Central Bank.”

A Call For The Bahamas To Be Included on A Watch List for Copyright Infringement

The Motion Pictures Association of America MPAA says that Bahamian copyright law is in violation of international law and is harmful to the U.S. film industry 

The Bahamas government is attempting to amend the necessary legislation to ensure that no sanctions are imposed on The Bahamas

Copyright Blacklist Threat

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

04/03/2004

The Motion Pictures Association of America has recommended that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) place The Bahamas on a watch list for copyright infringement that could lead to the U.S. government imposing sanctions.

The MPAA argues that Bahamian copyright law is in violation of international law and is harmful to the U.S. film industry.

If The Bahamas moves from its present position on the USTR priority watch list to the priority foreign country list, this could mean withdrawal from The Bahamas of the benefits of the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), Minister of Financial Services and Investments Allyson Maynard Gibson said in the House of Assembly Wednesday.

The Minister, who was speaking on a bill to amend the Copyright Act, noted that getting on the priority foreign country list is the "last thing in the world The Bahamas would want."

The USTR first placed The Bahamas on its watch list in 2002 and in 2003 moved The Bahamas to the priority watch list, which indicates that it believes that The Bahamas was not acting in good faith to resolve the problem.  At present, there are 11 countries on the priority watch list.

The CBI allows a wide range of products grown and manufactured in the English-speaking Caribbean duty free entry to the U.S. market.  In 2001, The Bahamas' total exports to the United States stood at approximately $154.2 million.

The government is attempting to amend the necessary legislation to ensure that no sanctions are imposed on The Bahamas.

The Copyright Act, which was passed in 1998, provides for the creation of a system of compulsory licenses which enabled the sole cable operator in The Bahamas, Cable Bahamas, to offer premium channels to the Bahamian public, and pay royalties into a special fund.

But U.S. copyright owners have accused Cable Bahamas of stealing their signals.

 The Copyright Royalty Tribunal has on its accounts some $934,917.92 in copyright fees from Cable Bahamas, but there have been no claims to the Tribunal, Minister Gibson said.

She said failure to narrow the scope of the compulsory license, as is the intention of a bill to amend the Copyright Act, could also have a negative impact on tourism in that it is possible that the U.S. could respond by withdrawing the pre-clearance benefits both tourists and Bahamians have come to enjoy.

Minister Gibson added that inadequate remuneration for the compulsory licensing of free-over-the-air broadcasts is a concern for the Americans, particularly with respect to uses by hotels and other commercial enterprises.  Under the present Act, cable operators are required to provide "equitable remuneration" for their transmissions.

But the USTR determined that the rates are too low.

Minister Gibson pointed to the difficulty regional cable providers face in trying to secure U.S. cable programming in English.

"A number of premium cable providers in the U.S. had over a number of years seemed to be unwilling to negotiate to allow their U.S. based channels to be broadcast in The Bahamas and other English speaking Caribbean countries," she explained.  "They offered instead their Latin channels, which happen to be in Spanish, for broadcast in The Bahamas."

Brendan Paddick, CEO of Cable Bahamas, told the Bahama Journal in an earlier interview that Caribbean nations have a lot of problems entering into agreements with many U.S. networks.

"Despite our efforts to enter into agreements and to pay them on a basis similar to what cable companies in the U.S. pay them, these companies essentially refuse to enter into licensing agreements with Cable Bahamas," Mr. Paddick said.  "[They claim] it would be too expensive for them to secure rights for many of the Caribbean nations...to pay for their programmes."

Minister Gibson told parliament Wednesday that, "Our legal advisors and international legal opinion are of the view that compulsory licensing is allowed under current international agreements.

"The government is satisfied that the compulsory license as provided for in the current legislation is allowed under international law."

She explained that, "It should be noted that the U.S. does not argue that compulsory licenses are not allowed under international law, it rather argues that such international law does not allow the compulsory licensing of encrypted signals."

While appreciating the argument made by the U.S. for the protection of the rights of the copyright holders, she said the most important issue for the government is to ensure that the Bahamian public is able to obtain quality cable programming in English.

"It is my understanding that this is why the government agreed to a compromise with the U.S. government," Minister Gibson said.  "Under this compromise, The Bahamas agreed to narrow the scope of the compulsory license provided for in the Copyright Act and to begin consultations with U.S. copyright owners on increased remuneration for the compulsory licensing and to amend its royalty rate structure."

The U.S. government, meanwhile, undertook to encourage U.S. copyright owners to enter into good faith negotiations with Cable Bahamas to provide voluntary licensing on commercial terms.

"It is also likely that the former government considered the investment of the numerous Bahamians and pension funds in the only licensed cable provider," she noted.