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

To gamble or not to gamble: ...as it now stands, gambling, although illegal for Bahamians, is now so prevalent ...and has been for so many years, that to let it flourish while continuing the debate whether it should be outlawed ...is making a fool of the law

The Devil Has Had It Too Long, Turn It To Good

 Tribune242 Editorial


TO GAMBLE or not to gamble — that is the question. In the Bahamas today it is a question that has already been answered by a large number of Bahamians without need of a referendum.

A referendum has only become necessary because of government’s desire to avoid a clash with the churches, particularly the strong Baptist vote, which itself is now divided. Government wants the bitter chalice of who decides on legalisation to pass to the “Voice of the People” – hence the referendum.

As Minister Lavern Turner, whose letter is published on this page today, points out gambling has “grown from the number man to the web shop.” Now that people can gamble on the web, gambling cannot be stopped, he wrote.

“The permission was already given,” he said, “when the web shop obtained a licence, paid National Insurance and hired workers. The people already have the legal right and it should not be taken from them.”

We also agree with the reverend gentleman that now is not the time to open casino doors to Bahamians. The minister pointed out the seriousness of the economic downturn and the hundreds of Bahamians without jobs – “light bills, water bills, rent, mortgages, school uniforms and fees, education, food, car upkeep and other more important responsibilities take priority over casino gambling. Entertainment at that level can wait!” he said.

It is true, gambling does reduce the moral fibre of a community by making people believe that by the throw of the dice they can get something for nothing; it can destroy families, and turn a pathological gambler into a destitute human wreck. A gambler never learns that the odds are stacked in favour of the house, never for him. In the end he is the loser.

The Tribune was against the introduction of betting at Hobby Horse Hall many years ago because of the harm it did to the family unit. It was the late Nurse Alice Hill-Jones, who came to The Tribune to report that whenever Hobby Horse Hall was in season and betting was in full swing, babies arriving at the government clinics were undernourished — their milk money was going to the race track. The fathers were spending their meagre wages every Friday afternoon betting on the trifecta.

Today the government has no choice but to legalise gambling. The people have already spoken. Already the numbers and the web shops have defied the police. No sooner are they closed than they are open again. If gambling is denied, then everything has to close. And the gambling houses have shown they plan to go nowhere without a fight.

It was the same story with alcohol. Prohibition became so dangerous that in the end alcohol had to be legalised. This did not mean that alcohol was beneficial, in many ways its abuse does more harm to the human body than many of the drugs that are still illegal. However, alcohol is now within the law. Gone are the smuggling days when much of the alcohol was contaminated, leaving people, if not dead, then blind.

The religious can find the answer to their quandary in the soliloquy of the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov where the pros and cons of God’s gift of free will is argued. Many condemned such a gift believing it too great a responsibility for weak man. Others saw it as a great gift enabling each human being to accept or reject morality, and to individually decide whether to follow good or evil. God’s gift of free will was to the individual, not to his pastor. The most that a pastor can do is to advise his flock and try to lead them on what he considers the right path — even going after the one who strays. But that is the limit of his responsibility. The final exercise of free will is for the individual. If the individual strays — as suggests pastor Turner in his letter – the “responsibility to deliver them belongs to the Holy Spirit, so take the load off your head, their blood is not on your hands…” A good bit of advice. Each person is judged individually by the extent of his knowledge and the exercise of his own free will in making a final decision based on that knowledge.

Ministers who are against gambling are only responsible for their own congregations — and only so far as they can guide the free will of their members. However, they have no right to even consider trying to impose their beliefs and will on a nation. Each man has his own beliefs.

Of course, there will be laws and if an individual’s free will leads him down the wrong path, then the law will be there to punish him.

But as it now stands, gambling, although illegal, is now so prevalent and has been for so many years, that to let it flourish while continuing the debate whether it should be outlawed is making a fool of the law.

Either make it legal and control it, or declare it illegal and shut it down.

In our opinion the added expense of a referendum is not necessary — it’s just an easy way out enabling government to avoid the wrath of religious ministers and the loss of the Baptist vote at election time.

Those who believe that gambling is evil and against their religious beliefs won’t gamble, and those who see nothing wrong with it will continue as they are doing now. The only difference is that the government will tax their foolishness.

As one religious minister once said: “Give me the money so that I can put it to good use — it’s been in the devil’s hands too long!”

August 07, 2012

Tribune242 

Caribbean Blog International

If we are going to be serious about deterring crime -- particularly murders -- then we can't get soft on punishment... Already this timidity in enforcing the law has broken down law and order on every level in The Bahamas

Considering crime and punishment

tribune242 editorial


SPEAKING in the House of Assembly last week Cat Island MP Philip "Brave" Davis criticised Government's proposed crime Bills as falling "short" of what is needed to eliminate violent crime.

He wondered if any thought had been given to the rate of recidivism and what would be the average length of time to rehabilitate an offender when defining life imprisonment.

"There is jurisprudence," he said, "to suggest natural life without an opportunity to review with a view of release is cruel and unusual punishment."

One never hears of the "cruel and unusual punishment" suffered by a victim's family -- a victim who has not had a second chance at life. And a family that has lost their main breadwinner.

With capital punishment virtually removed from the scene, there has to be a penalty, not only to punish, but to deter. True, there are degrees of murder -- the planned, vicious murders spawned from a psychotic brain, and the impulsive anger, where death was not intended, but was the result. There might be some hope of rehabilitating the latter, but none for the former.

The society's complaint today is that the laws are too soft, so soft that the criminal is making a fool of our judicial system. It is felt that with automatic hanging removed, the criminal is willing to play Russian roulette with his life, knowing that he can commit his crime and in all probability avoid the hangman's noose. It might give him second thoughts if he had to contemplate a lifetime in prison - when he and the undertaker leave together.

However, if he knows that he can again trick his way out by good behaviour, where is the deterrent to his crime?

A police officer told us that what many of them do is "get religion" while in prison to impress their jailers. Some, released for good behaviour before completing their sentence, turn their collars backwards and quietly continue their misdeeds, while others shed their religion and openly revert to type.

If we are going to be serious about deterring crime -- particularly murders -- then we can't get soft on punishment. Already this timidity in enforcing the law has broken down law and order on every level in this country.

Mr Davis said that legislators have to think of the cost of housing a convict for the rest of his natural life -- particularly if the offender has youth on his side. They also have to think of the increased burden on taxpayers.

Mr Davis told House members that it costs $14,000 a year to house a prisoner. He said that if a person were sentenced to life at the age of 30 - life expectancy for the average Bahamian male being 70 years - the state would have to support him for at least 40 years.

"Do the math," he told legislators, "there are at least 400 persons to be tried -- millions of dollars it will be costing taxpayers!"

These convicts become burdens only if the government lacks the imagination to put them to good use and make them pay their way by their daily labour.

Already in this column we have suggested setting aside a large acreage of Crown land for cultivation. These prisoners -- composed of lifers and those with shorter sentences -- could feed the nation.

Of course, for those with a life sentence this would be a life time job. At least they can turn a misspent life into a useful one and remember -- if the laws had not been changed -- they could have been hanged, buried and forgotten about, instead of breathing God's fresh air, and growing a field of tomatoes.

This production could be a tremendous savings to government by reducing the cost of imports. If done on a large enough scale and managed like a business, it could even increase our foreign reserves through exports.

In the woodwork department, men with this ability could be taught to turn out first class cabinetry that could be sold from various furniture stores. Again if it were handled as a proper business, the prison could open its own furniture store and attract a market. They could even go into the business of making toys for children.

With a little imagination, these men need not become as heavy a burden as some predict. What must be remembered is that outside of prison walls they will be a constant menace.

Society has to decide whether they prefer to pay for their upkeep knowing that they can have a good night's sleep in the safety of their homes, or save the expense and sleep with one eye open, and an ear cocked listening for the thief at the window.

However, these prisoners could possibly earn enough that restitution also could be made to some of the victims of their evil deeds.

Who knows but that it might encourage pride in some of these men in the knowledge that in the end their lives were not a complete waste.

But with the criminal playing hardball with society, society cannot now go soft on punishment.

October 17, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Although the public is clamouring for government to start hanging those now on death row, the law has to be followed and so far the Privy Council rulings are almost cutting down the hangman's noose

tribune242 editorial



WE AGREE with Security Minister Tommy Turnquest that it is going to become increasingly more difficult to hang convicted murderers.

Although the public is clamouring for government to start hanging those now on death row, the law has to be followed and so far Privy Council rulings are almost cutting down the hangman's noose.

In 1993 the Bahamas discovered that a hanging could not be carried out because the Privy Council had earlier ruled in a Jamaican case that it was inhumane for a prisoner to wait more than five years on death row for their sentences to be carried out. After five years a death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. Ever since then clever lawyers have protected their clients by court delays stretching past the five year limit.

Then in 2006 the Privy Council ruled that mandatory death sentences were unconstitutional. Each case had to be considered on its individual merits before sentence could be passed.

However, the Privy Council decision in the Max Tido case, in which 16-year-old Donnell Conover was brutally murdered, has almost ended capital punishment in the Bahamas. The Privy Council sent Tido's case back to the Bahamas appeals court saying that it was not a murder that warranted the most extreme punishment of death. It was returned "for the imposition of an appropriate sentence." The angry reaction here from both religious and civic organisations was to give the boot to the Privy Council, and do it our way -- "hang 'em high."

However, despite the Privy Council ruling the government is working on draft legislation that will target prolific and repeat offenders and outline specific categories of murders.

Nevertheless, it was Mr Turnquest's view that whether it be the Privy Council in London or the judges in the Caribbean "more and more jurists are going to find more and more obstacles to put in the way of governments from carrying out capital punishment." That, he added, is the "reality of life."

Therefore, he said, the concentration should be to get "those prolific killers, those prolific offenders, behind bars and off our streets." In the case of murderers, life imprisonment should mean "life until death do us part."

As we have already suggested in this column those who have a life sentence should be turned into useful citizens -- even though they are behind prison walls. A large acreage of Crown land should be opened for them to farm, thus allowing them to make a contribution to this country's food supply. Between our local farmers and the prisoners this country could be almost self sufficient in fruits and vegetables. This would certainly take some of the burden off our foreign reserves.

However, there has recently been a turn of events in England with regard to capital punishment that is worth watching. And it will probably get more traction now that young hoodlums are thumbing their noses at police and setting London and other regions on fire just for the hell of it. The British are fed up with lax laws and are demanding more punishment for law breakers.

The British government -- in a move to bring democracy directly to the people -- has installed a new site for e-petitions allowing the public to have their issues debated in Parliament provided they get enough support online to do so. Restoration of the death penalty is now a burning issue. The traffic on the site was so high on this subject -- more than 1,000 people a minute -- that the site broke down. It was not designed for such heavy traffic.

"We are getting 1000 unique visits a minute - this is equivalent to nearly 1.5 million visits a day and is far more than the old ePetitions site on Number 10 ever received," said a government spokesman in apologising for the breakdown.

The restoration of capital punishment now looks as though it is going to be one of the first items for debate on the Commons' agenda. It will be the first Commons vote on capital punishment since 1998. The last hangings in Britain were in 1964.

Although British Prime Minister David Cameron does not think that "in a civilised society like ours that you can have the death penalty any more," Priti Patel, MP for Witham in Essex, felt that such a debate would "provide a good opportunity to talk about the failings of our existing criminal justice system." So many victims of the "most horrendous and heinous crimes," he said, "have no sense of justice."

He echoes the words of Donnell Conover's father who on hearing the Privy Council's decision on Tido's future said: "It is really sickening -- I feel as if there is no justice in the world for a victim's family."

August 10, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Charles Maynard accused Philip "Brave" Davis of hiring bloggers to post "scandalous lies" of alleged corruption and extra-marital affairs about him

PLP Deputy accused of 'Internet lies'
By TANEKA THOMPSON
Tribune Staff Reporter
tthompson@tribunemedia.net:


CULTURE Minister Charles Maynard yesterday accused Opposition Deputy Leader Philip "Brave" Davis of hiring Internet bloggers to post "scandalous lies" that link him to alleged corruption and extra-marital affairs.

Mr Davis strongly denied the allegations when contacted by The Tribune yesterday morning and said he had no idea who is behind the website in question. He added that he had no time for - and did not condone - smear campaigns or personal attacks on fellow politicians.

The post in question, published on Monday, lashed out at Mr Maynard for criticisms made on a talk show earlier this week - and also in the House of Assembly last month - alleging that criminal defense attorneys and Mr Davis specifically who "profited" from and "manipulated" the slow-moving legal system.

According to Mr Maynard, every time he publicly criticises Mr Davis a scathing story about him appears on the website, making it "obvious" to him who is driving the rumours.

"I know as a fact that Brave Davis is behind it, that the person who does this works directly for him." Mr Davis emphatically denied the accusation.

"I don't think that it's fair for me to say something in the House - generally speaking and also directed to him in terms of how I felt about what he would have done earlier in his law practice - and his way of dealing with it is to have these scandalous things on blogs.

"It was so obvious in this latest attack, yesterday I appeared on a talk show and said something about him and they allude to that (in the blog) and it makes it obvious. It's immature (and) does nothing to forward the political system," Mr Maynard said.

Mr Davis, on the other hand, said he had no part in the disparaging remarks made against the minister adding that he cannot control the thoughts and actions of persons who may support him.

"That's unfortunate if he thinks every time he talks negatively about me he is negatively attacked - then he ought to consider whether he should be negatively attacking me. If he is attacking me and he finds himself being attacked, just as he has supporters out there I have supporters too. I have no interest in nor will I condone negative attacks on anyone. I have no interest in running any negative campaign - we have too many challenges in our country," the PLP Member of Parliament for Cat Island and Rum Cay said when asked about the allegations.

He continued:" "I don't need anyone to respond for me...But I am heartened to know that people feel sufficiently warm about me to come to my defence if they feel I am unduly attacked. Of course I am not going to sit by idly and allow people to attack (others)."

When asked directly if the website is run by PLP operatives, Mr Davis said: "I wouldn't say that's the case." He told The Tribune that the comments posted were "crossing the line."

Among other things, the post also alleges that the minister engaged in extra-marital affairs while on official duty at the World Cup match in South Africa and benefited from alleged criminal proceeds passed down to him by his father, Andrew "Dud" Maynard, a former PLP chairman.

Mr Maynard said his father, a veteran politician, can handle the aspersions but they take a harder toll on his wife.

"From my father's point of view he's been in politics all his life and knows it gets dirty. My wife is new to politics and not very happy about it - to me it's a new low.

"It goes out into the public domain, despite the fact that it's lies, it's still something that nobody would like to be said about them."

Still it doesn't appear that Mr Maynard plans to sue the handlers of the website for defamation.

He explained that Bahamian law has not caught up with the influence of the world wide web.

He said he hopes the Ingraham administration can advance some sort of legislative reform to address these matters, particularly before the next general election when campaigns on both sides of the party divide will heat up.

July 07, 2010

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Community Activist Rodney Moncur Wants Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham Booted

By Karissma Robinson:


Workers Party Leader Rodney Moncur is calling for Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham to be swiftly removed from office.

Mr. Moncur said the prime minister is "failing miserably" to carry out the laws of the land and hang all those convicted of murder.

He said the prime minister also failed to pass laws that would prevent murderers from being freed on bail.

"Politicians are playing games with human suffering and the prime minister, in particular, ought to be fired forthwith by the Bahamian people, not only for gross incompetence, but for his negligence in maintaining law and order at a time when too many children go to bed crying in loneliness and fear every night because their fathers and mothers have been murdered," said Mr. Moncur.

The party leader said the country has come to the end of one of the most tragic years in history.

He said the nation has witnessed, over the last twelve months, a continued degradation of law and order. In fact he said that the country is "decomposing like a dead body."

Mr. Moncur added that for five long years not one murderer has been hanged, as prescribed by law.

"The record shows clearly that the convergence of legal argument and legal free judgment, during his term of office, led to many murderers being freed to continue to terrorize out communities," said Mr. Moncur.

The issue of capital punishment, he said, is the law of the land and it should be enforced without reference to who believes in it or who does not believe in it. Mr. Moncur said the nation at large should become very suspicious of its leaders, when they prove that they do not have the guts to change the country’s laws out of fear of a political backlash.

Mr. Moncur said his organization is calling for justice and pointed out that a hanged murderer will be forever deterred from carrying out another act of cruel, inhumane and unusual violence of human life.

The Workers Party, along with family members of murdered victims, will be hosting a pro-hanging march at RM Bailey Park on December 12 to demand that no murderer is granted bail and that all murderers are hanged promptly.

December 2nd, 2009

jonesbahamas

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International

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.