Give ARA reasonable time to probe organised crime

The proposal to hold assets suspected to be proceeds of crime for up to three months is reasonable and should give the authorities enough time to complete their investigations.

State agencies currently have the latitude to retain properties and freeze financial transactions for one month. This may not be enough time to conclude investigations, especially given the rising volumes of suspicious transactions and the complexity and international nature of some of the deals.

Legislators should adopt the proposal to give the authorities more time to hold suspicious assets by adopting the changes to the Prevention of Organised Crimes Act.

The threat of organised crime has become apparent in recent months, with the Assets and Recovery Agency (ARA) obtaining orders to seize and freeze large cash remittances by shadowy characters.

We should be ready to empower ARA and other law enforcement agencies to do their job more effectively to curb the threats from organised crimes like terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering, and corruption.

Currently, ARA can only seize and retain property and freeze cash dealings suspected to be part of organised crime for up to 30 days and can only extend this period through an order of the High Court.

The proposal to empower the agency to hold suspicious assets for up to 90 days should give it enough time to conclude investigations, whether the transactions are local or international in nature.

In international deals, including cash transfers involving multiple banks and countries, it may be necessary to seek the input of Interpol and foreign authorities.

This is likely to require more than the four weeks that ARA is currently allowed to hold properties of suspects. For those whose assets are seized, extension of the holding period by two months should not inconvenience them too much.

Failure to renew ARA’s authority over seized assets, for instance, will likely see suspects transfer and hide the properties at the first opportunity if they are criminals. This means that even if their crimes are confirmed soon thereafter, there will be no means of enforcing the asset seizure.