Attorneys Leandra Esfakis and Maurice Glinton – who are being supported by the Bahamas Bar Association – had asked the court to permanently block the Compliance Commission from inspecting files of attorneys and accountants. Many professionals continue to argue that such inspections would deal a direct blow to the country’s financial services secrecy standards.
But in a move that sent the attorneys back to the drawing board to formulate a new strategy, the Court ruled that because there was no specific case regarding any intrusive or unconstitutional action taken by the Commission, Ms. Esfakis and Mr. Glinton had no grounds on which to present their argument.
In an interview with the Bahama Journal shortly after the ruling, Ms. Esfakis explained, “I tried to argue that this was not the basis on which the issue was being brought before the courts but rather, it was a matter of principle. There are other jurisdictions, particularly Canada, where the Bar Association has brought this particular case on the same basis as we are.”
She indicated that an appeal would be made “as soon as possible,” considering the Compliance Commission is set to start its work before the end of the summer.
They are set to begin scrutinizing files of financial service professionals.
“Mr. Glinton has already returned to Freeport to instruct the (Privy) Council in England,” Ms Esfakis said. “The necessary procedures will also be done to get the record sorted out and prepared. And we are hoping that all of this will be done within the next few days.”
In 2000, Parliament passed the package of legislation in response to the blacklisting of The Bahamas by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
The OECD and FATF had accused The Bahamas of being uncooperative in the fight against money laundering and said that the jurisdiction was involved in unfair tax practices.
Mr. Glinton and Ms. Esfakis, however, contend that the legislature exceeded its authority in passing the laws, charging that the government sacrificed the sovereignty of the country in response to international pressure.
But officials, who were part of the Ingraham administration, pointed out that the laws were absolutely necessary to protect the integrity of the country as a sound financial services jurisdiction.
Nonetheless, the Glinton – Esfakis case is one many professionals support.
Mr. Glinton charged in an earlier interview with the Bahama Journal that the laws “violate some very basic constitutional principles, the most important of them being that the authority which is given to parliament to make laws for the peace, order and good governance of this country, is to be exercised only for that purpose.”
Ms. Esfakis admitted, meanwhile, that the ruling did not surprise her.
She said, “I find the objections that the President of the Court of Appeal raised today – that she did not feel that we had a standing and that there was no case before her on which she could make a decision – peculiar, because we were previously before the Court of Appeal in September of last year on another appeal from the Chief Justice. This was successful.”
While declining to reveal how much money she and Mr. Glinton spent bringing the case, Ms. Esfakis indicated that a tremendous amount of time and financial resources have been put into bring the matter before the courts.
By Macushla Pinder, The Bahama Journal
