By Harsha Gunasena –

Harsha Gunasena

In the page 112 of the Election Manifesto of the NPP, A Thriving Nation – A Beautiful Life, it was stated that  a Stolen Public Asset Recovery Agency will be established  to recover the stolen state assets. It was also stated that the Director General of the Bribery Commission will be facilitated with necessary authority to give effect to the International Convention on the Prevention of Corruption and Coordinating the Recovery of Stolen Assets.

Stolen asset recovery was a popular election rhetoric which has elevated to the extent of coming out of the financial restraints of the country using the proceeds of the recovery of stolen assets.

The Extended Fund Facility  greement (EFF)was initiated by the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) with the IMF in April 2022, and the agreement was reached  in March 2023. Under EFF it was agreed that to enact a comprehensive Asset Recovery Law and to harmonize it with the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. This should be done in consultation with the IMF staff and the target date was given as November 30, 2024.

Therefore, it is not merely an election promise of NPP but a commitment given by the GOSL to the IMF. In June 2022, Minister of Justice Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe PC appointed an eminent panel headed by Justice Ysantha Kodagoda PC to develop the Policy and Legal Framework and Draft Provisions of the Proposed Law on Proceeds of Crime, well ahead of the finalization of the EFF agreement. The Committee released the final report in April 2024. The Committee consulted foreign experts as well and was based on many legislations including the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002-UK. The Proceeds of Crimes Bill  was published in September 2024. Now the GOSL has decided to present it to Parliament. The Bill is in line with the bill drafted by the committee and in most places of the text the two documents were identical. 

Designated Officers of CIABOC and Police

Contarary to the  intention of the NPP in its election manifesto, there will not be a stolen public asset recovery agency instead the functions would be divided between the Sri Lanka Police and the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC).

There should be a Proceeds of Crime Investigation Division( PCID) established at the Sri Lanka Police and the Director General of PCID should be the Police Designated Officer (DO) referred in this Act. (Sec. 45).

He should be appointed by the National Police Commission (NPC) for a period of three years out of the three recommendations by the IGP and should not be a person below the rank of a DIG. He may be removed by the NPC in consultation with the IGP on the grounds of acting in a manner defeating the objectives of this Act.(There are certain specific points) The IGP has no authority to give investigation – specific orders to PCID. However, IGP can give directions to PCID with regard to the performance of  duties, functions and exercise of powers under this Act. (Sec 46)

For the purpose of this Act there should be a Designated Officer(DO) at the CIABOC, and that officer should be the Director General of the CIABOC. (Sec.47) There are respective Deputy DOs and the supporting investigation officers in the two institutions.

The Police DO and the DO of the CIABOC shall regularly discuss and agree on the manner in which mutual cooperation may be extended between their respective institutions towards effectively achieving the objectives of this Act. (Sec.48) The line of command of the two institutions in relation to this Act is given in Diagram 1.

The DO of the CIABOC is under the full control of the CIABOC whereas the DO of the PCID is under the control of the NPC in respect of administrative directions only. Although the Act specifically says that the NPC/IGP cannot give investigation – specific orders to the Police DO the Act does not specify such restrictions to the CIABOC in relation to the DO of CIABOC.

According to the Act, investigation- specific decisions should be taken jointly by the two DOs so that they both can act independently in respect of those decisions. The responsibilities and authorities under the Act are with the two DOs and in respect of CIABOC that authority and responsibility come through the Commission  (Sec.43) whereas the NPC/IGP has no say about that. Although NPC can remove him if he acts in a manner defeating the objectives of the Act, this is an establishment of an independent power center within the Sri Lanka Police.

Sri Lanka Police is governed by the independent NPC of which the commissioners are appointed through the Constitutional Council as defined in the Constitution of Sri Lanka. Therefore, this may undermine the authority of the NPC and there is no unity of command in this structure.

However, the Bill is silent about how to proceed if there is a dispute between the two DOs.

When a Police Investigation Officer comes across  a subject covered by the Anti-Corruption Act he should inform that to the DO-CIABOC through Police DO. (Sec.51-4) When a CIABOC Investigation Officer comes across a subject under the purview of the Police, he should inform that to Police DO through the IGP. (Sec.51-5) This is against the protocol. He does not have to inform or go through the DO-CIABOC and can directly approach the IGP.

One other example where the deployment of Police Officers needed is elections. At the time of holding of elections,  the Police Officers deployed should be under the control of the Election Commission.

According to the constitution of Sri Lanka, upon the making of an Order for the holding of an election, the Election Commission (EC) shall notify the IGP of the facilities and the number of police officers required and the IGP shall make available to the EC the facilities and police officers specified in any notification. Every police officer made available to the EC  shall be responsible to and act under the direction and control of the EC during the period of an election. (Article 104C)

In the Anti-Corruption Act there are provisions that the CIABOC can appoint their own investigation officers rather than depending on the Police whereas in the repealed Act the Commission was not independent in this respect and had to depend on the Police for the investigation officers.

There are two models here, the one adopted by the EC where the temporarily deployed Police Officers report to the EC and the other adopted by the CIABOC where they have their own investigators. In respect of Proceeds of Crimes Bill, a third model is introduced which is discussed previously. This may be the ideal solution with the circumstances and the drafters of the Bill wanted to minimize the undue influences on the PCID but I have doubts whether this arrangement would work smoothly when there is no unity of command.  Sri Lankan organizational culture does not promote collaboration but authority and command. With the  comparatively slowness of the decision-making process of the Public Sector the implementation of the Act would face a lot of hinderances.

PCMA and VCRTF

Under the Act Proceeds of Crimes Management Authority (PCMA) a body corporate, will be established for the purpose of protecting, preserving and managing proceeds of crime.(Sec.96) The PCMA shall have Management and Administration Fund (MAF)  and a Fund for the Protection, Preservation and Management of Proceeds of Crime (PPMF). (Sec 112) In addition to that there will be a Victims of Crime Reparation Trust Fund (VCRTF) (Sec.131)

Recovery of stolen assets

With the introduction of the Proceeds of Crimes Act to recover stolen assets, we have all the required legal provisions which include the Anti- Corruption Act  with wide authority to the CIABOC to combat corruption.  However, the process is very long. The necessary steps are given in the Diagram 2. Therefore, if someone wants to have quick results, he will be disappointed.

Diagram -2

Stolen Assets Recovery Process
(source:  https://star.worldbank.org/focus-area/asset-recovery-process)