JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Saturday, July 26, 2025

First Cit­i­zens/Camille con­fi­den­tial­i­ty breach

Imbert knocked over interference

by

20160304

Fi­nance Min­is­ter Colm Im­bert was "out of place" to ask First Cit­i­zens bank for a re­port on com­pli­ance with fi­nan­cial oblig­a­tion reg­u­la­tions, since the Cen­tral Bank is the lo­cal bank's reg­u­la­to­ry body to whom they re­port, for­mer min­is­ter of fi­nance Mar­i­ano Browne says.

Browne was com­ment­ing yes­ter­day on moves by Im­bert fol­low­ing Plan­ning Min­is­ter Camille Robin­son-Reg­is' claim of "breach of con­fi­den­tial­i­ty" against state-owned First Cit­i­zens and the clo­sure of her ac­counts there.

This fol­lowed me­dia ques­tions about a large de­posit she made at the bank, her con­fir­ma­tion of a cash de­posit of $93,000 and al­le­ga­tions that she didn't do the re­quired source-of-funds de­c­la­ra­tion. How­ev­er, she said that this was done.

Im­bert sub­se­quent­ly said he had asked First Cit­i­zens for a re­port on com­pli­ance re­gard­ing fi­nan­cial oblig­a­tion reg­u­la­tions. At Thurs­day's Cab­i­net me­dia brief­ing, Prime Min­is­ter Dr Kei­th Row­ley fu­elled the is­sue when he said that he couldn't trust First Cit­i­zens with his per­son­al in­for­ma­tion.

But Browne, ex­press­ing con­cern about the sit­u­a­tion, said Robin­son-Reg­is has av­enues for ac­tion and is en­ti­tled to pur­sue them if she choos­es. How­ev­er, he said the Fi­nance Min­is­ter didn't have the right to in­ter­fere, since it was a per­son­al mat­ter and didn't re­quire the in­ter­ven­tion of any Gov­ern­ment par­ty.

Browne said the min­is­ter on­ly had over­sight of the health and struc­ture of the fi­nan­cial sys­tem, which was the very rea­son the Gov­ern­ment in­ter­vened in the cre­ation of First Cit­i­zens years ago.

"The min­is­ter has over­all re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to look af­ter the strength of the struc­ture and econ­o­my and must be dis­creet and man­age sit­u­a­tions with sen­si­tiv­i­ty," Browne said.

Say­ing it was wrong for Im­bert to get in­to pub­lic pol­i­cy is­sues by seek­ing such a re­port from First Cit­i­zens in the man­ner he had, he added, "He's com­plete­ly out of place, not un­der­stand­ing his re­spon­si­bil­i­ty. The en­tire sit­u­a­tion re­quires for­bear­ance and pa­tience and should have been han­dled more del­i­cate­ly."

Browne said Im­bert's re­quest for a re­port from the bank–where Cen­tral Bank was the reg­u­la­to­ry body–could al­so un­der­mine trust in the bank, since mem­bers of the pub­lic may feel if the Gov­ern­ment can source in­for­ma­tion from the bank oth­er in­for­ma­tion about peo­ple's loans, ac­counts, and oth­er in­for­ma­tion, might al­so be ob­tained.

Yes­ter­day, the Cen­tral Bank of T&T (CBTT), re­ply­ing to T&T Guardian queries about which ju­ris­dic­tion banks fall un­der– CBTT or Min­istry of Fi­nance–con­firmed that banks are li­censed to con­duct op­er­a­tions by the CBTT.

Asked if the min­istry can seek re­ports from banks on com­pli­ance with fi­nan­cial reg­u­la­tions, CBTT stat­ed that its Fi­nan­cial In­sti­tu­tions Su­per­vi­sion De­part­ment is the unit that mon­i­tors com­pli­ance with the oblig­a­tions of li­censed in­sti­tu­tions.

On whether the CBTT is look­ing in­to the Robin­son-Reg­is/First Cit­i­zens is­sue and if she had filed a com­plaint with CBTT, the CBTT stat­ed, "Is­sues that need to be re­solved be­tween clients and banks are gen­er­al­ly brought to the at­ten­tion of the Of­fice of the Fi­nan­cial Ser­vices Om­buds­man (OF­SO) or the Cen­tral Bank.

"Con­fi­den­tial­i­ty pro­vi­sions pre­vent the OF­SO and Cen­tral Bank from giv­ing in­for­ma­tion on whether or not such re­ports are made or any oth­er as­pects of such mat­ters."

Bank­ing sec­tor ex­perts al­so yes­ter­day point­ed out that First Cit­i­zens isn't 100 per cent gov­ern­ment-owned, since the Gov­ern­ment on­ly has 78 per cent share­hold­ing.

An of­fi­cial said, "In a sit­u­a­tion of a bank be­ing 100 per cent state-owned the own­er can ask about things, but when the bank be­comes a pub­lic com­pa­ny–like FCB is–and the State is just one of sev­er­al share­hold­ers, you can't ask for in­for­ma­tion like that. All share­hold­ers get the in­for­ma­tion at the same time, not just one; and one share­hold­er can­not know some­one's busi­ness since that would com­pro­mise every­thing."

Im­bert didn't re­ply to emailed queries on the is­sue.

Busi­ness sec­tor con­cerned...

T&T Man­u­fac­tur­ers' As­so­ci­a­tion pres­i­dent Rolph Bal­go­b­in said yes­ter­day he couldn't com­ment on the specifics of the First Cit­i­zens mat­ter since he wasn't suf­fi­cient­ly in­formed.

But, he said, "What I can ob­serve is con­fi­dence is in­te­gral to the suc­cess­ful op­er­a­tion of the bank as this is a very im­por­tant in­dige­nous in­sti­tu­tion.

"It's very im­por­tant that all the par­ties in­volved un­der­stand what's at stake here and act ac­cord­ing­ly as con­fi­dence is some­thing that takes years to build–and mo­ments to de­stroy."

Am­cham Cham­ber pres­i­dent Ravi Suryade­vara said, "A large cash trans­ac­tion, as re­port­ed, is un­usu­al for an in­di­vid­ual and in most ju­ris­dic­tions would have a prob­a­bil­i­ty of fur­ther en­quiry.

"How­ev­er, all per­sons have a rea­son­able ex­pec­ta­tion of pri­va­cy, even if a process of fur­ther re­view is un­der­tak­en. Fi­nan­cial in­sti­tu­tions should al­so al­ways have ad­e­quate pro­ce­dures to pro­tect cus­tomers' pri­va­cy. How­ev­er, as with any sys­tem, in­di­vid­u­als with­in can un­der­mine these pro­ce­dures. We are there­fore ex­pec­tant that the in­sti­tu­tion will deal with this ap­pro­pri­ate­ly and await the de­ter­mi­na­tion of what tran­spired."

On the po­ten­tial im­pact of the over­all sit­u­a­tion–in­clud­ing Gov­ern­ment's crit­i­cism of the First Cit­i­zens–on the fi­nan­cial sys­tem, he said, "The greater sub­stan­tive is­sue fac­ing the fi­nan­cial sys­tem and coun­try is the wider rubric of the Fourth Round Com­pli­ance Re­view of the Caribbean Fi­nan­cial Ac­tion Task Force, for which T&T is the present chair. With­in this com­pli­ance regime for an­ti-mon­ey laun­der­ing and counter-ter­ror­ism fi­nanc­ing, deal­ing with po­lit­i­cal­ly ex­posed per­sons (PEPS) and ex­hi­bi­tion of en­force­ment of leg­is­la­tion through pros­e­cu­tion are cru­cial el­e­ments amongst the oth­er re­quire­ments."

He added, "Greater com­pli­ance would al­so mean, as Am­cham T&T has ar­tic­u­lat­ed in past sub­mis­sions to the Gov­ern­ment, im­prove­ments to the FIU, leg­isla­tive­ly and re­source wise. Such im­prove­ments will al­low the FIU to be more ef­fec­tive in re­view­ing sus­pi­cious trans­ac­tions and mak­ing de­ter­mi­na­tions on ap­pro­pri­ate ac­tion, in­clud­ing pros­e­cu­tion if nec­es­sary.

"In the ab­sence of this, in ad­di­tion to the in­ter­na­tion­al rep­u­ta­tion­al and busi­ness reper­cus­sions, too much room is left for wrong­do­ers to es­cape. Fur­ther, in the ab­sence of a de­ter­mi­na­tion on mat­ters flagged as sus­pi­cious, much room is left for spec­u­la­tion and rep­u­ta­tion­al dam­age to per­sons en­gaged in le­git­i­mate trans­ac­tions. This forms part of the es­sen­tial dis­cus­sions that Am­cham T&T con­tin­ues to pur­sue with the Gov­ern­ment and oth­er key stake­hold­ers."


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored