Four crim­i­nal at­tor­neys have been ques­tioned in con­nec­tion with pos­si­ble links to gang lead­ers and al­leged­ly aid­ing in mon­ey laun­der­ing by of­fi­cers of the Fi­nan­cial In­tel­li­gence Branch (FIB) of the T&T Po­lice Ser­vice.

Guardian Me­dia was told by se­nior of­fi­cers that the at­tor­neys— three males and one fe­male—had al­ready been in­ter­viewed by the of­fi­cers ear­li­er this week. Po­lice said the at­tor­neys, who were con­tact­ed by a se­nior FIB of­fi­cer, vol­un­tar­i­ly went in­to the branch and were al­lowed to leave af­ter their re­spec­tive in­ter­views. Ac­cord­ing to an at­tor­ney, who could not be iden­ti­fied, this lat­est de­vel­op­ment has caused many at­tor­neys to be­come “ir­ri­ta­ble” and “wor­ried.”

Guardian Me­dia was told that mem­bers of the Law As­so­ci­a­tion are now “look­ing on close­ly and are mon­i­tor­ing the sit­u­a­tion” and may re­spond ac­cord­ing­ly if the sit­u­a­tion de­vel­ops.

How­ev­er, Guardian Me­dia was point­ed to the Code of Ethics in the Le­gal Pro­fes­sion Act 10 and 12, which states: “10. No client is en­ti­tled to re­ceive nor should any at­tor­ney-at-law ren­der, any ser­vice or ad­vice in­volv­ing dis­loy­al­ty to the State or dis­re­spect for ju­di­cial of­fice or the cor­rup­tion of any per­sons ex­er­cis­ing a pub­lic or pri­vate trust or de­cep­tion or be­tray­al of the pub­lic.

“12. An at­tor­ney-at-law should al­so bear in mind that he can on­ly main­tain high tra­di­tions of his pro­fes­sion by be­ing a per­son of high in­tegri­ty and dig­ni­ty.”

Speak­ing with Guardian Me­dia on the is­sue on Tues­day, de­fence at­tor­ney Fa­reed Ali ex­plained that the Par­lia­ment as­sent­ed to the an­ti-gang leg­is­la­tion in May 2018 but a clos­er look at pro­vi­sion 9 a, b, c and d was “alarm­ing” as the claus­es had been tai­lored, sculp­tured and scribed in such broad terms that lawyers may find them­selves en­trapped and ham­strung in dis­pens­ing le­gal ad­vice.

The An­ti-Gang Act No. 1 of 2018 9 states: “A per­son who know­ing­ly (a) coun­sels; (b) gives in­struc­tions or guid­ance to; (c) fi­nances in any man­ner; or (d) oth­er­wise pro­vides sup­port to…A gang leader, gang mem­ber or gang in fur­ther­ance of its par­tic­i­pa­tion in, in­volve­ment in or com­mis­sion of a gang-re­lat­ed ac­tiv­i­ty com­mits an of­fence and is li­able on con­vic­tion on in­dict­ment to im­pris­on­ment for 25 years.”

Mean­while, three po­lice of­fi­cers de­tained un­der the An­ti-Gang Act re­main in cus­tody. The of­fi­cers were de­tained be­tween Fri­day and Sun­day and if charged and con­vict­ed can face up to 25 years in prison.

This is the first group of of­fi­cers who have been ar­rest­ed un­der the an­ti-gang leg­is­la­tion. The de­ten­tion or­der was grant­ed in the High Court by a judge af­ter ap­pli­ca­tions were filed by a po­lice sergeant as­signed to the Or­gan­ised Crime In­tel­li­gence Unit (OCIU).

The of­fi­cers will be de­tained over an 11-day pe­ri­od from when the or­der was au­tho­rised.

One of­fi­cer will be held un­til March 8 while the oth­er two will be held un­til March 9. Guardian Me­dia re­port­ed on Sun­day that one of the po­lice of­fi­cers is a close male rel­a­tive to for­mer act­ing com­mis­sion­er of po­lice Stephen Williams.

He and a 39-year-old po­lice con­sta­ble were ar­rest­ed by the OCIU at the Arou­ca Po­lice Sta­tion, short­ly af­ter they re­turned from the Tu­na­puna Mag­is­trates’ Court.

The lock­ers of both of­fi­cers were searched, their cell­phones seized and their homes were lat­er searched.

The ar­rests come af­ter months of sur­veil­lance of sev­er­al po­lice of­fi­cers sus­pect­ed of fa­cil­i­tat­ing gang ac­tiv­i­ty, in­clud­ing the trans­porta­tion of nar­cotics and oth­er con­tra­band across the coun­try.