Opposition Member Hon Myron V. Walwyn has said the proposed amendments to the Proceeds of Criminal Conduct Act not only infringes on privacy rights but includes excessive state overreach by law enforcement and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Photo: YouTube

The dangers of unchecked authority and police abuse were highlighted by Opposition Member Hon Myron V. Walwyn (R6) during his debate on the proposed amendments to the Proceeds of Criminal Conduct Act. Photo: RVIPF/File

The Proceeds of Criminal Conduct (Amendment) Bill 2025 is currently in a committee of the House of Assembly (HoA) to be considered clause by clause. Photo: VINO/File

Judicial Overreach

A key critique levelled by Hon Walwyn focused on Section 3 of the bill, which expands the criteria for issuing restraint and charging orders.

"A restraint order is an order that has the effect of freezing your assets. And, a charging order is one that is placed on a debtor’s property. And then [Section 3, subsection AA] says proceedings for an offence have been instituted against a person for any offence."

He took issue with the vague language of "any offence," arguing that it broadens the bill’s scope beyond financial crimes.

"You’re being disingenuous. Because any offence means any offence. So you go and you get yourself in trouble—let’s say, pick any offence that is not a financial one—and all of a sudden now, you can now put a restraining and charging order on the person’s property or whatever it is because they’ve committed any offence, when the very bill that we have here says that it’s for anti-terrorism and money laundering. That can’t be right. That has to be taken out of the bill."

Hon Walwyn, as such, accused certain actors of using compliance obligations to sneak in additional, unjustified legislative controls.

"You have some people around here who want to do things—chuck all kinds of things—and they come and they say it’s under mutual evaluation. And when you read the thing, they don’t be sold. Yes, there are some things that we have to do, but since they bring the whole thing one time, people who have an objective [are] chucking other things and then try to tell people that it’s because of mutual evaluation."

Overreach in Property Seizures

Opposing the amendments that allow restraint orders based on mere suspicion, he told members, "Now, you see this word suspected—completely subjective. And we have to be careful, Madam Speaker, with these bills that affect your privacy rights. Because, yes, you have the right to privacy in the Constitution. It is not an absolute right; it is a qualified right. But there are certain conditions under which it can be interfered with. It must be justifiable, and it must be proportionate.

"And you are saying to me that you could get a restraint order on my property just because somebody who has authority is a suspect? Shakespeare has said, ‘Ambition must be made of sturdier stuff.’ Suspicion must be of something greater than this."

Excessive Fines & Sentencing Disparities

Meanwhile, Hon Walwyn also took aim at what he considered excessive penalties outlined in the bill.

Under the amendments, summary conviction fines jump from $250,000 to $500,000, and the upper limit of prison sentences increases from 14 years to 25 years.

"Now somebody going to say to me, when it says not exceeding, that don’t mean nothing. The upper limit is too high in my opinion. So the discretion that the judge will have needs to be curtailed in the legislation for it to be fair.

Privacy Rights issue

Another particularly controversial element of the bill is the handling of production orders, which can grant authorities access to personal data, including computer records and mobile phones, leading Hon Walwyn to argue that such orders should be issued only by High Court judges, not magistrates.

"Because production orders are as invasive as they are—affecting privacy rights—I believe that they should be handled at the highest level. It should be a High Court judge, that is my view."

He cited instances of past abuses by the police, warning of the dangers of unchecked authority, and stating, "The police is not always very truthful. That is the reality of what we are dealing with in the BVI… And now you are going to have them making ex parte applications, Madam Speaker, that affect the privacy rights of people through production orders?"
As such, he proposed that only senior officers—inspector level or above—should be authorised to apply for production orders.

The bill is currently in a committee of the HoA to be considered clause by clause.