The Government of Sri Lanka’s decision to table the Proceeds of Crimes Bill reflects a strategic move to strengthen the country’s legal and institutional framework against financial crimes, corruption, and money laundering. This legislative initiative aligns with global anti-money laundering standards and seeks to enhance asset recovery mechanisms by empowering authorities to trace, seize, and forfeit illicitly acquired property. However, while the Bill is a step forward in combating illicit wealth accumulation, it has also raised concerns over due process, constitutional safeguards, and the burden of proof shift, necessitating careful implementation to balance crime deterrence with fundamental rights protections

One of the most significant aspects of the Proceeds of Crimes Bill is its reversal of the burden of proof, which raises constitutional concerns regarding property rights and due process. Traditionally, in criminal proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution—requiring the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual has committed a crime. However, under this Bill:

• Legal Presumption: If an individual possesses property suspected to be derived from criminal activity and cannot provide a lawful explanation for its acquisition, the property may be deemed proceeds of crime and subject to forfeiture.
• Impact on Fundamental Rights: This provision conflicts with the presumption of innocence and places the onus on the accused to prove that assets were acquired lawfully.
• Risk of Arbitrary Confiscation: The absence of clear due process safeguards increases the risk of unjust asset seizures and potential misuse of the law for political or personal motives.

Constitutional Implications

The Sri Lankan Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, including the right to property and fair trial protections. Several provisions could be relevant in challenging aspects of this Bill:

Article 15 (Restrictions on Fundamental Rights) – While the Constitution allows reasonable restrictions on rights in the interest of public order, national security, and economic stability, such restrictions must be proportionate and subject to judicial review.

Article 12 (Right to Equality and Equal Protection of the Law) – The Bill’s shift in burden of proof could be seen as violating the right to equal legal treatment, as it places an unfair evidentiary burden on the accused.

Article 13(5) (Presumption of Innocence) – Ensures that every person shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty. By presuming guilt in cases of unexplained wealth, the Bill may contradict this fundamental protection.

Article 14(g) (Right to Acquire and Own Property) – Allows individuals the freedom to acquire and dispose of property. The Bill’s presumption that certain assets are criminal proceeds unless proven otherwise could lead to unwarranted deprivation of property rights.

Read the Bill