Central Bank Forensic Audit: CID contradicts AG’s claim

By Skandha Gunasekara

Despite Attorney General (AG) Dappula de Livera claiming that investigations had been instituted on the basis of the Central Bank Forensic Audit (FA) report, The Sunday Morning learnt that neither the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) nor any other branch of the Police have been tasked with such an investigation.

Police Media Spokesman SP Jaliya Senaratne told The Sunday Morning that no orders had been given to carry out any investigation pertaining to the FA reports.

“We have not received instructions to probe matters connected to the FA report. The CID too has not received such orders,” SP Senaratne said.

During the first session of Parliament this year, on 3 January, MPs from both the Government and Opposition called on Speaker Karu Jayasuriya to table the FA report in the House, particularly the areas concerning the Central Bank Bond Scam.

On Tuesday (7), during Parliamentary sessions, Speaker Jayasuriya announced that he had been advised by the AG not to disclose the contents of the FA report as the AG’s Department was conducting investigations and carrying out legal action pertaining to the report.

“When the House met on 3 January, members of both the Government and the Opposition requested that the FA report on the investigation conducted into the Treasury Bond Scams be tabled. I promised to consult the AG to see whether that request could be granted. When I contacted him and sought his opinion on the matter, I was informed that there is legal action instituted on the basis of the report. The AG, in a communiqué addressed to me, has stated that several more cases are to be filed. Therefore, the AG has informed me that it is not prudent to release the forensic report to the MPs at this point,” Speaker Jayasuriya told Parliament.

The scope of the FA reports is not only limited to the Central Bank Treasury Bond Scam of 2015 but also probed the issuance of Treasury Bonds during the period from 1 January 2002 to 28 February 2015 by the Public Debt Department, primary and secondary market transactions of the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) involving Treasury Bonds issued/transacted during the period from 1 January 2002 to 28 February 2015, transactions of the EPF from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2017 in listed and unlisted equities, issuance of Treasury Bonds and remittance of funds received to the General Treasury during the period from 1 February 2015 to 31 March 2016 by the Public Debt Department, conduct of the supervisory and regulatory role by the Superintendent of Public Debt/Director, and supervision of non-bank financial institutions pertaining to selected primary dealers from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2017.

The Sunday Morning earlier also uncovered that the FA reports refer to a total of 19 companies that have allegedly caused losses to the EPF through “pump and dump” schemes.