Legislative process hotting up on asset freezing bill

The local government will have the capacity upon approval of the asset freezing bill to follow through with the freezing of assets of individuals proven to be involved in the financing of terrorism, announced legislator Kwan Tsui Hang following a closed-door Legislative Assembly session yesterday.
The push for the completion of the law comes almost a decade after the mutual evaluation by the Asia Pacific Group found Macau was ‘partially compliant’ in its ability to execute the measures of asset freezing suggested by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), according to the justifying note accompanying the proposed law.
Under the proposed law, the local government would freeze three types of assets: if mandated by the United Nations Security Council, based upon a locally elaborated list of individuals proven to be funding terrorism and by request from another jurisdiction; in the case of assets being frozen they would remain so for a period of two years, after which they would be unfrozen if the individual is found to no longer be involved in terrorism financing; if the individual in question is still proven to be funding terrorism operations assets would remain frozen for the period of one year until the next evaluation.
“We are not confiscating the assets,” said the legislator. “This is only to avoid any use of the assets in the financing of terrorism.” Freeze
Ms. Kwan noted that the commission is currently discussing methods of appeal to allow for citizens whose assets have been frozen to be able to reverse the decision. “The interest of the commission is that Macau citizens don’t suffer based upon the application of the law,” Kwan said, noting that in any of the three cases leading to asset freezing the government must “verify the identity, the residence, and see if it is a similar name or the same person [in the case of a foreign request or UN security council mandate].” Kwan also noted that: “Macau has received requests before but has never found them to be the same person [as the individual linked to terrorism financing].”
With regard to a locally elaborated list the Chief Executive would “suggest” to the central government that individuals on the list have their assets frozen or unfrozen – based upon “criteria of reasonableness in the appreciation of the facts that support it, with special attention to the rights of those involved and the interests of third parties who could be harmed, not dependent upon the existence of a penal process” – according to the law proposal.
The Chief Executive would then propose that list to the “competent international body” – who decides whether to freeze or unfreeze the assets. If designated for freezing the Chief Executive would issue a notice following the publication of which the assets would be immediately frozen, and the commission would notify the designated individual on the motives for freezing and the rights the individual has. The individual could then appeal to the Chief Executive, who would pass the appeal to the central government, “for the purpose of its submission with the relevant international entity”.
UN mandate
In the case of a UN Security Council mandate, Kwan says that Macau “just has to comply”, with local authorities to freeze the assets. Once frozen these assets can only be accessed if they are unfrozen by the Chief Executive based upon the following criteria: funds are necessary to cover basic expenses – such as food, bills and medicine; their destined exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees or for legal services, they’re exclusively for the payment of costs or taxes on maintenance of the frozen assets, used to cover extraordinary expenses or they’re needed for other payments expressly authorised in the asset freezing decision. In this case, an appeal can be submitted, the Chief Executive can consider “adequate conditions” and authorise the unfreezing or release of funds. In the case of a residence being the frozen asset “it can’t be sold, but it can be lived in,” says Kwan.