Marie Jacques Laval Panglose G.O.S.K
Outre les amendes de vingt millions de roupies aux alinéas 22 à 38 du projet de loi intitulé Financial Crimes Commission Bill (No. XX de 2023), ce texte propose d’introduire un concept qui va à l’encontre de notre système de droit pénal et constitutionnel.
Il dit à l’alinéa 38: 4
Notwithstanding section 184(f) of the Courts Act, the Court may consider the past conviction of any person prosecuted for a money laundering offence, to find or to reasonably infer that the proceeds subject matter of the money laundering offence emanates from a crime which that person has already been convicted of.
L’alinéa 184 {f) du Courts Act dit :
A person charged and called as a witness in pursuance of this Sub-Part shall not be asked, and if asked shall not be required to answer, any question tending to show that he has committed, or been convicted of, or been charged with, any offence other than that with which he is then charged, or is of bad character, unless –
1. (i) the proof that he has committed or been convicted of such offence is admissible evidence to show that he is guilty of the offence with which he is then charged;
2. (ii) he has personally or by his advocate asked questions of the witnesses for the prosecution with a view to establish his own good character, or has given evidence of his own good character, or the nature or conduct of the defence is such as to involve imputations on the character of the prosecution or the witnesses for the prosecution; or
3. (iii) he has given evidence against any other person charged with the same offence.
La Constitution dit à l’alinéa 10 (2) (a)
2) Every person who is charged with a criminal offence –
(a) shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty;
Le Larousse propose ainsi la définition d’innocent :
innocent, innocente :adjectif et nom(latin innocens, -entis, probe)
Qui n’a pas commis l’acte délictueux ou condamnable dont on le soupçonne : Cet homme est innocent du meurtre dont on l’accuse.
La chose est simple, pourtant : l’aveu doit être volontaire, car nul ne peut être contraint de témoigner contre soi. On ne peut plus « donner la question » depuis l’abolition de la Star Chamber. Ensuite, les condamnations passées ne sont lues qu’après un verdict de culpabilité, pas avant.