Opinion

Expose:

The dual role of Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake

The Chief Justice (CJ) of a country is the highest judicial officer in the land. From such a person, it is fair for the public to expect a standard of conduct that is above reproach. As a result, the CJ would be expected to display the highest degree of honesty and integrity. Even if the CJ may be prone to a bona- fide mistake on a rare occasion (like all human beings), deliberate and conscious misconduct or misdemeanour cannot ever be a part of a CJ’s conduct.

Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake

The CJ should also leave no room for any questions to be raised about his/her conduct. In addition, the CJ’s financial dealings must be above suspicion and must not in any way indicate any pattern of behaviour that suggests impropriety, financial misconduct, bribery, corruption, money laundering or embezzlement. It is also imperative that the CJ must not leave room for any doubt whatsoever to be entertained about his/her behaviour pertaining to his/her financial transactions.

However, in the case of Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake, Chief Justice of Sri Lanka, it is abundantly clear that she falls far short, in this aspect of financial propriety. As is well-known, major suspicions are aroused of money laundering in the following circumstances:

(a) the operation of several bank accounts by a person, which suggests that multi-accounts are used to defuse the magnitude and frequency of transactions in order to confuse regulators.

(b) the opening and closing of bank accounts within short periods of time, which suggests that the accounts are used for a particular transaction and then closed before suspicion is aroused in the minds of the authorities.

(c) the manipulation of accounts to have low balances or zero balances on certain significant dates, e.g. 31st December or 31st March, (which are the dates that are generally used by regulators or surveillance agencies to monitor accounts on a regular basis), in order to reduce suspicion or evade detection by regulators.

A careful assessment of Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake’s Account No. 101110002058 (Old No. 100002001360) maintained at the National Development Bank (NDB) reveals the following:

(1) During the year 2007/2008, Dr. Bandaranayake maintains the above account in an active manner, with four debits to the value of Rs. 5,524,875.25 and eight credits to the value of Rs. 5,524,875.25 being transacted through the account. By 8th February 2008, a sum of Rs. 674,323.52 was lying to the credit of the account. On that date, the entire amount is withdrawn, thus reducing the balance to zero.

Thereafter, no transactions took place and accordingly, on 31st March 2008, the balance in the account continued to remain at zero. On that basis, Dr. Bandaranayake did not disclose the bank account in her Assets and Liabilities Declaration, even though the rules pertaining to the Declarations demand that a person discloses all accounts even if such accounts do not contain any balances.

(2) The account lies dormant until 6th May 2008, on which date a sum of Rs. 519,534.55 is credited to the account, and thereafter the account becomes active, with 22 debits amounting to Rs. 31,860,754.47 and 41 credits amounting to Rs. 31,860,754.47 being reduced upto 3rd February 2009. Then, on 3rd February 2009, the entire sum of Rs. 616,895.75 which was in the account on that date, is withdrawn and the balance is reduced to zero. Thereafter, the account remains inactive, and on 31st March 2009, the account records a zero balance. Accordingly, Dr. Bandaranayake, for the second time, does not disclose such account in her Assets and Liabilities Declaration as at 31st March 2009.

(3) The zero balance remains until 3rd July 2009, at which point, a sum of Rs. 500,000.00 is credited to the account.

Thereafter until 13th January 2010, the account is operated in a highly active manner with 10 debits amounting to Rs. 15,508,794.63 and 18 credits amounting to Rs. 15,508,794.63 being recorded in the account.

However, on 13th January 2010, the entire sum of Rs. 700,078.18 lying to the credit of the account is withdrawn, thus making the account balance zero, once again. Such zero balance status in the account remains as at 31st March 2010, and once again, for the third time in succession, Dr. Bandaranayake does not disclose the account in her Assets and Liabilities Declaration.

(4) The account lies inactive until 7th April 2010, and on that date the account is credited once again with a sum of Rs.910,473.22 and the account regains its usual robust character with 27 debits amounting to Rs.57,488,454.95 and 37 credits amounting to Rs.57,488,454.95 being recorded up to 18th February 2011. On 18th February 2011, the now familiar total withdrawal occurs, and on that date the entire balance lying in the account of Rs.2,057,098.86 is withdrawn, leaving the account with a zero balance once again. Such zero balance is maintained as at 31st March 2011, and yet again, for the fourth time in succession, Dr. Bandaranayake does not disclose the account in her Assets and Liabilities Declaration.

(5) The account remains inactive until 5th May 2011 in keeping with the regular pattern that has by now been established, and on that date a sum of Rs.974,280.39 is credited to the account and the account becomes highly active once again.

This advanced level of activity continues until 30th March 2012, by which time, 88 debits amounting to a staggering Rs.256,416,639.42, and 171 credits to a similar value of Rs.256,414,342.34 passes through the account. But, as is now very familiar, on 30th March 2012 the entirety of the Rs.10,047,779.95 that is lying to the credit in that account is once again withdrawn in the established pattern, and the account is reduced to zero once again. Such zero balance is recorded as at 31st March 2012, and again, for the fifth consecutive time, Dr. Bandaranayake does not disclose the account in her Assets and Liabilities Declaration.

(6) True to the pattern, a sum of Rs.10,047,779.95 is brought back to the account on 5th April 2012, and the account resumes its active character yet again.

It is obvious that, the methodology adopted in the operation of the above account is a well thought out and sophisticated operation. It is not an operation of an account that would be expected from any ordinary person, let alone the country’s chief judge of the Supreme Court. The magnitude of the figures and the careful avoidance of significant dates is consistent with an intention to conceal the operation of the account, and avoid detection.

The initial study of the operations of Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake’s account suggests a pattern of behaviour which would easily arouse suspicion among any regulator, as the behaviour displays many devious methods to avoid detection of the nature of the transactions.

The operation also suggests that Dr. Bandaranayake has deliberately and consistently acted in at least five consecutive instances to avoid disclosure of the sums that were in her account and that the scheme has been meticulously implemented in a highly sophisticated manner. A further suspicion that may arise is as to whether Dr. Bandaranayake was using her privileged position, first as a Supreme Court Judge and thereafter as the Chief Justice, to indulge in this activity, knowing fully well that her actions are very unlikely to be investigated by any other regulatory agency. Being the Chief Justice of the country, does not give such person immunity from the laws of the land. The law must apply in a just and fair manner to all persons, however high and mighty they may be.

Accordingly, it is now time for the law enforcement authorities to commence a probe regarding the true nature of this Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake’s highly suspicious financial dealings. If that is to be done in an impartial manner, she cannot remain as the Chief Justice of the country.

Justice must apply to the Chief Justice as well.