introduced to strip their assets, Home Affairs Minister Quinton Edness promised yesterday.

The Minister spoke in the House of Assembly to open debate on the Proceeds of Crime Act.

He said the new laws would "strike at the heart of major organised crime'' by providing new powers to seize assets built up by drug runners.

The proposed law would allow investigators to delve back up to six years into the finances of convicts and confiscate crime-related cash and property.

And Mr. Edness said the laws would take the profit motive away from international drug dealers.

He told the House: "The bill provides some of the most effective weaponry ever introduced by this Parliament.

"This will hit drug dealers where it hurts, in their pockets, as they will no longer be able to hide the proceeds of their anti-social, obnoxious, nefarious deeds without the fear of financial penalty.

"Anything they have drained from society to further their own comfort can now be appropriated by the State.'' Mr. Edness said the Bill would also recognise money-laundering as a criminal offence as part of Bermuda's new role in the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force.

He added: "This is significant for Bermuda's desire to be a full partner in the international effort to counter money laundering.'' The Minister said the new laws would reflect a "careful balance between law enforcement powers and the protection of innocent parties''.

They included small businesses and individuals who may unknowingly become the focus of financial investigations, he added.

And he said business views had been gathered as part of a comprehensive consultation process.

"Government is sending a clear message to this country and the international community that we are serious in our efforts to tackle local and international drug dealers,'' he said. "And we are committed to international efforts to combat money laundering.'' The new powers have already been supported by Bermudians and the Police, added Mr. Edness.

He said the Bill included a six-year "reachback'' provision so investigators could confiscate old crime-related assets.

And the Minister denied recent claims the laws could allow overseas tax authorities to carry out "fishing expeditions'' in Bermuda.

"Overseas authorities cannot come into this country without so much as a by your leave,'' he said.

"Applications must be vetted by the Attorney General.'' Shadow Home Affairs Minister Alex Scott said his Progressive Labour Party would do its best to help Government "catch the bad guy''.

He said: "We wish to support the Government and the Police and the law enforcement agencies in the detection of any ill-gotten gain that relates to drug-running, dealing or trafficking.

"But there is one major `however'. The Minister referred to the protection that has been put in place for innocent third-party individuals.

"We still have concerns for the legitimate Bermudian individual.'' Mr. Scott said Government needed to do more to protect innocent people who may become caught in financial investigations.

He said even relatives could be viewed as guilty parties if they had accepted gifts from criminals.

And he also warned the PLP believed "fishing expeditions'' could still be launched by foreign tax powers.

Mr. Scott also said Bermuda was ten years behind other countries who had already introduced crackdowns on money laundering.

"Today nearly 100 countries have legal frameworks in place that criminalise money laundering and we are just arriving on the scene,'' he added.

Finance Minister Grant Gibbons reassured the House that the Proceeds of Crime Act included safeguards to protect innocent people.

He said: "Many of the protections built in for third parties are in the details of the particular clauses and it will be seen in detail how these work when we get into the committee process.'' Mr. Gibbons added that money laundering was an "enormously corrupting influence in a small country like Bermuda''.

He said: "No one country can stop money laundering. It requires cooperation from all countries.

"The UK has expressed concern about the ability of small countries to deal with the intense effect of corruption of financial institutions when laundered drug money comes in.

"But the National Audit Office visited the Island and gave us a clean bill of health.

"And this Bill will show that Bermuda is not liable to the UK.'' Shadow Finance Minister Eugene Cox added: "We have to be very careful. When these monies come into our economy they are going to impact far more greatly than they would in another economy, such as the United States.'' Mr. Cox said: "This is an important piece of legislature and we certainly don't want to see money laundering in Bermuda.

"We want to make it clear that, as a party we will do all in our power to stamp out drugs. But it doesn't mean to say that we shouldn't criticise the Government or suggest alternatives.'' Referring to British legislation, Mr. Cox said: "Money laundering is a process that takes three stages, placement, layering and integration.

"We need to get on top of things right from the start. There are benefits to be approved by training up our staff so that they can deal with these problems because once integration takes place, it's difficult to eliminate money laundering because it's difficult to detect.'' Mr. Cox then argued that it would be more beneficial if another department was set up to investigate corporate dealings rather than the Police.

"If we had a separate body it could be a group that reports to the Attorney General,'' he said. "It's giving the Police another burden where they are going to be alienated from the public and businesses.'' An element of humour then entered proceedings when Government's newly elected Pembroke West MP Erwin Adderley rose to make his maiden speech to the house.

He came under attack from Opposition members after saying that although he believed the bill to be "the cornerstone of the UBP's initiative on drugs and crime'', he believed PLP members would try to "muddy the waters''.

The bait was taken by Opposition members who began to jeer Mr. Adderley. After several failed attempts to bring order, Speaker of the House Ernest DeCouto said: "The honourable member is making his maiden speech and you should all respect that. He can get his licking later.'' Mr. Adderley went on to say how it was the responsibility of the whole of society to stamp out drug dealers.

"Some of these people are looked upon as heroes, as some sort of Robin Hood figure,'' he said. "But we cannot have people benefiting from illegal practices at the expense of our women and children and men.

"We have to ostracise drug dealers -- not idolise them. This bill will ensure that when they are caught, the penalties will be severe.

"We are all responsible for clearing up this problem. There is a responsibility to take action if you know that there's something going on.'' Paula Cox (PLP) supported the direction of the Bill but expressed reservations, arguing that if it was too draconian it could frighten away international business.

"We have to make darn sure that the requirements are not too cumbersome,'' the corporate lawyer said.

Supporting the Bill, St. George's South MP Rick Spurling (UBP) highlighted the worldwide implications of the Bill.

"It's got to be worldwide if we are going to make more than a dent in money laundering,'' he said. "Some might say it's draconian but I would describe it as necessary. We are going to have to make sacrifices.'' The bill then came under its first savage attack from former Opposition Leader Lois Browne-Evans (PLP).

The Devonshire North MP blasted the Government for continuing to introduce laws which, she claimed, destroyed the basic human rights of ordinary citizens.

And she argued that the new law would be largely ineffective in Bermuda.

"Small time drug dealers in Bermuda are not what international companies are contemplating,'' she said.

"We are giving our Police more powers to arrest people on suspicion. People talk about Big Brother which is what we have in the US and we are just a satellite of the US. Big Brother is watching us again.

"Human rights are being trampled on. Our Police Force is denigrated and then we give them more power. I am appalled at the type of legislation that this Government brings in.'' Drawing the main debate to a close, Mr. Edness argued that the bill would not reduce the public's rights.

"There is no attention by this Government to do that,'' he said.

"But can we just stand by and see the destruction of lives and families?'' In committee, Dr. Gibbons warned that Bermuda risks becoming an international pariah unless it gets tough on dealing with dirty money from the drugs trade.

Dr. Gibbons said international opinion was hardening against countries which turned a blind eye to criminal activity like the multi-million dollar drug business.

And he said: "People should realise what could happen to our tourist trade and also to our international trade if we suddenly decide not to do something about this.'' And he quoted international experts, including a senior International Monetary Fund official, who are advocating stiff penalties for countries which refuse to get tough on money laundering.

Dr. Gibbons said: "People are very concerned about it -- they don't want to fool around with it.

"Nations which do not proceed to protect against money laundering could well find themselves on the rather blunt end of an embargo or some other draconian financial or legal action.'' Dr. Gibbons was speaking after Shadow Home Affairs Minister Alex Scott warned some provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act could be an attack on civil liberties -- and lead to innocent people who received gifts later found to be funded from crime being penalised.

Mr. Scott said of one clause in the bill: "This means Police can march into any lawyer's office under the assumption, the pretext, that they are after something which has furthered a criminal cause.'' He added that corporate muscle could be used to protect the business sector from harassment -- but that Bermudians would have no recourse.

"Who is to say that the corporate institutions aren't equally suspicious,'' asked Mr. Scott.

He added: "The moment this comes into existence we will have the attorney-client privilege compromised to some extent.

"We no longer have the assurance -- no attorney can give the assurance -- that no document will end up in court.'' John Barritt (UBP), also a lawyer, said he was concerned for civil liberties and the rights of confidentiality -- but added there was protection for the individual built into the bill.

Mr. Barritt added: "It all highlights the balancing act which has to occur if this Act is going to have any teeth at all.'' He said the legislation gave courts discretion to examine how gifts came into the possession of third parties and whether or not the property should be seized.

And he said: "There is a procedure whereby an attorney can hold his ground on this whereby you don't give up your documents.

"An attorney can resist this -- you would go to court and in front of a judge argue your case. The judge would make a decision after he had seen the documents.'' But he warned: "I would caution those who receive gifts to exercise caution rather than turning a blind eye. That's something which has been going on for a long time in this Country.'' Mr. Barritt then stressed to the house that Police officers would not be able to enter premises and seize goods without checks.

Targeting his address at Mr. Scott, Mr. Barrit said: "As we give those Police officers wide powers we do have checks in place.

"There's the check of having to go to a judge to get an order and even then there are some hurdles that you have to meet. You have to set out the fact that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting them.

"The person who gets the order can have access to legal counsel and can resist the order and then it has to go back to the judge.

"I think we can take the Minister at his word to ensure that there will be further checks in place because there are concerns. But we make no apology because we are tackling a sophisticated criminal operation.'' But Mr. Scott hit back, claiming the new legislation was taking Bermuda back to "Nazi Germany''.

"We are further down the slippery slope than I thought we were,'' he said.

"It may be acceptable to some members to be able to take liberties with legislation, but let them know that when they don't have their hands on the helm they will see things in a different light.

"This empowers those in charge to take liberties in the name of law and justice but law and good order is something under attack. It takes you back to Nazi Germany.

"It's our responsibility to make these points and arguments and hopefully we will be proven wrong.'' Mr. Edness then felt forced to counter such claims.

"When you are making that kind of statement and speaking to the public and emotionalising things you have to put it in the right context,'' he said.

"This Bill doesn't resemble Nazi Germany at all. Right away we have the courts involved. It's not as though Police officers can just come along and knock down my door or anyone else's door.

"But we are talking about drugs and the drugs business which means that the Police have to move quickly.'' Dr. Gibbons then moved to pass the fifth section of the Bill, which creates new money laundering offences.

Mr. Cox questioned why an alternative organisation could not be set up to investigate money laundering rather than the Police.

And Ms Cox pointed out the difficulties of service industries such as banks reporting their clients on suspicion, particularly if the suspicion eventually proved wrong.

Dr. Gibbons replied, saying that the Police were given the responsibility of looking into money laundering because they had the experience. But he also admitted that there was the question of cost to consider.

"The Police will be utilised and given additional training and people,'' he said.

"In a larger country you might be able to set up a number of different units,'' he said. "But here it's better to have the intelligence section with the Police.'' Answering Ms. Cox's question, he said: "There has been experience in terms of how these particular clauses are implemented. It goes back to the guidelines and notes and they give a lot more detail as to how this institution will implement them.

"But there's going to be a learning curve on this one and we will have to tread carefully.'' It was then left to Mr. Edness to run through the last two sections of the Bill before moving that it be passed.

He concluded by saying: "This has been one of the best debates I have seen in the House and I am appreciative to all sides of the House for their contribution.''