e are in a different world now", said John Byrne, director of the American Bankers Association's Center for Regulatory Compliance yesterday.

Speaking to businessmen and women yesterday he described how the landscape had changed post 9/11 with the hunt for money funding terrorists not only pushing legislation through Congress quicker than ever before, but making bankers work with lawmakers to find the trail of dirty money used by terrorists.

And he gave as an example a charitable organisation that was possibly being used for money laundering that had been found to have the same PO box as a suspect organisation ? and could be used to fund terrorism.

Representing bankers in the US, Mr. Byrne, spoke to members of Bermuda International Business Association yesterday on the Patriot Act and told how the law passed Immediately after 9/11 altered the role of the private sector in preventing terrorist financing.

He said: "In the history of the United States Congress, I do not believe that a major piece of legislation ever passed as quickly as the 300 page USA Patriot Act. In three weeks' time, with overwhelming bipartisan support, a law was passed that, it is safe to say, no one individual read from start to finish," he said.

And he said that in the "tragic and hectic days" after 9/11, Congress understandably wanted to pass legislation to address the obvious scourge of terrorist financing. But he questioned whether the laws were necessary or did the US simply need more intelligence. "The lion's share of the Patriot Act that covers banking addressed money laundering and not terrorist financing. Most of the provisions were left over from unsuccessful legislative vehicles that would never have passed without the tragedy."

And he said that the American Bankers Association backed it because they could not stop it happening, covered a whole host of new financial service providers that previously did not have anti-money laundering obligations and would not be put into effect right away.

But he pointed out that many of the points included in the act were in fact, already illegal, but simply formally put them all together under one provision.

He said: "Most importantly to our industry was the provision that, for the first time, required all financial institutions to institute anti-money laundering compliance programmes."

He said that following 9/11, his association was briefed on the various methods of how terrorists use the financial system.

"One major theme should be clear: it does not cost much to rent a car, stay at hotel or buy a plane ticket. Therefore, terrorist financing, by its very nature, is not money laundering. The use of a financial institution by the thugs that took over those planes was limited in the following ways, accounts were limited to checking accounts of around $3000, applications indicated that the accountholder was a "student", identification used were visas issued by UAE, Saudi Arabia and Germany, accounts were opened within 30 days of entering the country; and accountholder checked his balance at ATMs several times a day."

And he said: "A review of these "red flags" basically proves that most financial institutions without additional government intelligence cannot detect and prevent terrorist financing handled in a similar way. Low dollar accounts cannot be effectively monitored and creating a system to assess how often someone engages in a "transaction inquiry" at an ATM is not practical.

"In addition, since the identification utilised by the terrorists was not false, improved identification procedures that are required under the Patriot Act would not have prevented access to a financial institution. ABA, however, does recommend that banks not accept visas as a primary form of identification.

"Increased due diligence does mean that new accounts are monitored and those opened for customers on "problem" countries be given enhanced scrutiny but all of this did not require legislation."

And he said that it was clear that the new obligations under the Patriot Act will not address the nature of how monies enter a system to commit terrorism.

"Much has been written about the PATRIOT Act and the necessity of quickly enacting laws to address terrorism," he said. "It would take a seismic shift in legislating to force political leaders to recognise that problems can often be addressed through existing laws and regulations."