The Editor, Sir:

The recent revelation of funds missing from the custody of the Ministry of Finance's Financial Investigations Division (FID) may just serve to convince officialdom that some of the efforts and resources spent on enforcement would be better spent on deterrence/preventative tools, techniques and metho-dologies in the fight against violent and white-collar crime.

It is unfathomable that in an investigation of cash evidence missing at the nation's premier financial crimes unit, we have to be interviewing 80 persons!

Let us not be naive or impractical to think that modern professional methods will completely remove dishonesty.

However, what is certain, is that appropriate security and control features will greatly reduce future suspects from 80 to a more credible and manageable figure. Whenever there is a problem, it should be a simple matter of deduction as to who is the culprit of negligence.

Chain of custody

Regardless of the type of evidence, the 'chain of custody' (among other things) is crucial in determining its validity and admissibility to the satisfaction of the court the chain of custody can be secured and maintained in several different forms, there are established standards stipulated by the court about which law enforcement officers (and others, e.g. attorney, investigators, fraud examiners, forensic accounts, etc.) should be aware.

These include a track of when the evidence came in, who checked it, where it was located, when it was moved, where it was stored and by whom, when it was signed out or by whom, when it came back and how it was finally disposed of.

Cash, because of its very nature, requires additional security precautions. Other types of evidence requiring enhanced levels of security and safety include firearms, narcotics, precious metals, precious and semi-precious, collector coins and stamps and negotiable instruments.

Best practices suggest that currency in particular, should be stored in a 'vault' segregated from other types of evidence, independently keyed and placed in an area which is covered by some type of intrusion alarm.

Modern-day property and evidence specialists have developed policies and pro-cedures which, like other professions, are applicable regardless of the jurisdiction, circumstances or personnel.

Some of these include the right of refusal, two-person rule, restricted access, highly restricted off-hours access, continued security through final disposition, and key and combination changes.

For example, under the right of refusal policy, each property/ evidence room employee must have the right to refuse to accept cash which is improperly packaged or incompletely documented.

This policy supersedes rank, so a constable, for example, should be able to tell an inspector that a sum of money is unacceptable until the inspector corrects the error or has someone else correct it.

The two-person rule can mandate that in certain situations, two people must be present. This includes opening a money envelope, entering the property room/vault, etc., outside of normal business hours and destroying property.

Electronic technologies

Increasingly these days, electronic technologies are been utilised to address these security and safety requirements, especially with cash evidence.

Other important factors to consider include the design and construction of the facility that will accommodate the evidence room/vault, etc., proper lighting (inside and outside), fire prevention/suppression features and roof access.

Obviously with all of these considerations, security and cost are at opposite ends of the spectrum. A compromise in the middle is probably the most efficient approach to the problem.

Probably these methodologies may have been known by the powers that be but felt that they were too costly. A workable system, however, may not have cost more than 18 million.

Whatever the approach taken however, the point is - we do not have to reinvent the wheel.

There are tried and proven methodologies routinely in use worldwide that we should consider in places like the FID and other property/evidence storage locations in Jamaica.

Based on the laxities reported, I am not overwhelmingly optimistic that the investigators of the FID matter will be able to identify the perpetrator(s), much less recover the funds.

I am, etc.,

COLLIN GREENLAND

cgreeny.collins@gmail.com