Author: Christopher Ram

Posted on

The mystery of the receipts and the certificates

Every man, woman and child must become oil minded (Part 170)

Introduction

This column takes up from last week’s discussion on the September 23 letter from US Senators Whitehouse, Van Hollen and Merkley to Exxon’s Chairman, Darren Woods on tax credits claimed in his company’s tax returns in the USA. As a reminder, that letter arose out of some sterling efforts and representation by OGGN, a US NGO formed to promote a better deal for Guyana from the Stabroek Block. In their letter, the senators requested that Woods, by October 23, show whether Exxon has in fact paid income taxes in Guyana under the 2016 Agreement.

I have since reviewed Hess’ Standard Disclosure 4 filed in the USA. In it, Hess states:

“A portion of gross production from the Stabroek Block, separate from the joint venture partners’ cost recovery and profit share entitlement, is used to satisfy the joint venture partners’ income tax liability. Delivery of this production to the government in satisfaction of the joint venture partners’ income tax liability is administered by ExxonMobil Guyana Ltd. as the operator and therefore is not included in this report as a payment.”

That is not only gibberish. It is false and deliberately so. Hess and its accountants know how article 15.4 and 15.5 of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement are worded. Column 169 set out the process in a narrative chart. 

But now comes Exxon itself. On September 26 Exxon filed its own Form SD with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. And there, in black and white, Exxon reports for Guyana in 2024 under a column Taxes US1,236.2 Mn.  Beneath the table appears Exxon’s explanatory note:

“Production entitlement of 28,073,185 BBLs is valued at the realization price issued in the press by the Ministry of Natural Resources offset by EMNI Taxes.”

The message which Exxon sought to convey is that it paid US$1,236 Mn in taxes to the Guyana Revenue Authority in 2024. It is public knowledge that no such money was taken out from the NRF and that there is no payment of that amount into the GRA/Consolidated Fund. This shifts the onus to the GRA and the Minister of Natural Resources who is required by the Agreement to pay the money to the GRA on behalf of the Exxon. Neither the Government, the Minister of Natural Resources nor government appointee Charles Ramson Snr., Commissioner of Information, has provided any information that could settle this issue.

Provide the proof

If the money was actually paid, Guyana should be able to produce proof instantly. But if not, there seems to be a grand conspiracy in which Exxon has made a misleading, or false statement in a statutory SEC filing. Maybe OGGN should take this matter one step further: Make a complaint to the SEC for false or misleading information. 

To sum up then, there is not one but three alternative facts, a feat which not even Kellyanne Conway could achieve. Here they are:

Hess, with its incoherent, mythical talk of gross production and operator administration.

Exxon, with its “Taxes” column showing US$1,236 Mn.

The Government of Guyana, with its silence over certificates issued in its name for money never received.

Gibberish at Hess’ level in a public document signed by an official cannot be dismissed as ignorance. It is distortion. A billion-dollar column presented to the SEC by Exxon cannot be brushed aside. The non-description other than “Taxes” is no oversight. It is deliberate ambiguity designed to mislead.

Silence is not an option for Guyana when there is a formal request under the Access to Information Act.  It constitutes concealment, evasion in public office and a breach of a statutory duty.

Don’t cry for Exxon

The senators have given Exxon one month to provide the information. They also showed both prescience and frankness in their letter to Darren Woods. We should, however, manage our expectations. Three senators writing on their own, however senior, do not possess the authority of a Senate committee. Their letter to Darren Woods is not a subpoena. Exxon is therefore not legally compelled to respond in the way it would be to a congressional committee. But that does not mean the letter is without weight. Failure by Exxon to respond would entitle the senators to draw their own conclusions – and to say publicly that the company cannot produce proof of payments.

Hope for Guyana

Civil society in Guyana needs to take the lead from OGGN. Its members have no real skin in the game. We have seen in President Ali’s statement on the troubling foreign exchange situation in Guyana. If he reflects for one minute only, he will realise that his failure to “review and renegotiate” is a major cause of that situation.

 We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) and its leader Azruddin Mohamed can take the example of the three senators. They can play a leading role and earn further success in addressing what is the most significant economic issue facing Guyana. This is not a cause from which patriotic Guyanese should shirk.

Conclusion

The Senators have asked for proof. Hess has provided gibberish. Exxon has provided a column.  Guyana has provided silence. On October 23, Darren Woods must answer. And when he does, there will be two simple questions for Guyana: Were receipts issued by the GRA? And who issued the certificates to Exxon and Hess?

Posted on

The Underground Economy (Part Two)

Business and Economic Commentary by Christopher Ram

Introduction

This is the second and concluding part of a two-part commentary on the underground economy. Part I, published on August 18, 2025, was prompted by the revelations of Azeem ‘Junior’ Baksh in an interview with online reporter Travis Chase – although Baksh has since distanced himself from some of the statements made. The continuation was delayed by intervening elections and a shift in national attention.

Part I explored the origins of Guyana’s underground economy – born of shortages and import substitution – but did not address the criminal economy, which operates alongside, and increasingly, within it. That sphere includes narcotrafficking, illegal mining, smuggling, and other activities that are not merely informal, but outright illegal. Unlike the earlier underground economy, driven by necessity, today’s criminal enterprises rely on laundering, political cover, and networks of protection, often intersecting with official complicity.

Overlap

Before proceeding, it is useful to distinguish the three overlapping spheres. The underground economy lies outside the tax and regulatory net – informal, unrecorded, or under-declared. The criminal economy includes activities that are illegal by definition. The corrupt economy operates within legal structures but subverts them – through bribery, procurement fraud, kickbacks, and abuse of state power for private gain. When they co-exist as they now do, they are more dangerous and detrimental.

The contrast with “underground economy one” is stark. Then, Guyana was one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, behind only Haiti. It was a pariah state, burdened by unsustainable debt, currency shortages, crumbling infrastructure, and mass emigration. Today, the country boasts of the world’s fastest-growing economy and a per capita GDP that rivals developed countries – a transformation estimated at over a 100-fold increase.

As oil catapulted the formal economy past the trillion-dollar mark, the underground was overtaken by a corrupt economy thriving within formal systems but beyond accountability. That wealth thus obtained is now flaunted openly, its source unchallenged. Enforcement agencies – politicised at the top and underpaid below – either look the other way or target only the powerless. In this environment, connections and privilege, not legality, decide who are held to account.

The consequence is that the lines between the underground, the criminal and the corrupt have blurred into convergence. What follows are key segments of the economy where shadow activity now thrives in plain sight.

Gold: More than worth its weight

Gold remains the underground economy’s preferred medium of exchange. With its high value-to-weight ratio, liquidity, and resistance to tracing, it is ideal for discreet transactions. But the issue goes deeper. Guyana is widely believed to serve as a laundering route for gold smuggled from blacklisted jurisdictions like Venezuela and parts of Africa. This gold is exported under Guyana’s name, cloaking it in legitimacy while draining the country of credibility – and revenue.

Narcotics: A Persistent Foundation

The drug kingpins are no longer as conspicuous, but the narcotics trade has not disappeared. Ongoing busts, unexplained wealth, and suspicious transactions point to its continued presence. Guyana’s location keeps it central to transshipment routes between South American producers and North American and European markets. Proceeds still seep into the economy – undeclared, untraceable, and dangerous.

Procurement: The Golden Goose of Corruption

With massive increase in public spending, generous budgeting and poor audit and oversight, public procurement is now a rich source of high-level corruption. The model is familiar: inflated contracts, padded pricing, and poorly supervised improperly executed work with rewards through third parties. Kickbacks appear in various forms, including political payments serving the dual purpose of a reward, and deposits on future state contracts.

Gambling

Gambling, once a vice, is now development policy. A “lucky” night at the slots can explain sudden wealth – real or invented. Online betting in various forms, is almost untraceable. Horseracing, casinos, and digital platforms now serve as ideal channels for laundering illicit income under the guise of entertainment.

Retail and VAT Evasion

The old contraband model – suitcase traders and street forex – has been eclipsed by more complex systems. Large importers, often doubling as wholesalers and retailers, under-invoice imports, move currency off-market, and under-declare VAT. With undocumented foreign workers in retail, security, and construction, evasion extends beyond goods to wages, payroll taxes and social security deducted but not paid over.

Real Estate: The Underground’s Vault

Real estate is another favoured avenue of undisclosed value. Properties are acquired via proxies, relatives, or shell companies, with transactions under-declared or settled in cash. High-end developments often shadow public infrastructure budgets. The cycle is clear: illicit funds from procurement are laundered and locked into real assets – invisible to tax authorities, insulated from scrutiny.

Political Protection and Contributions

Corruption at this level thrives not just on evasion, but on immunity. Politically exposed persons (PEPs) offer cover, and political contributions often act as prepayment for regulatory leniency or future contracts. In return, appointees shield benefactors and frustrate enforcement. The line between campaign finance and criminal facilitation grows ever thinner.

Institutional Paralysis and Political Protection

The overlap among the segments means that there is an erosion of institutional will. Agencies meant to monitor, regulate, and prosecute financial crime are themselves weakened – by political interference and under-resourced. Unless the Police, SOCU, the Procurement Commission, the Integrity Commission and the Commission of Information, are insulated from political control and granted stronger investigative and prosecutorial authority, they will continue being more symbolic than substance.

Conclusion:

Though remnants of the original underground economy remain and should not be dismissed, they have been largely overtaken by a more insidious, corrupt economy – one cloaked in legality, yet beyond the line of legitimacy and legality. Its replacement shifts the tax burden to the honest, distorts markets in favour of the well-connected, and shuts out even the law-abiding. Together, they turn enforcement into a tool of the powerful, while corroding public trust in justice, fairness and the rule of law.

Oil money does not solve these problems. In fact, it exacerbates them. Another of the challenges that will define President Ali’s second term.

Posted on

While Guyana celebrates Hammerhead, America investigates

Every Man, Woman and Child must become oil minded – Column no. 169

Introduction

Like some of my fellow commentators, I wanted to give the Ali Administration some space following the September 1 elections. In the campaign season leading up to the elections, candidate Ali promised to fix the problems plaguing the embarrassing and gross failure of the operations of the Access to Information Act. Three weeks after, nothing has been done. I am prepared to wait a little longer.

Regarding the natural resources sector, particularly petroleum, the President has reappointed the same leadership team – a decision that has not inspired universal confidence. On the government’s approach to the 2016 Agreement, he has made it clear that he intends to preserve its lopsided, anti-Guyana provisions, which significantly hamper effective contract administration, management, and oversight. The administration has prioritised “sanctity of contract” over “review and renegotiate.” While I was initially prepared to wait and observe, two recent developments in this sector demand immediate attention.

Developments

The first is the announcement by the Ministry of Natural Resources that it has approved the US$6.8 billion Hammerhead project which is expected to produce 150,000 barrels of oil per day, with first oil projected for 2029. The Licence is granted under Deed and is widely available, allowing for a comprehensive analysis by petroleum technologists and engineers. It includes and sets the benchmarks against which operations can be measured.

Readers will recall that the Stabroek Block was awarded to Exxon, CNOOC and Hess under the Petroleum Agreement and Production Act (1986), but this Act was replaced by the Petroleum Activities Act of 2023. The Regulations referenced in the Licence are those of 1986 which must cause some confusion and overlap.

Under these instruments, the Govern-ment has the right to attach conditions to aid better administration. But while the Licence imposes several obligations on the oil companies, it is silent on the two most contentious issues – ring-fencing and insurance. 

The second was a statement out of the United States of America that three US lawmakers had written to ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods demanding answers about perceived “tax evasion” inherent in the same 2016 oil contract that Guyana keeps celebrating. This tells you everything about how seriously these two countries take their revenue base.

The contrast could not be more striking. For Guyana, it was all adolescent excitement, over an unqualified production licence, from which Exxon will reap the lion’s share of revenue. For the USA, it was seven tough questions with an October 23rd deadline. Show us proof or defend the fraud. 

Congrats OGGN

The USA development arose from proactive action on the part of OGGN, operating as an NGO in that country with the objective of getting a better deal for Guyana. The same NGO on whom a constitutional office holder in Guyana, secretly moonlighting for Exxon, had “sicked” the IRS, hoping to have it deregistered. Dave Martins might ask, “Who is the patriot and who is the sellout?

The US Senators – Whitehouse, Van Hollen, and Merkley – think that ExxonMobil is using fake Guyanese tax certificates to rob American taxpayers of vast sums of tax dollars each year. They want to know if ExxonMobil actually paid any taxes in Guyana, or whether it is all a huge cross-border scam.

Here is the tax arrangement under Article 15.4 and 15.5 of the Agreement:  1. ExxonMobil prepares tax return → 2. Minister gets money from oil fund → 3. Minister pays ExxonMobil’s taxes to GRA → 4. GRA issues receipt in ExxonMobil’s name → 5. ExxonMobil uses certificate to claim a tax credit in the USA.

In practice, however, the substantive steps set out in 2, 3 and 4 above are not executed, raising grave doubts about the legality of the entire process, of which Exxon, a company not famous for its embrace of high moral and ethical standards, is a willing partner. OGGN has shown persistence and determination in persuading three courageous US senators to expose the grave omissions by the Guyana authorities, and from the US side, Exxon’s and Hess’ willing use of improperly issued tax certificates to obtain vast sums by way of tax credit.

It is incomprehensible that the Government of Guyana, which subscribes to the Santiago Principles, believes that it can succeed indefinitely in violating its own laws and the norms of accountability and transparency.  Under the principle of rule of law, being in government does not place you above the law. Rather, it imposes an even higher standard of conduct for acting within the law, to set the standard of good governance, and to enforcement against all citizens and residents.

Exxon’s discomfort 

Exxon knows that the tax certificates it presents to the IRS, GRA’s counterpart, have not been properly issued. It scrutinises the local press for negative coverage and cannot feign ignorance of the nature of the tax certificates it receives. Given the several instances in which the government has brought it into schemes that serve their mutual purpose, it may have felt that the rule of law has given way to the rule of power. So much so that John Colling, ExxonMobil’s Vice President and Business Services Manager for ExxonMobil Guyana, felt free to disregard questions from me that go to the essence of his company’s accounting and ethical practices. John may not be aware of the local saying that time is longer than twine – that things catch up on you.

My case against Charles Ramson for his failure to provide me with almost identical information now being sought by the US senators from Exxon’s Chairman Darren Woods will soon come up. Those senators have given Woods a very narrow timeframe to meet their request for answers. Woods will have to respond under threat of the escalation of the matter. 

One way or the other, the smoking gun will be activated. It is likely to cause embarrassment and have significant and powerful consequences for both the government and the American oil companies. 

Posted on

Constitutional Reform Commission must stop hiding behind self-imposed restrictions

Dear Editor,

I welcome the openness with which retired Chancellor Carl Singh has sought to explain the paralysis of the Constitutional Reform Commission (CRC). Unfortunately, the explanations sound less like accountability and more like excuses.

By lamenting the delays in obtaining fans and paper, Chancellor Singh’s comments fail to reflect the seriousness of a Commission established pursuant to a constitutional mandate. Each commissioner is paid some $200,000 per month, for what has so far amounted to the occasional meeting. The Chair, no doubt, enjoys a substantial package. Are we to believe that this generous remuneration is justified by “orientation” sessions and tutorials on the Constitution? The University of Guyana runs an entire semester on constitutional law, and that is only part of the subject. If the CRC, populated by lawyers, ministers, and professionals, truly needs basic instruction before starting its work, then the undertaking is amateurish in the extreme.

Editor, this would be laughable if the exercise were not so important and so costly. I wrote in my letter of 3rd September 2025 that the 1999 Commission, working under greater constraints, delivered a 300-page report in six months after wide consultation and expert engagement. By contrast, this body has been in place for over a year, supported by a Secretariat, funded by Parliament, and armed with the benefit of unfinished business from its predecessor. Yet it suspended meetings until after elections, in breach of both Article 119A of the Constitution and the Commission’s own Act.

This is not what Guyanese expect from a body entrusted with strengthening democracy, the limitations of which are exposed daily. A professionally managed Commission should have long provided a costed work plan, which I am certain the Ministry of Finance would have no difficulty funding. To hide behind “teething problems” is simply unacceptable.

Now that the matter has been brought to the fore, the CRC must stop hiding behind self-imposed restrictions. It must report to the National Assembly, publish a timetable, engage the public, and get on with its mandate. Anything less is a betrayal of the people and a waste of taxpayers’ money.

This culture that we can waste public funds because we have “oil money” must be nipped in the bud. The CRC must set the example of how public funds must be usefully spent, not why systems of accountability and transparency are needed, as in this case. 

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Posted on

Book Review: A landmark chronicle of Guyana’s accounting profession

Lal Balkaran’s History of Accounting & Auditing in Guyana: Including the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana, Other Agencies, and Some Coverage of the Caribbean, 1800–2024 is a pioneering work. For more than two centuries, accounting and auditing shaped the way Guyana’s businesses, plantations, and public institutions operated, yet until now no one had attempted to tell their story in a comprehensive way. This book fills that gap.

At over 330 pages, it traces the profession from the Dutch and British colonial systems of bookkeeping, through independence and the turbulence of the 1970s and 1980s, into the present oil-driven era. Balkaran recounts the dominance of expatriate accountants, the rise of firms such as Bookers, and the eventual emergence of Guyanese practitioners. He recalls the contribution of pioneers like A.M.S. Barcellos, the first Guyanese to qualify as an ACCA, and E.A. Adams, the first East Indian in Guyana to do so, alongside notables including Yesu Persaud, Willie Stoll and Jack Alli.

The book is strong in its treatment of institutions but also generous to individuals. Alongside detailed accounts of ministries, revenue authorities, and audit offices, Balkaran acknowledges the contributions of those who shaped the field. By recording their achievements, he preserves the personal dimension of the profession and ensures that such achievements are recorded for posterity.

Women too receive overdue attention. The book highlights the first women to qualify as chartered secretaries and accountants, and those who later broke through to senior professional roles and partnerships. By placing these achievements in a global context, he shows that Guyanese women were part of a wider struggle for recognition in male-dominated professions.

The book is also a valuable record of institutions: the Audit Office, the Ministry of Finance, the Bank of Guyana, the Guyana Revenue Authority, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana. Each is carefully chronicled with lists of officeholders, statutes, and milestones. More than fifty pages of appendices supply rare details, including reproductions of audit certificates and economic timelines. For researchers or students, these are priceless.

The strengths of the book are clear. It is comprehensive, patriotic in spirit, and diligent in the quality of painstaking research. What makes Balkaran’s achievement even more commendable is that he is a non-resident: yet his commitment to preserving Guyana’s professional heritage has not diminished. His prose is straightforward and accessible, making the book useful not only to accountants but also to historians and the wider readership.

The book is primarily descriptive rather than analytical, cataloguing institutions and events without probing their deeper significance. Critical questions remain unexplored: How did accounting maintain colonial inequality? The contribution of the Bookers Cadet Scheme to the surge in the profession in the middle years of the last century. How did the exodus of outstanding accountants like “Sammy” Singh, Sugrim Mohan, Ossie Baptiste, Alan Luck and Hamil Majeed impact the profession locally? The extent, if any, to which audit quality was compromised under state ownership? Should the profession engage in emerging issues like oil and gas accounting, sovereign wealth funds and public sector accounting?

These are questions and issues the book leaves for others to explore. The promised Caribbean coverage is also uneven, with Jamaica and Trinidad receiving more attention than smaller territories.

Still, these limitations should not overshadow the significance of this rare achievement. By laying such a foundation, Balkaran has provided the raw material for future scholarship and public debate. His book secures the profession’s past for posterity while opening the space for critical engagement with its present and future. Indeed, this initiative is worthy of emulation in medicine, law and other professions.

In the end, History of Accounting & Auditing in Guyana is more than a professional chronicle. It is part of the national story, reminding us that behind every balance sheet lies a history of people, institutions, and ideas. For that reason, it deserves a place not only on the shelves of accountants, but in the libraries of all who care about Guyana’s past and future.