<B>SOME</B> say the Deelchand affair is unraveling like a Godfather sequel. Others believe it resembles a Mauritian adaptation of Santa Barbara. On whose side you are does not really matter. The issue is that organised crime is more widespread in Mauritius than most even dared to think.

With revelations reaching proportions not seen since the explosive Rault enquiry on drug trafficking, both government and police need to rethink their strategies about tackling organised crime. Seizing drugs, arresting mules or small time traffickers is not good enough. It is time to go for the previously untouchable Mr Bigs, those who keep their criminal activities at arm?s length in order to avoid arrest.

Britain has taken a radical step to kick-start the hunt for godfathers. The centrepiece of its new strategy is the setting up of a Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca), a 5,000 strong elite investigation squad that will operate on the same lines as the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The aim is to fight the big business end of organised crime ? which individual forces find hard to tackle ? by reducing the profit incentive, disrupting criminal activities and increasing the personal risks for the kingpins.

Organised crime is huge in the UK. With an annual turnover exceeding £ 40 billion, it is equivalent to the GDP of New Zealand. The activities range from drugs, prostitution and organised immigration crime, through evasion of VAT and excise duties, financial and business fraud to intellectual property theft or counterfeiting.

?Organised criminals make their millions from human misery. They control empires that reach from the other side of the world to the street corner. They believe they are beyond the reach of justice but no one should be untraceable and untouchable,? said David Blunkett, the Home Secretary.

<B>Vicious impact on society</B>

The Exchequer is bound to cash in on the tracking down of gangland bosses. This year, the value of receipts from confiscation orders should rise to some £ 60 million. However, the government is quick to point out that organised crime has a high human cost and is not victim-free. Its impact on society is particularly vicious.

Organised criminals make money by creating markets for their trade, which in turn creates crime victims. For example, one kilo of heroin trafficked and sold on a UK street can result in 220 burglary victims as £ 250,000 of property is stolen by addicts to fuel their habit. People traffickers exploit vulnerable people and are responsible for 70% of illegal migrants to the EU according to Europol.

Tough new legislation will accompany the setting up of the Soca as the government bids to turn the UK into ?one of the most difficult environments in the world for organised criminals to operate?. Some new powers have raised more than a few eyebrows. The most controversial measure is to allow surveillance material such as phone tapping and internet monitoring to be made routinely admissible in British courts for the first time, subject to a review due to conclude in June.

Sir David Calvert-Smith, the former director of public prosecutions in England, believes that overturning the ban on wiretap evidence would help prosecutors get many more convictions. He said: ?This change would assist us enormously. As prosecutors, our lives would be made much easier. I?m quite sure there are cases where important evidence, which would have strengthened the prosecution, is having to go by the board.?

The security services MI5, MI6 and government listening post GCHQ have reservations about the use of surveillance material, fearing it will expose their techniques. Some senior police officers even believe that the measure will end up helping the criminals.

A member of the Association of Chief Police Officers said: ?One of the biggest concerns amongst detectives is that exposing surveillance and interception methods in open court will allow serious criminals to evade detection.?

Some civil rights groups have welcomed the measure, saying it would enhance the rights of defendants who could then get proper disclosure of the surveillance evidence that had been gathered on them. Others, such as Liberty, believe the new rules will violate civil rights and that the government is continuing its policy of ?talk tough, legislate first and think later.?

<B>Watching the watchers</B>

The legal profession is equally divided. Donald Findlay QC urges caution over the proposed measure: ?Misinterpretation and evidence being delivered out of context is a huge issue arising from intelligence obtained from bugs. The biggest question is who will watch the watchers.?

The introduction of a formal system of plea-bargaining is equally controversial. Gang members will be induced to give evidence against their bosses in return for reduced sentences. Many believe it would be insulting towards crime victims if the guilty parties became ?supergrasses? and were let off lightly. The government insists that plea-bargaining as well as intercept evidence will only be used in specific cases.

However, Tony Blair, the British prime minister, has already gone on record about lowering the burden of proof to convict godfathers. ?The system is struggling against a presumption that you treat these crimes like every other. To require everything beyond reasonable doubt in these cases is very difficult. People would accept that within certain categories of cases, provided it?s big enough, you don?t take the normal burden.?

The proposed laws will also be able to force lawyers, accountants and bankers to disclose documents, which would put their clients behind bars even if it involves a betrayal of confidentiality rules, or face jail themselves. Those with links to gangsters, who use their skills to ?legitimise profits? or create offshore accounts and companies to hide the proceeds of crime, are particularly targeted.

The British government?s will to build up its legal arsenal to hunt down the Mr Bigs is understandable. Up to 80% of organised crime cases in Merseyside collapse each year. Mauritius will have to be at least as tough if it wants to rid itself of this costly problem. After all, the revelations in the Deelchand affair may only be the tip of an enormous iceberg?

<B>by Ryan Coopamah Outlook correspondent in London E-mail: [email protected]</B>