Guyana is racing toward a digital economy. The government wants citizens to transfer money instantly, businesses to accept QR-code payments and consumers to conduct financial transactions without carrying cash. These are welcome developments. But revelations at a Georgetown cybersecurity symposium last week raise an uncomfortable question: are we building the digital economy faster than we are developing the institutions needed to protect it?
On October 21, the Guyana Police Force disclosed that approximately 1.1 million cyberattack attempts had been recorded during the first six months of 2026. The figure, provided by cybersecurity partner Brava Fortinet, reflects detected threats rather than confirmed successful attacks. Nevertheless, it points to the growing exposure of Guyanese businesses and institutions as more of their operations move online.
But the more troubling figures came from Commissioner of Police Clifton Hicken. According to the Commissioner, 50 cybercrime cases were instituted in 2025, including 25 involving computer-related fraud. He also reported 15 convictions. Thirteen involved the use of computer systems to humiliate or embarrass individuals, while two involved child sexual abuse material.
Not one of the 15 convictions reported was for computer-related fraud.
That deserves considerably more public attention than it has received. It does not mean all 25 fraud cases failed. Some may still be before the courts, and the convictions reported may relate to cases instituted in earlier years. The Police Force did not provide sufficient information to establish their outcomes. But therein lies another problem. If we are serious about cybersecurity, why are we not publishing statistics showing how many financial fraud complaints are investigated, prosecuted and successfully resolved?
And there is another troubling dimension to the enforcement of Guyana’s cybercrime legislation.
In January 2026, businessman Stanley Basdeo, who operates a car dealership in Guyana, was arrested and charged after posting a TikTok video expressing frustration over his longstanding difficulties obtaining a firearm licence. In the video, he also referred to allegations that bribes were necessary to secure licences. He did not identify a particular official as having demanded a bribe.
Basdeo was placed on G$200,000 bail and required to surrender his US passport, preventing him from returning to the United States. He remained in Guyana for almost two months while the matter proceeded.
Then, on February 26, the case was dismissed following advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions. According to Stabroek News, the prosecutor informed the court that the video contained no elements of cybercrime and that the issues raised warranted investigation by the relevant authorities instead.
Think about that. A businessman complained publicly about an administrative process and allegations of corruption. He was arrested, charged, placed on bail and prevented from travelling. Nearly two months later, the court was told that his statements did not constitute cybercrime.
The Region Three Chamber of Commerce and Industry raised concerns about the case, warning that such enforcement actions could discourage entrepreneurs and investors from speaking openly about their experiences with public institutions. It also called for clarification of how the law was being interpreted and applied.
This should concern every Guyanese business owner. If someone can face criminal proceedings for a complaint about an administrative process that is ultimately found to contain no cybercrime elements, what confidence does that inspire in the consistent application of the law?
The Basdeo case occurred in 2026, while the conviction figures concern 2025. The two cannot establish that police deliberately prioritise online speech offences over financial fraud. They do, however, raise legitimate questions about enforcement priorities, investigative judgment and the protections available to businesses.
Meanwhile, the government is preparing to expand digital payments nationwide. Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh has outlined plans for an India-inspired payment system that would allow instant transfers between individuals and businesses using mobile phones and QR codes. The government has targeted a rollout before the end of 2026.
Consider what this means for a small business owner. A customer purchases G$500,000 worth of building materials and produces what appears to be confirmation of a digital payment. The merchant releases the goods, only to discover that the confirmation was fraudulent. Who investigates? How quickly can the receiving account be identified? Can the funds be recovered? What happens when the transaction involves an account outside Guyana?
These are practical questions. For a small business, losing G$500,000 can mean the difference between meeting payroll and closing its doors.
Digital payments have considerable advantages. They can lower transaction costs, reduce the risks associated with carrying cash and make business easier. But those advantages depend on secure technology, reliable financial institutions and an effective response when fraud occurs.
The Police Commissioner has acknowledged the need to strengthen investigative capacity, pointing to digital forensics training for officers and cooperation with international law enforcement agencies. That is encouraging. But training must eventually produce measurable results, and the public needs to see them.
How many financial cybercrime complaints were made in 2025? How much money was stolen? How much was recovered? What happened to the 25 fraud cases instituted? Are investigators properly equipped to trace digital transactions, secure electronic evidence and pursue offenders operating overseas?
The government should also explain what fraud-reporting procedures, account-freezing arrangements and consumer protections will accompany the national payment system.
Guyana cannot measure digital progress by the number of payment platforms introduced or the number of people encouraged to use them. We must also measure how effectively those systems protect the people whose money passes through them.
The Cybercrime Act must protect citizens from genuine online offences, including harassment, exploitation and financial fraud. But its application must also respect lawful expression and legitimate public criticism. Those principles are compatible, and both are essential to public confidence.
A country that can prosecute a businessman over a TikTok complaint, only to discover that no cybercrime occurred, while reporting no financial fraud convictions among its disclosed 2025 outcomes, has questions to answer.
Publish the fraud statistics. Explain the case outcomes. Show businesses how stolen money can be traced and recovered. Demonstrate that law enforcement can distinguish between criminal conduct and citizens exercising their right to complain.
Guyana’s businesses are being encouraged to trust digital systems with their money. They deserve evidence that the institutions responsible for protecting that money are ready.
