3.4.4. The definition of “interception”|surveillance is, likewise, broader and much better articulated in the following terms: “intercept”, in relation to a communication, means listening to, monitoring, viewing, reading or recording, by any means, such a communication in its passage over a telecommunications network without the knowledge of the person making or receiving the communication” 3.4.5. Interception of communications, save by authorized persons is illegal and attracts criminal punishment and a fine of $500,000.00 and or sentence of up to seven years imprisonment;[40] 3.4.6. The intentional possession, sale, purchases, or manufacture of a device or any component thereof, whose design renders it primarily useful for unauthorised interception of private communications is illegal and attracts criminal sanction of a fine in the sum of $250,000.00 and or imprisonment of up to five years; [41] 3.4.7. The Act like the Zimbabwean law has a class of authorized persons who can effect lawful interception|surveillance of communication; [42] 3.4.8. In Trinidad and Tobago the revenue authority is not part of the group of authorized persons; 3.4.9. Unlike in Zimbabwe, but like in South Africa the interception is authorized upon written and, in urgent cases, oral application to a Judge of the High Court upon reasonable cause being shown;[43] 3.4.10. Interception warrants are valid for three months and may be extended upon application to a Judge of the High Court;[44] 3.4.11. Telecommunications service providers have a duty to assist in the execution and enforcement of interception|surveillance warrants failing which they face summary conviction and a fine of $1,000,000.00; [45] 3.4.12. Intercepted communications which do not aid the intended purpose must be destroyed immediately after it becomes apparent that they are useless; [46] 3.4.13. Intercepted communications which would have served their purposes must be destroyed soon after serving their purpose;[47]