Money laundering occurs over a period of three steps, which include the physical distribution of the cash (“placement”), the second step involves carrying out complex financial transactions in order to camouflage the illegal source (“layering”), and the final step which entails acquiring wealth generated from the transactions of the illicit funds (“integration”).
In the past, the term money laundering was applied only to financial transactions related to organized crime. Today its definition is often expanded by government and international regulators such as the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to mean any financial transaction which generates an asset or a value as the result of an illegal act, which may involve actions such as tax evasion or false accounting. In the UK, it does not even need to involve money, but any economic good. Courts involve money laundering committed by private individuals, drug dealers, businesses, corrupt officials, members of criminal organizations such as the Mafia, and even states.
As financial crime has become more complex, and "Financial Intelligence" (FININT) has become more recognized in combating international crime and terrorism, money laundering has become more prominent in political, economic, and legal debate. Money laundering is ipso facto illegal; the acts generating the money almost always are themselves criminal in some way (for if not, the money would not need to be laundered).
Examples
Cashing up
A business taking large amounts of small change each week (e.g. a convenience store) needs to deposit that money in a bank. If its deposits vary greatly for no obvious reason this can draw suspicion; but if the transactions are regular and roughly the same the suspicion is easily discounted. This is the basis of all money laundering, a track record of depositing clean money before slipping through dirty money.In the United states for example, cash transactions and deposits of more than $10,000 must be reported by the cashier (the bank etc.) as "significant cash transactions" to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network FinCEN, with any other suspicious financial activity identified as "suspicious activity reports" (SARs).
In other jurisdictions suspicion-based requirements may be placed on financial services employees and firms to report any suspicious activity to the authorities.
Captive business
Another method is to start a business whose cash inflow cannot be monitored, and funnel the small change into it and pay taxes on it. But all bank employees are trained to be constantly on the lookout for transactions that seem to be trying to get around reporting requirements. To avoid suspicion, shell companies should deal directly with the public, perform some service (not provide physical goods), and have a business that reasonably would accept cash as a matter of course. Dealing directly with the public in cash gives a plausible reason for not having a record of customers.For example, a hairstylist is paid in cash, and even if she knows her customers' names, she does not know their bank details. A record of a haircut must ostensibly be accepted as prima facie evidence. Service businesses have the advantage of the anonymity of resources—but the disadvantage that they must deal in cash. A business that sells computers has to account for the computers, whereas the hairstylist does not have to produce the cut hair, but the receipt for the computer, even if inflated, exists—that for the haircut probably does not. It is of course also possible to invent customers, purely for the purpose of accepting money from them.
Structuring
In structuring, (also known as "smurfing"), money is put into the licit economy in such a way as to avoid legal record keeping and reporting requirements. For example: deposits of less than $10,000 (anything over that amount would require a report to be filed with the IRS) are made into multiple bank accounts that are then withdrawn after a sufficient amount of time has passed to avoid suspicion.Legislation
Many jurisdictions adopt a list of specific predicate crimes for money laundering prosecutions as a "self launderer".Bangladesh
In Bangladesh, this issue has been dealt with by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Act No. VII of 2002). In terms of section 2 (tha), "Money Laundering means (a) Properties acquired or earned directly or indirectly through illegal means; (b) Illegal transfer, conversion, concealment of location or assistance in the above act of the properties acquired or earned directly of indirectly through legal or illegal means." In this Act, “Properties means movable or immovable properties of any nature and description”. To prevent these Illegal uses of money Bangladesh Govt. has introduced the Money Laundering Prevention Act. The Act was last amended in the year 2009 and all the Financial Institutes are following this act. Till today there are 26 Circulars issued by Bangladesh Bank under this act. To prevent Money laundering a banker must do the While opening a new account, the account opening form should beØfollowing: The KYC has to beØduly filled up by all the information of the Customer. The TP (Transaction Profile) is mandatory for a client toØproperly filled up understand his/her transactions. If needed, the TP has to be updated at the All other necessary papers should be properly collectedØClient’s consent. If there is any suspicious transaction isØalong with the Voter ID card. notified, the BAMLCO (Branch Anti Money Laundering Compliance Officer) has to be notified and accordingly the STR (Suspicious Transaction Report) reporting has The Cash department should be aware of the Transactions. It has toØto be done. be noted if suddenly a big amount of money is deposited in any account. Proper Ødocuments will be required if any Client does this type of transaction. Structuring, over/ under Invoicing is another way to do Money Laundering. The If in anyØForeign Exchange Department should look into this matter cautiously. account there is a transaction exceeding 7.00 lac in a single day that has to be All the Bank Officials must goØreported as CTR (cash Transaction report) through all the 26 Circulars and must use in doing the Banking.Canada
The National Initiative to Combat Money Laundering, with the involvement of the Solicitor General of Canada, the RCMP, Justice Canada, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, and, Citizenship and Immigration, began operation in 1998.India
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 came into effect on 1 July 2005. Section 3 of the Act makes the offense of money-laundering cover those persons or entities who directly or indirectly attempt to indulge or knowingly assist or knowingly are party or are actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property, such person or entity shall be guilty of offense of money-laundering.Section 4 of the Act prescribes punishment for money-laundering with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and for the offences mentioned [elsewhere] the punishment shall be up to ten years.
Section 12 (1) prescribes the obligations on banks, financial institutions and intermediaries (a) to maintain records detailing the nature and value of transactions which may be prescribed, whether such transactions comprise of a single transaction or a series of transactions integrally connected to each other, and where such series of transactions take place within a month; (b) to furnish information of transactions referred to in clause (a) to the Director within such time as may be prescribed and t records of the identity of all its clients. Section 12 (2) prescribes that the records referred to in sub-section (1) as mentioned above, must be maintained for ten years after the transactions finished.
The provisions of the Act are frequently reviewed and various amendments have been passed from time to time.
The recent activity in money laundering in India is through political parties corporate companies and share market.
United Kingdom
Money laundering and terrorist funding legislation in the UK is governed by four Acts of primary legislation:-- Terrorism Act 2000
- Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
- Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
- Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
Money laundering is widely defined in the UK. In effect any handling or involvement with any proceeds of any crime (or monies or assets representing the proceeds of crime) can be a money laundering offence. An offender's possession of the proceeds of his own crime falls within the UK definition of money laundering. The definition also covers activities which would fall within the traditional definition of money laundering as a process by which proceeds of crime are concealed or disguised so that they may be made to appear to be of legitimate origin.
Unlike certain other jurisdictions (notably the USA and much of Europe), UK money laundering offences are not limited to the proceeds of serious crimes, nor are there any monetary limits, nor is there any necessity for there to be a money laundering design or purpose to an action for it to amount to a money laundering offence. A money laundering offence under UK legislation need not involve money, since the money laundering legislation covers assets of any description. In consequence any person who commits an acquisitive crime (i.e. one from which he obtains some benefit in the form of money or an asset of any description) in the UK will inevitably also commit a money laundering offence under UK legislation.
This applies also to a person who, by criminal conduct, evades a liability (such as a taxation liability) - referred to by lawyers as "obtaining a pecuniary advantage" - as he is deemed thereby to obtain a sum of money equal in value to the liability evaded.
The principal money laundering offences carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.
Secondary regulation is provided by the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 and 2007
One consequence of the Act is that solicitors, accountants, and insolvency practitioners who suspect (as a consequence of information received in the course of their work) that their clients (or others) have engaged in tax evasion or other criminal conduct from which a benefit has been obtained, are now required to report their suspicions to the authorities (since these entail suspicions of money laundering). In most circumstances it would be an offence, 'tipping-off', for the reporter to inform the subject of his report that a report has been made. These provisions do not however require disclosure to the authorities of information received by certain professionals in privileged circumstances or where the information is subject to legal professional privilege.
Professional guidance (which is submitted to and approved by the UK Treasury) is provided by industry groups including the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group and the Law Society.
However there is no obligation on banking institutions to routinely report monetary deposits or transfers above a specified value. Instead reports have to be made of all suspicious deposits or transfers, irrespective of their value.
The reporting obligations include reporting suspicions relating to gains from conduct carried out in other countries which would be criminal if it took place in the UK. Exceptions were later added to exempt certain activities which were legal in the location where they took place, such as bullfighting in Spain.
There are more than 200,000 reports of suspected money laundering submitted annually to the authorities in the UK (there were 240,582 reports in the year ended 30 September 2010 - an increase from the 228,834 reports submitted in the previous year). Most of these reports are submitted by banks and similar financial institutions (there were 186,897 reports from the banking sector in the year ended 30 September 2010).
Although 5,108 different organisations submitted suspicious activity reports to the authorities in the year ended 30 September 2010 just four organisations submitted approximately half of all reports, and the top 20 reporting organisations accounted for three-quarters of all reports.
The offence of failing to report a suspicion of money laundering by another person carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
Bureaux de change
All UK Bureaux de change are registered with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs which issues a trading licence for each location. Bureaux de change and money transmitters, such as Western Union outlets, in the UK fall within the 'regulated sector' and are required to comply with the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. Checks can be carried out by HMRC on all Money Service Businesses.United States
In U.S. law, "reasonably accepting cash" means the business must regularly perform services that on average are less than $500 each. It is assumed that above that amount most people pay with a check, a credit card, or another (traceable) payment method. The company should actually function on a legitimate level. In the hairstyler example, it is perfectly reasonable for a lot of the business to involve mostly labour (dyes and machine oil and so forth being relatively small concerns), and for most transactions to be settled in cash. But it is unreasonable for all of the business to work without parts and just on cash. So the legitimate business will generate a legitimate (if low) level of parts use, and enough traceable transactions to mask the illegitimate ones.Anti-money laundering (AML/CFT) laws typically have other offences such as "tipping off (warning)", "willful blindness", "not reporting suspicious activity", "conscious facilitation of a money launderer", "assisting a terrorist financier with moving terrorist financing".
The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 requires banks to report cash transactions of $10,000.01 or more. The Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 further defined money laundering as a federal crime. The U.S.A PATRIOT Act of 2001 expanded the scope of prior laws to more types of financial institutions, and added a focus on terrorist financing, specifying that financial institutions take specific actions to "know your customer" (KYC).
In the United States, Federal law provides: "Whoever ... knowing[ly] ... conducts or attempts to conduct ... a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity ... with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity ... shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the transaction, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.
While money laundering typically involves the flow of "dirty money" (criminal proceeds) into a clean bank account or negotiable instrument, terrorist financing frequently involves the reverse flow: apparently clean funds converted to "dirty" purposes. A hawala may launder drug proceeds and help fund a terrorist, netting the incoming and outgoing funds with only occasional small net settlement transactions.
NASA case
From 1992 toLaundered or not?
Money obtained by an illegal action is not, of itself, laundered money in most jurisdictions (an exception being the United Kingdom where mere possession of the proceeds of any crime is itself capable of being a money laundering offence). The laundering offence comes from the attempt to conceal its source, not because the transaction was itself illegal (which is a separate offence).The Supreme Court of the United States on June 2, 2008, rendered two judgments in favour of defendants, narrowing the application of the federal money-laundering statute.
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court reversed Acuna, Mexico's Humberto Cuellar's conviction and ruled that "hiding $81,000 in cash under the floorboard of a car and driving toward Mexico is not enough to prove the driver was guilty of money laundering; instead, prosecutors must also prove the driver was traveling to Mexico for the purpose of hiding the true source of the funds." That is, the prosecution had not made its prima facie case. The Court further ruled "that federal prosecutors have gone too far in their use of money laundering charges to combat drug traffickers and organized crime; that money laundering charges under the Money Laundering Control Act of 198, Sec. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i)
No comments:
Post a Comment