Uncomfortable truths? ML=BS and AML= BS²

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to advance debate and prompt new strategies substantially to improve the capacity to disrupt serious profit-motivated crime.

Design/methodology/approach

Using interdiction rates (the proportion of criminal funds seized or forfeited) as an interim proxy effectiveness indicator, this article challenges elements of the dominant anti-money laundering/counter-financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) narrative, and reflects on policy effectiveness and outcomes.

Findings

Interdiction rates in jurisdictions surveyed hardly constitute a rounding error in the accounts of profit motivated criminal enterprises. The current AML/CFT model appears almost completely ineffective in disrupting illicit finances and serious crime.

Research limitations/implications

With such research at an early stage, some data are poorly substantiated and methodological inconsistencies rife.

Practical implications

For policy interventions with a reasonable prospect for crime not to pay, beyond rhetoric, frank evaluation of results and a potential step-change in policy, regulatory and enforcement vision and capability, may be required.

Originality/value

Scholars have exposed a paucity of meaningful links between AML/CFT controls and crime and terrorism prevention, yet the dominant narrative persists largely unchecked. This paper examines components of that narrative in the context of scholarship on “bullshit”.

Citation

Pol, R.F. (2018), "Uncomfortable truths? ML=BS and AML= BS²", Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 294-308. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-08-2017-0071