The resurrection of Godfrey of Bouillon

Citation

Baldwin, F. (2012), "The resurrection of Godfrey of Bouillon", Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 15 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmlc.2012.31015caa.001

The resurrection of Godfrey of Bouillon

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Money Laundering Control, Volume 15, Issue 3

11th April 2012Eighteenth century American maritime law adopted in part, and legitimatized the Christians – seizure of houses and property during the First Crusade in July 1099, by implementing forfeiture procedures of cargos and ships involved in American customs violations.

Late twentieth century government leaders resurrected and adopted the forfeiture concept and adapted and rehabilitated it as a powerful weapon in the war against drug trafficking and terrorists.

The strategy brings the actions or allegation of criminal activity against property rather than the person, or persons, who commits the offenses. It is the confiscation of assets, which are either the alleged proceeds of crime or the alleged instrumentation of crime. It is an attempt to block the assets, to take the profit out of the activity. Some have called this weapon of choice a secret weapon.

Money launderers are eager to provide resources. White collar crime has descended into the murky, but profitable world of terrorist financing and drug dealing. Terrorism, drugs, and money laundering are parasitically connected to the money belt in the seamiest side of the twenty first century.

Post 9/11, the Security Council recognized the realities of the increasing globalized market. Resolution 1373 explicitly targets terrorism and money laundering and adopts a twenty-first century approach to the global enforcement of anti crime and anti terrorist activities. Resolution 1373 directs nations to “identify and block assess of individuals and entities who financially and materially support terrorist organizations.”

The implementation of counter terrorism measures designed to hamper terrorist financing is complex and frustrating. Where and when officials have identified assets associated with terrorists, the discoverable link has not been sufficiently attenuated to sustain a criminal conviction or an In Rem seizure.

Most countries claim compliance with 1373, however, requests for implementation assistance are frequently met with less than wholehearted enthusiasm. Financial institutions must assume a leading role in counter terrorism efforts. However, inconsistent legal systems of member states and confines of financial resources make compliance difficult. There are international dimensions and transnational crimes in need of a potent deterrent.

Shared information is essential in the construction of a framework for achieving the significant disruption of the financial networks that sustain the current international criminal and terrorists systems.

International Money Laundering Strategy focuses on rogue nations, charities, shell banks, and companies organized by criminals and terrorists. Asset forfeiture procedures equip a government with the authority to seize property and assets suspected of having a connection to predicate crimes and/or all terrorist assets. The government can seize, forfeit, and confiscate assets. There is little judicial involvement. There may also be little or no oversight.

Asset forfeiture is a powerful and lucrative tool.

It is important to law enforcement. It can finance the law enforcement infrastructure. The forfeited proceeds can be re-circulated to local, national, and cooperating international law enforcement agencies.

The funds derived from forfeitures have increased yearly. Forfeitures in the USA reached a total of some one and one half billion dollars in net revenues in 2011. Such increases may be attributed to the ever-growing popularity of the liberalized statues in the hands of prosecutors and law enforcement.

The forfeiture revenue is especially welcomed in the days of budget constraints and cutbacks. Further, the cost of liquidating proceedings also must be taken into account. According to the GAO “as of October 2011 costs of the Madoff liquidation reached $450 million, and the trustee estimates the total costs will exceed $1 billion by 2014.”

The terrorists, the drug dealers, the money launders must not reap financial benefits from their illegal activities. Citizens must not be unduly burdened with program enforcement. Conscientious program oversight is essential; abuse of civil forfeiture must be curtailed. Used judiciously, asset forfeiture can take the profit out of crime.

Fletcher Baldwin