Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore and evaluate the current legal position on the admissibility and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in money laundering cases.

A thorough exploratory analytical analysis signifies that such illegally obtained evidence from money laundering offences is admissible, provided it does not undermine the administration of justice or the right to a fair trial.

By virtue of the lack of written or codified rules governing the admissibility and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in cases involving money laundering, the rule of admissibility remains the primary foundational principle for the governance of the admissibility and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in money laundering cases.

The Malaysian Criminal Justice System has historically relied on the long-standing admissibility principles to admit and exclude illegally obtained evidence. For decades, courts have used their discretion to admit illegally obtained evidence based on the relevancy test, and they have further demonstrated to use the same discretion to exclude gravely prejudicial evidence. Evidence obtained illegally but if relevant to the matter in issue is deemed admissible. Evidence derived from an act associated with unlawful activities or a predicate offence in money laundering may be obtained illegally, which may influence the prosecution case and conversely, defend the accused’s rights to a fair trial.

Concerns on money laundering (ML) and terrorist financing increased, as ML accounted 2%–5% of the global GDP, with Switzerland, the USA, Canada, India and Russia having high laundering rates. Banks were fined over US$320bn in 2008, but money laundering still accounted for 3.6% of global GDP in 2009, thereby indicating the need for effective regimes. Therefore, this study aims to critically analyze the antimoney laundering (AML)/CFT regime of Somalia, identify loopholes in the regime, raise awareness and propose recommendations for regime improvement.

The qualitative research approach is used to compare Somalia’s AML/CFT regime with the corresponding regime of Malaysia through the black letter method combined with document analysis. Malaysia is selected as a benchmark for two reasons: firstly, it is an Islamic country like Somalia, and secondly, Malaysia has complied with integrity-related standards.

This study revealed that an impactful AML/CTF regime is reached by closing loopholes in the law, reevaluating and improving regulatory agencies and measures, facilitating formal financial services and collaborating with regional and international standard setters. According to the results, Somalia AML/CFT regime is counterproductive in criminalizing offenses; regulating digital currencies and mobile money, disclosures and nonfinancial business and provisions; and governing training requirements for regulatory agencies and financial institutions.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this paper is the first of its kind in the study of Somalia’s regime building. Also, this study incorporates rich scholarly discourse on effective regime building.