Search results

The purpose of this paper is to assess the current legal framework on money laundering control in the insurance sector. Essentially, this examination is premised on the interrogation of whether it is still appropriate for Mauritius to apply such stringent, opaque and unyielding Anti-Money Laundering/Combating Financing of Terrorism norms and rules on general insurance when developed nations such as the UK and Singapore have done away with them for a more effective combat against money laundering. It would also be assessed why the financial services commission (FSC) is not able to draw inspiration from its British and Singaporean counterparts in fighting money laundering more effectively.

This paper uses the doctrinal legal research methodology which is colloquially described as “black-letter law” approach. It is backed up by a contextual legal analysis that is based on an analysis of relevant legal provisions. It relies ground experience from the insurance industry through the experience of the authors. A comparative approach is used with Singapore and the UK as case studies given that there are significant commonalities to the Mauritian jurisdiction as well as useful differences.

It is observed that a move towards a de-regulation of the legal framework on money laundering in the insurance sector with a more relaxed approach is more effective for the Mauritian insurance sector. Evidence is drawn from the Singaporean and British models. A re-structuring of the FSC of Mauritius is also warranted for such an approach to be adopted.

This paper is among the first academic contribution that proposes a de-regulation and the adoption of a relaxed approach of and by the Mauritian Insurance Industry for a more effective combat against money laundering. It serves as a legal foundational basis for further research in this direction.

The rise of cryptocurrencies and other digital assets has triggered concerns about regulation and security. Governments and regulatory bodies are challenged to create frameworks that protect consumers, combat money laundering and address risks linked to digital assets. Conventional approaches to confiscation and anti-money laundering are deemed insufficient in this evolving landscape. The absence of a central authority and the use of encryption hinder the identification of asset owners and the tracking of illicit activities. Moreover, the international and cross-border nature of digital assets complicates matters, demanding global coordination. The purpose of this study is to highlight that the effective combat of money laundering, legislative action, innovative investigative techniques and public–private partnerships are crucial.

The focal point of this paper is Australia’s approach to law enforcement in the realm of digital assets. It underscores the pivotal role of robust confiscation mechanisms in disrupting criminal networks operating through digital means. The paper firmly asserts that staying ahead of the curve and maintaining an agile stance is paramount. Criminals are quick to embrace emerging technologies, necessitating proactive measures from policymakers and law enforcement agencies.

It is argued that an agile and comprehensive approach is vital in countering money laundering, as criminals adapt to new technologies. Policymakers and law enforcement agencies must remain proactively ahead of these developments to efficiently identify, trace and seize digital assets involved in illicit activities, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the global financial system.

This paper provides a distinctive perspective by examining Australia’s legal anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing framework, along with its law enforcement strategies within the realm of the digital asset landscape. While there is a plethora of literature on both asset confiscation and digital assets, there is a noticeable absence of exploration into their interplay, especially within the Australian context.

This study aims to examine the Financial Action Task Force’s recommendations on virtual currencies (VCs) and how Pakistan has responded to them.

Qualitative document and jurisprudence analysis techniques were used to achieve the study’s goal.

According to this study, VCs are modern FinTech that no jurisdiction can ignore. However, Pakistan has not adopted regulations to govern VCs but comprehensively prohibits their use. It is primarily due to the apathy of various regimes and regulators. Furthermore, the geographical location, undocumented economy and rampant corruption could facilitate the abuse of VCs for money laundering.

This study has provided a significant overview for developing regulations for VCs in Pakistan and other developing jurisdictions with the same characteristics.

The global cooperation and cooperation between nations at differing stages in anti-money laundering (AML) is critical. To improve the effectiveness of international cooperation in AML, it is essential to diversify international cooperation mechanisms and improve the capacity of law enforcement officers in the field of preventing this crime. This paper aims to provide a comparative analysis of mutual legal assistance (MLA) and extradition within the AML legal framework in Palestine and Malaysia. It investigates the gaps and weaknesses in Palestine’s AML legal framework and offers recommendations to address them.

The present paper is solely legal. The method adopted in this research paper is qualitative research with an emphasis on the doctrinal mechanism. As a result, it concentrates on procedures, protocols, legislation and policies.

The Malaysian AML legal framework offers a clearer and more comprehensive framework for MLAs and extradition than the Palestinian AML legal framework. This framework is supported by laws that meet the basic requirements to support the issues of AML international cooperation. Both countries agree that the absence of a “bilateral or multilateral agreement” is not considered a reason for rejecting international cooperation in the field of AML with foreign countries. Moreover, the Malaysian AML legal framework divides the roles well between the law enforcement agencies and the competent authorities competing to Palestine.

This paper would be beneficial for the Palestinian legislative, policymakers and law enforcement agencies to make international cooperation, especially with MLAs and extradition effective.

Criminals have quickly discovered the advantage of crypto assets, with its pseudo-anonymity, untraceability and the ability to freely exchange crypto assets across borders, which makes it an ideal tool for money laundering activities. Switzerland has a technology-neutral framework, and crypto assets are regulated by the existing anti-money laundering (AML) legislation. The purpose of this paper is to gain insights into the industry adoption of measurements to prevent money laundering through crypto assets and if they are compliant with national and international AML regulations.

Semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with participants having expertise in compliance, AML and crypto assets with focus on Switzerland. The interviews were analyzed using the thematic analysis.

The experts have a general consensus that Switzerland is a pioneer when it comes to regulating crypto assets. It is perceived that legislations are released without industry consultation and that AML processes for fiat transactions also work for crypto assets, which is not the case. The results show that the industry wants a consortium to fight money laundering in crypto assets in Switzerland. The current measures to identify money laundering are not optimal, yet, it is the best solution and according to national and international regulations the businesses are perceived to be compliant.

This paper offers new insights on the challenges of AML regulations in crypto assets, given the limited information available. It also provides good practice examples for addressing these challenges, benefiting policymakers, regulators and practitioners in the crypto asset ecosystem.

This paper aims to determine whether tax evasion savings qualify as unlawful proceeds for money laundering purposes. Litigators, regulators and academics have debated the question for decades. A common argument is that tax evasion allows a bad actor to save money that the perpetrator already has on hand. It does not produce a new inflow of wealth that could properly be classified as proceeds. This paper addresses the validity of this argument by using a substance-based approach.

This paper applies the substance-over-form principle and two specialized judicial doctrines to the matter: the economic-substance and step-transaction doctrines.

This paper finds that in substance, tax evasion savings qualify as unlawful proceeds. The opposing argument may be valid on the surface, but it does not withstand the scrutiny of the substance-based principle and insights from the doctrines.

The finding of this paper implies that any courts which value substance can embrace tax evasion savings as unlawful proceeds. Government prosecutors can adopt the position with confidence that substance backs them up. National regulators can push the point. The United Nations’ Financial Action Task Force can consider the option to more explicitly recommend treating tax evasion savings as unlawful proceeds for money laundering.

Using a unique substance-based approach, this paper demonstrates that a dollar of tax evasion savings is substantively equivalent to a dollar of unlawful tax refund proceeds for money laundering purposes. Focusing on an unlawful tax refund overcomes many of the common concerns raised against the treatment of tax evasion savings as unlawful proceeds.

The purpose of this article is to make a contribution to the existing knowledge by using the unique cross-jurisdiction data drawn from the FCA’s REP-CRIM submissions to explore dynamics behind firms’ perceptions on financial crime. Capturing firm’s sentiment is notoriously challenging, and any relevant regulatory data is usually not available in the public domain. A recent exception is the UK Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA’s) financial crime data return (REP-CRIM) submissions which include the cross-country regulatory data on the UK financial institutions’ perceptions of jurisdiction risk. Despite a broad literature with respect to financial crime, there exists an important gap in the existing knowledge with respect to factors that are associated with the perceptions of firms with respect to jurisdiction risk, which this article aims to close.

Using cross-country regulatory data on the UK financial institutions’ perceptions of jurisdiction risk, this study empirically determines that perceptions of jurisdiction risk is significantly and positively associated with anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) framework, as well as with tax burden on business and institutional and legal risk in the case of 165 jurisdictions.

The findings lend support to the proposition that unsystematic efforts and too much publicity may ascertain the high-risk image of a jurisdiction, deterring cross-border business. Policy implications that emerge from the study also add to the case for strengthening institutional and legal frameworks, as well as relieving the tax burden on doing business.

Findings of the present study should be interpreted with caution, as the dependent variable used in the present study reflects UK firms’ perceptions of jurisdiction risk, which may depend on various factors such as different risk appetites and the countries in which firms carry out business, and not necessarily the actual level of risks based on financial crime statistics. For example, a jurisdiction which may indeed be considered high risk, would not necessarily be ranking high on the FCA’s list of UK firms’ jurisdiction risk perceptions due to few firms operating in that particular country. As a result, the list could differ from the Financial Action Task Force’s black and grey lists. Findings based on the regulatory data on the UK financial institutions’ perceptions of jurisdiction risk should be considered preliminary in nature, given that they are based on a single year cross sectional data. As global and country-level AML/CFT efforts continue to intensify and as more regulatory data becomes publicly available, it would be imperative to bring further empirical evidence to bear on the question of whether financial crime perceptions are likely to be more pronounced for jurisdictions where AML/CFT efforts are more intensified. Likewise, from a policy standpoint, it would be equally important to explore further the role that institutional and legal risk, as well as tax burden on businesses, play in shaping firms’ perceptions of jurisdiction risk.

Findings lend support to the proposition that unsystematic efforts and too much publicity may ascertain the high-risk image of a jurisdiction, deterring cross-border business. Therefore, rather than waiting for more data to be made available by other financial regulators, which could lead to a more conclusive evidence in the future, on balance, the findings of this study add to the case for carefully designing and systematically implementing AML/CFT measures in a less publicized manner. Findings lend support to the theoretical postulation that disorderly efforts and undue publicity regarding AML/CFT efforts serve to ascertain the high-risk image of a jurisdiction, which could deter cross-border business and could be detrimental to how firms undertake due diligence. They also suggest that disorderly implementation of AML/CFT measures may hinder access to formal financial service and jeopardize authorities’ ability to trace the movement of funds, which may also add to negative perceptions of jurisdiction risk.

Findings are in line with the theoretical expectations that perceptions of jurisdiction risk would be expected to be higher in countries with inadequate disclosure rules, lax regulation and opacity jurisdiction. Likewise, results are aligned with the expectations that tax burden on business would be expected to be in a positive relationship with jurisdiction risk, as it would increase the likelihood of tax evasion, which incentivizes financial crime. Therefore, policy implications that emerge from the study also add to the case for strengthening institutional and legal frameworks and relieving the tax burden on doing business as part of efforts to improve the international image of jurisdictions with respect to financial crime risks.

Using the cross-country regulatory data on the UK financial institutions’ perceptions of jurisdiction risk, this study has empirically determined that perceptions of jurisdiction risk is significantly and positively associated with AML/CFT framework, as well as with tax burden on business and institutional and legal risk. These findings have implications from a policy standpoint.

Financial crime presents a serious threat to the stability and integrity of the global financial system. To combat illicit financial activities, regulatory bodies worldwide have implemented various measures, including the requirement for financial institutions to assess the financial crime risks they are exposed to in the jurisdictions they operate in. These risks include inadequate anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism frameworks and other financial crime risks that have significant strategic implications for firms’ geographical footprints and customer risk classifications. This paper aims to make a contribution to the literature by undertaking a cross-country analysis of 158 countries to shed light on what drives perceived jurisdiction risk of the UK financial services firms.

Capturing firms’ perceptions of financial crime risk requires significant data collection efforts, including surveys and interviews with key personnel. This can be highly resource-intensive and may require access to sensitive information that firms may be reluctant to share. Furthermore, the dynamic nature of financial crime risks means that perceptions can change rapidly in response to changes in the regulatory and geopolitical landscape. As a result, capturing and monitoring firms’ perceptions of financial crime risks requires ongoing monitoring and analysis. Capturing firms’ perceptions of financial crime risks at a cross-jurisdictional level is a particularly complex and challenging task that requires careful consideration of a range of factors. As a result of data limitations, empirical investigation of the factors underlying the firms’ perceptions of jurisdiction risk is in its infancy. This paper uses regulatory financial crime data from the UK in a multivariate regression analysis, following a general-to-specific approach where any redundant variables were removed from the general model sequentially.

Results suggest that perceived jurisdiction risk is significantly and positively associated with evasion of tax and regulations, while it is significantly and negatively associated with political stability and regulatory stringency. These have important implications for home and host supervisors with respect to the factors that drive perceived jurisdiction risks and the evaluation of the nature of inherent financial crime risks within regulated firms. The findings confirm the critical role of the shadow economy, political stability and regulatory rigor in shaping jurisdiction risk perceptions. From a policy standpoint, the findings support the case for taking prompt policy action to identify, prioritize and implement specific and targeted measures with respect to the shadow economy, political stability and rigor of regulations to improve international firms’ perceptions of jurisdiction risk.

While there exists different measures of financial crime risk, it is notoriously challenging to capture firms’ perceptions of it, particularly at a cross-jurisdiction level. This is because financial crime risks can vary significantly across different jurisdictions due to differences in legal and regulatory frameworks, cultural norms and levels of economic development. This makes it difficult for firms to compare and evaluate the financial crime risks they face in different jurisdictions. Besides, firms’ perceptions of financial crime risks can be influenced by a range of subjective factors, including personal experiences, media coverage and hearsay. These perceptions may not always align with objective risk assessments, which are based on more systematic and empirical methods of risk measurement. This paper contributes to the existing literature by undertaking a cross-country analysis drawing on a unique set of UK regulatory financial crime data, which is based on a total of 1,900 annual financial crime data regulatory return (REP-CRIM) submissions to the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority.