Search results

In today's global economy, the public routinely engages in international financial transactions via the internet. This has created opportunities for online fraud. The paper aims to explain what policymakers who are serious about providing crime victims with an effective restitution remedy can learn from the US Government's experience with forfeiture.

The paper, by an Assistant US Attorrney, combines narrative with argument and analysis.

Existing restitution law is ineffective. Prosecutors have used forfeiture laws as an indirect mean of providing compensation for crime victims, but forfeiture law has its limits. The better approach would be for Congress to authorize the pretrial seizure and restraint of assets directly for restitution, utilizing standards comparable to those that exist in current forfeiture law. To address situations where a defendant places money overseas to avoid restitution, Congress should enact international restitution laws comparable to those that exist in forfeiture to facilitate the recovery of those assets. Without these kinds of reforms, the government will continue to struggle to collect restitution.

The paper provides information of value to all involved with international financial transactions and law enforcement activities.

The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the Economic and Financial Crime Act 2004 to investigate whether there are defects in the 2004 Acts which enable abuse of the system by those who are responsible for fighting corruption and other economic crimes in Nigeria.

The paper adopts qualitative methods of research. The research studied the laws and regulations relevant to the recovery and management of proceeds of crime. However, personal experience of the author in the civil service, security and law enforcement accounts significantly.

The paper finds that the provisions of the EFCC Act 2004 relevant to the recovery of proceeds of crime and management of recovered assets are defective. The 2004 Act contains loopholes that enable mismanagement and diversion of recovered assets for personal use. Although the EFCC Act empowers the Minister of Justice to issue Regulations to regulate the activities of the EFCC, the Asset Tracing, Recovery and Management Regulations 2019 the Minister of Justice issued cannot be used to close the loopholes. Thus, there is an urgent need to amend the EFCC Act 2004.

Non-availability of data on the mismanagement of seized and recovered assets is a severe limitation. Thus, analysis in this research focuses on the laws and regulations to illustrates the defects in the 2004 Act. Also, the study could only use reported cases and incidence of corruption among the security and law enforcement to illustrate unsuitability of security and law enforcement for the position of the chairman of the EFCC.

There is no comprehensive work that examines the defects of the provisions of the 2004 Act that breeds lack of transparency in the recovery of proceeds of crime as well as mismanagement of recovered assets. Therefore, this paper is of value to the Nigerian Government and the National Assembly in considering amendments to the EFCC Act 2004. The paper is also of importance to researchers.

The Supreme Court judgement, Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority consolidates the law on award of liquidated damages and stipulations on penalties. Contractual damages are to cover losses and not to profit from or penalise the party in breach. Stipulated amounts in damages or penalties are appraised by the courts and only a reasonable compensation is given. Earnest money, and its forfeiture, stood distinct. It could be forfeited without appraisal. The case integrates the different categories and re-states the principles for award of damages.

More than 80 percent of S&P 500 firms that issue ESOs use the Black-Scholes-Merton (BSM) model and substitute the estimated average term for the contractual expiration to calculate ESO expense. This simplification systematically overprices ESOs, which worsens as the stock's volatility increases. The purpose of this paper is to present a modification of the BSM model to explicitly incorporate the rates of forfeiture pre- and post-vesting and the rate of early exercise.

The paper demonstrates the model's usefulness by employing historical exercise and forfeiture data for 127 separate ESO grants and 1.31 billion ESOs to calculate the exercise and forfeiture parameters and value ESOs for nine firms.

The modified BSM model is just as accurate but easier to use than the more computationally intensive utility maximization and trinomial lattice models, and it avoids the ASC 718 BSM model's overpricing bias.

If firms prefer the BSM model over more mathematically elegant alternatives, they should at least use a BSM model that is free of overpricing bias.

Before the enactment of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (AMLATFA), the fight against financial crime can be found in several statutes such as the Penal Code, Anti-Corruption Act 1997 and Companies Act 1965. It is generally accepted that by freezing and forfeiting the proceeds of the crime, it would give significant impact on the fight against financial crime. However, under these legislations, there were few shortcomings of the procedures on how the proceeds of the crime could be seized and forfeited. As such, the enactment of the AMLATFA is considered timely to overcome these problems. This paper aims to examine how the AMLATFA could be utilized to combat financial crime in Malaysia.

This paper mainly relies on statutes as its primary sources of information. As such, the relevant provisions under the Malaysian anti-money laundering laws that relate to measures for freezing, seizure and forfeiture of proceeds of the crime will be identified and analyzed.

The AMLATFA provides innovative tools for the law enforcement officials to follow the money trail, which will eventually lead to those who committed the financial crime. It also provides authorities with more powerful seizure and forfeiture measures. This is seen as a new law enforcement strategy to combat financial crime. It is believed that this approach is more effective than the traditional approach, which only punished the individual criminal but failed to diminish the criminal operations. However, it is vitally important to ensure that the effectiveness of the regime must not jeopardize the innocent third parties who could lose their money or any other proprietary interest due to the invocation of the forfeiture order.

This paper analyzes the new legal regime under the Malaysian anti-money laundering law that can be invoked to combat financial crimes activities. This paper would provide some guidelines into this particular area for legal enforcement authorities, academics, legal practitioners and policy makers, not only in Malaysia but also elsewhere.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the broad concept of forfeiture, its legal positions in the UK and Malaysia, and to highlight the implications of such forfeiture systems and legislations.

This paper uses a doctrinal legal analysis and secondary data, which analyses primary sources, the POCA (2002) and the AMLATFA 2001, and secondary sources including case law, articles in academic journals, books and online databases.

The authors contend that the civil forfeiture system and law have far-reaching implications, affecting not only law enforcement agencies, but also on property owners, the courts and bona fide third parties. Also, civil forfeiture law as contained in AMLATFA 2001 represents one of the most serious encroachments on private property rights. Not only that, such a legal rule has made property, and not the owner, guilty until proven innocent.

This paper could be a useful source of information for practitioners, academicians and students. It could also be a beneficial guide for policymakers for any possible future amendments to the law.

The argument is presented that, is contrast to expectations, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) of 2000 will not be responsible for significant change in the practice of civil asset forfeiture, that the Act is a sheep in wolf's clothing. While it has ushered in some important procedural changes, CAFRA does not address several of what critics perceive to be the most significant problems associated with civil asset forfeiture, among them are a questionable standard of proof, equitable sharing, and the so‐called “taint doctrine.” Thus, it is likely that civil asset forfeiture will continue to be a valuable law enforcement tool in the war on drugs.

Argues that confiscation of criminals’ assets is an effective and justifiable way of depriving them of the proceeds of crimes such as drug trafficking. Describes the challenges facing confiscation and the reasons why there has so far been only modest success in this. Refers to legal cases in the Cayman Islands as an illustration. Distinguishes between the conviction‐based approach and the civil or in rem forfeiture method, and illustrates use of the latter in the USA, the Cayman Islands and the UK. Discusses the justification for the reversal of proof in forfeiture cases. Considers the civil and in rem forfeiture procedures as countermeasures to the special case of terrorism. Cites the Geneva Convention as an example of global law enforcement in order to overcome problems of mismatch between different countries’ regimes, and points out the effectiveness of mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) as methods of legal assistance and cooperation. Contends that since all states have an obligation to combat organised crime, each state also has a moral right to share in the forfeited proceeds of these crimes.

Money laundering is a complex issue which has been ongoing for many years globally. Developed and developing countries form anti-money laundering regime in the view to combat these ever-challenging criminal activities. Laundering of money involves the hiding and cleaning of “dirty money” derived from unlawful activities. Malaysia has come up with its own regime of anti-money laundering. Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (AMLATFA) provides power to forfeit proceeds at the end of proceedings. This paper aims to investigate whether the current civil forfeiture regime in Malaysia is effective in fighting against money laundering.

This paper will be based on a doctrinal research where reliance will mainly be on relevant case laws and legislations. AMLATFA is the primary legislation which will be utilised for the purpose of analysis.

Despite the enactment of AMLATFA, little study has been carried out on the effectiveness of civil forfeiture regime under Malaysian anti-money laundering laws. Furthering into forfeiture of criminal proceeds, the findings show that forfeiture provisions are the recent law enforcement strategy to fight against crimes. It is implicit that this strategy is more efficient than the conventional approach, which only focused on punishing the individual criminal but failed to diminish the criminal operations as a whole.

Strengths and weaknesses of AMLATFA are identified where it is less comprehensive in terms of offences covered and standard of proof. With that, this paper analyses the civil forfeiture regime under the Malaysian anti-money laundering laws. This paper would also offer some guiding principles for academics, banks, their legal advisers, practitioners and policymakers, not only in Malaysia but also elsewhere. Anti-money laundering laws can further be improved by being a better and established civil forfeiture regime where Malaysia will be able to discharge its duties well on forfeiting benefits from criminals.

This paper aims to analyze the forfeiture regime under the Malaysian anti-money laundering law. Apart from discussing the relevant provisions, several court cases also were examined to identify the problems which arise in the implementation of such a powerful forfeiture regime.

This paper mainly relies on statutes and court cases as its primary sources of information. It is supported by secondary data to justify the analysis. This paper also used analytical descriptive approach to analyze relevant forfeiture provisions from statutes and to examine current court cases regarding the implementation of the forfeiture regime.

The Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLATFPUAA) provides comprehensive procedures for the forfeiture of criminal proceeds. Any limitations of the previous statutory legislations have been addressed, and more importantly, the AMLATFPUAA introduces more powerful and innovative measures that can facilitate the recovery of illegal proceeds from money laundering and any other serious crimes. The AMLATFPUAA also provides avenue for the bona fide third parties to contest the forfeiture order. However, it appears that such right is not easy to be enforced.

This paper provides an analysis of the forfeiture regime under Malaysian anti-money laundering laws. It is hoped that the content of this paper can provide some insight into this particular area for enforcement authorities, practitioners, academics, policymakers and legal advisers not only in Malaysia but also elsewhere. The findings of this paper also expose any weakness or lacunae in the aspects of application and implementation of the forfeiture regime. Thus, more effective and workable legal solution especially on the issue of civil forfeiture of criminal assets could be considered for further accomplishment.