Search results

This paper aims to provide an analysis of National Accountability Ordinance 1999 (NAO) after June 2022 amendments. It raises a key question whether the new legislation is effective and improves anti-corruption operating system in Pakistan.

This paper performs an analysis of recent amendments incorporated in NAO from the observations of superior courts, United Nations Corruption Convention and Financial Action Task Force (FATF) guidelines and also evaluates new legislation in terms of effectiveness in anti-corruption campaign.

This paper finds that ample amendments are inessential, and thus may largely jeopardize accountability process; changes appear to be intentionally crafted to benefit some selected group of people: the definition of asset is compressed; the onus of proof is shifted on the informer; and provisions of money trail, foreign evidence and protection of approver are abolished; such changes defy to the UN Corruption Convention and FATF guidelines. A legislation endorsed from all stakeholders is suggested; additionally, improved strategies proposed to strengthen accountability process while keeping in view the constitutional issues relevant in the course of anti-corruption investigations.

This paper is unique in the context of the anti-corruption strategies in Pakistan, highlighting the legal laxness of new government regarding corruption and money laundering.

This paper aims to debate moral and legal dilemma embedded with plea bargaining (PB) and raises a question whether the approach of “PB” is a viable tool to tackle financial crimes and to what extent it contributes in recovery of stolen money. This paper critically examines the concept with reference to relevant laws of the USA, the UK, Pakistan and Nigeria.

This study used legal scholarship, jurisprudence and other open source data to analyze issues in the application of PB as a viable tool in asset recovery and financial crimes.

This paper provides that PB has certain moral and legal dilemma in terms of legality and punishment; the concept offers a sense of escape from criminal punishment by simply return of partial stolen money or “settlement” in exchange of discounted punishment even without imprisonment, thus incentivizing an offender. Further, the concept is unregulated, misapplied especially in developing world like Pakistan and Nigeria, where plea bargain laws are mostly manipulated by white-collar individuals. Therefore, this study recommends the amendment of relevant laws pertaining to PB; construction of “plea bargain handbook” to prevent arbitrariness and misapplication and to ensure transparency in its application; legislations like Speedy Trail Act; creation of “Fast Track-Model Courts” and a balancing system between “settlement” and “deterrence.”

Perspectives on PB are brought to bear from financial crime and malpractice and recovery of stolen money.

Money laundering (ML) is one of the greatest challenges, the global community faces today. Corporate entities such as financial institutions (FIs) are most susceptible to facilitate and launder money. The paper raises the following question: Who is to bear the burden of liability? Either a corporation or an individual, thus this paper examines liability issues in a corporate setting particularly financial institutions, which arise from regulatory noncompliance or failure to oversight in the context of ML.

The study is legal doctrinal mainly based on case laws, legislation and research articles.

Firstly, this study provides how the concept of liability in a corporate setting in UK and USA has drifted from its traditional “duty to care” standard to a new “duty to oversight” and “Responsible Corporate Officer” concepts resulting a shift in corporate to individual liability. Secondly, in the context of anti-ML violations in FIs, imposition of corporate or personal liability solely may not effectively deter ML and may create conflicts between management and shareholders.

The paper can be a source to explore the issue of ML liability for regulatory noncompliance based on UK, USA and Pakistan law.

This paper demonstrates that the imposition of either corporate or personal liability may create dilemma either for shareholders or management; however, a “combine or collective liability” approach carries potential to retard ML activities in FIs and balancing the harm-penalties incurred upon a corporation while addressing shareholders concerns.

This paper aims to focus on the concept of money laundering and explores the evolution and expansion of criminalization of predicate offences to the money laundering within the international anti-money laundering (AML) regime over the time. It proposes how to limit the size and scope of predicate offences in designing a balanced legal definition.

This paper opted a content analysis focussed on the criminalization aspect of offences to money laundering in the international AML regime under the United Nations Conventions (Vienna, Palermo and Corruption Convention) and Financial Action Task Force Standards.

This paper provides how the criminalization of money laundering has evolved and its definition expanded over the time. The international definition is widely drafted with wide range of predicate offences from proceeds of drug money to corruption, including terrorist financing and terrorist acts; however, the two phenomena – money laundering and terrorist financing are quiet distinct apart. This continual expansion of predicate offences quite leads legality issues such as over-criminalization and conflict with principles of criminal law. This paper suggests an approach to limit the size and scope of predicate offences to money laundering.

This paper includes implications for the development of a balanced approach in defining predicate offences through a qualitative limitation approach consistent with the minimalist theory of penalization of criminal law.

This paper attains an identified issue how the legal definition of the money laundering offence can be improved while considering rule of law and principles of criminal law concerns.