Search results

This chapter provides a brief overview of community sanctions in Australia and examines the extent to which McNeill’s analysis in Pervasive Punishment (2019) is applicable in the Australian context. Two key issues in the Australian context are, firstly, state and territory-level variations within a federal political structure, and secondly, disproportionate Indigenous imprisonment and community sanction rates and the generally destructive impact of the criminal legal system on Indigenous communities and peoples. The chapter argues that developing a better agonistic politics around community sanctions requires descending from the broad level of historical and sociological analysis to examine state and territory-level variations in judicial and correctional structures, histories and cultures. Further, that Australian community sanctions cannot be understood without a primary focus on the differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous rates, experiences and meaning. The key to addressing the destructive impact of criminal legal processes and practices on Indigenous peoples lies in developing Indigenous governance, empowerment, self-determination, sovereignty and nation-building. Two recent developments promoting Indigenous governance are examined: the Uluru Statement from the Heart and Justice Reinvestment projects initiated by First Nations communities, highlighting the importance of activism, contest and struggle by community organisations.

This paper aims to contribute to the discussion about the misuse of legal persons for money laundering and terrorism financing (ML/TF) through the study of methodologies for countries’ legal persons and legal arrangements risk assessments in accordance with the transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons and arrangements requirements of the Financial Action Task Force.

To do that, the authors will review some of the results of preview risk assessments by selected countries, and based on that, the authors will discuss the Brazilian methodology and the achieved results.

The authors argue that this methodology can lead to better results than the most common ones and deliver outputs that are important to the development of countries’ anti-ML/TF.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to discuss the results and limitations of the current most widely used methodology for legal persons and arrangements money laundering risk assessment and to propose the use of a more efficient one.