An Introductory Who's Who for Money Laundering Investigators
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb027309 |
| Published date | 01 April 2002 |
| Pages | 287-295 |
| Date | 01 April 2002 |
| Author | R.E. Bell |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Journal of Money Laundering Control — Vol. 5 No. 4
An Introductory Who's Who for Money
Laundering Investigators
R. E. Bell
INTRODUCTION
It is now generally recognised that, when investi-
gating acquisitive crime, investigators must focus
not just on obtaining evidence of the commission of
the underlying crime
itself,
but also on what
happened to the criminal proceeds. While there
has been significant culture change in the UK so
that investigators now focus to a greater degree
on the proceeds of crime, this is usually from the
perspective of tracing what remains of the proceeds
so that the confiscation legislation may be applied.
Even then such a focus is patchy and inconsistent
and much work remains to be done to ensure
that the confiscation legislation is applied in a
rigorous manner.
However, in addition to finding what remains of
the proceeds, investigators need to discover through
whose hands the proceeds travelled, with a view to
the consideration of money laundering charges
whenever the evidence discloses the individuals
concerned had sufficient mens tea. A recent report
by the Performance and Innovation Unit of the
Cabinet Office1 observed that money laundering pro-
secutions were relatively few in number and recom-
mended that UK law enforcement agencies should be
strongly encouraged to investigate money laundering
offences wherever appropriate. But where should an
investigator start? It may not always be as easy as the
phrase 'Follow the money', made famous by the film
'All the President's Men', suggests. Investigators
often have to begin by considering who, from
among the criminal's friends and associates, the
launderer might be.
This paper provides an introductory guide to the
cast of characters in the world of money laundering
and seeks to offer an elementary checklist which can
be used by investigators, particularly those who
approach money laundering issues for the first time.
Of course anyone who handles another person's
money may unwittingly be assisting in money
laundering. Those who are referred to in this paper,
however, only include those who are knowingly
involved in laundering the proceeds of crime. The
cast of characters that follows should not be
conceived of in terms of watertight categories.
There will clearly be some overlaps: for example a
relative may serve as a courier. Furthermore, many
cases may involve not just one of the characters
referred to, but rather a range of them, each perform-
ing a different function in the laundering enterprise.
THE SELF-LAUNDERER
When a criminal graduates from being a 'spend-as-
you-go' criminal, he will usually start by laundering
his own proceeds. He may particularly wish to con-
trol his own laundering activity if he feels unable to
trust anyone else to do it for him. An investigation
thus needs to commence with an examination of
the defendant's own finances and travel patterns. If
the case is significant enough to merit the use of
such resources, surveillance may be useful in deter-
mining whether he regularly visits particular financial
institutions where he might have accounts.
A self-launderer's attempts at laundering may be
quite unsophisticated. In United States v Coviello,
Simons, Rosengard and Simons2 the owners and several
employees of 'Crazy Bob's', a discount computer
products shop in Massachusetts, were charged with
interstate transportation of stolen property and
money laundering. Over a two-year period 'Crazy
Bob's'
had purchased over $15m worth of stolen soft-
ware including 32,000 copies of Microsoft Office 97
and 10,000 copies of Windows 95. Robert Simons,
the owner, attempted to launder the proceeds
simply by channelling them from the Crazy Bob
bank account into an account in the name of Emerald
Software Inc., before moving them back to Crazy
Bob's and disbursing them in the form of corporate
profits.
Nevertheless, just because the laundering is done
by the criminal
himself,
that does not mean that an
investigator should always expect the laundering to
be simplistic. In United States v Willey3 the defendant
was a real estate and timberland developer and a
director of a bank. Two years after the bank failed,
Willey declared personal and corporate bankruptcy.
He was subsequently convicted of money laundering
Journal of Money Laundering Control
Vol 5, No 4, 2002, pp. 287-235
Henry Stewart Publications
ISSN 1368-5201
Page 287
To continue reading
Request your trial