Forfeiture of criminal proceeds under anti-money laundering laws. A comparative analysis between Malaysia and United Kingdom (UK)
| Published date | 02 January 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-04-2017-0016 |
| Pages | 104-111 |
| Date | 02 January 2018 |
| Author | Anusha Aurasu,Aspalella Abdul Rahman |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & Finance,Financial risk/company failure,Financial compliance/regulation,Financial crime |
Forfeiture of criminal proceeds
under anti-money laundering laws
A comparative analysis between Malaysia and
United Kingdom (UK)
Anusha Aurasu
Centre for Pre-University Studies, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and
Aspalella Abdul Rahman
School of Law, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose –Money laundering has been a focalproblem worldwide. Governments constantly come up with
initiativesto fight against this offence. To clean proceeds of corruption, the launderingof money is utilised, as
it transforms “dirty”money into “clean”ones. A comparative analysis between Malaysia’s Anti-Terrorism
Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLATFPUAA) and United Kingdom’s Proceeds of
Crime Act (POCA) is performedon the basis of the similarities and differences of both legislations, in terms of
forfeiture provisions.The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the currentforfeiture regime in both
jurisdictionsis effective in fighting against money laundering.
Design/methodology/approach –This paper is based on a doctrinal research where reliance will
mainly be on relevantcase laws and legislations. AMLATFPUAA and POCA are keylegislations which will
be utilised for the purposeof analysis.
Findings –Strengths and weaknesses of both AMLATFPUAA and POCA are identified through a
comparativeanalysis where findings show that POCA is more comprehensivethan AMLATFPUAA in terms
of offences coveredby it and standard of proof. With that, the anti-moneylaundering (AML) laws can further
be improvised by being a better and efficient regime where Malaysia and United Kingdom will be able to
dischargetheir duties effectively on forfeiting benefits from criminals.
Originality/value –This paper offers some guidingprinciples for academics, banks, their legal advisers,
practitionersand policy makers, not only in Malaysia but also elsewhere.
Keywords United Kingdom, Malaysia, Money laundering, Comparative analysis, Proceeds of crime,
Forfeiture, AMLATFPUAA, Criminal, POCA
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Many authors have done their research to address the problem of money laundering
activities globally and have proposedmeans to combat them. Although the literature covers
a wide range of such research, this paper focuseson two major issues, namely, an overview
of money laundering and forfeiture in general and their nature, and specifically into the
issue of forfeiture of criminal proceeds underAML laws in Malaysia and United Kingdom.
By and large, this paper gives importance to the legal framework of both countries in
relation to AML laws.
In essence, for bankers, enforcersand policymakers, money laundering raises significant
issues with regard to prevention, detection and prosecution. Different techniques used to
launder money add to the complexity of these issues. Such techniques may entail many
JMLC
21,1
104
Journalof Money Laundering
Control
Vol.21 No. 1, 2018
pp. 104-111
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1368-5201
DOI 10.1108/JMLC-04-2017-0016
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1368-5201.htm
To continue reading
Request your trial