Knowledge Management in the Proceeds of Crime Community
| Pages | 207-217 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025986 |
| Published date | 01 January 2001 |
| Date | 01 January 2001 |
| Author | R.E. Bell |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Journal of Financial Crime — Vol. 8 No. 3 — Analysis
Knowledge Management in the Proceeds of
Crime Community
R. E. Bell
INTRODUCTION
The title of this paper immediately raises a number
of issues. Is there such an entity as 'the proceeds of
crime community'? If such an entity exists, can it
be 'managed'? What role does knowledge play in
the community? This paper attempts to explore
such issues, with particular reference to the field of
financial investigation. It does so in the light of the
report entitled 'Recovering the Proceeds of Crime',
published by the Performance and Innovation Unit
of the Cabinet Office,1 which was tasked with con-
sidering how effective the removal of criminal
assets was in tackling crime and assessing whether
more should be done, and which, it is submitted,
largely represents the distilled knowledge of the
proceeds of crime community.
THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME
COMMUNITY
The proceeds of crime community in the UK may be
defined in two ways. First, using a narrow definition,
it may be viewed as consisting of those whose work
directly involves them in detecting and removing
the proceeds of crime from criminals. It consists of
certain investigators, principally those police and
Customs officers who work in Financial Investigation
Units,2 those from the money-laundering investiga-
tion teams of the National Crime Squad, the Metro-
politan Police and HM Customs and Excise, and
those from the Economic Crime Unit of the National
Criminal Intelligence Service.3 It also consists of cer-
tain prosecutors, namely those who specialise in pro-
ceeds of crime casework, who work in the Central
Confiscation Branch of the Crown Prosecution Ser-
vice,4
the Asset Forfeiture Unit of HM Customs &
Excise, the Fraud and Specialist Services Unit of the
Crown Office in Scotland and the Restraint and
Confiscation Unit of the Department of the Director
of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.5 Using
this narrow definition, therefore, the proceeds of
crime community is simply a subset of the law
enforcement community.
However, the proceeds of crime community may
also be defined more broadly, consisting of those
for whom a significant part of their work is con-
nected with, or affected by, the proceeds of crime leg-
islation. In this way it may include policy makers,
academics, barristers in private practice, regulators
and certain staff in financial institutions.
The principal policy makers in the proceeds of
crime community are those in the Home Office
Financial Crime Team and similar policy makers in
HM Treasury. In addition there is the Home Office
Working Group on Confiscation, whose respon-
sibility is to make recommendations to the Home
Secretary in respect of confiscation, forfeiture and
money-laundering legislation, and which has pub-
lished three reports that have been significant in the
development of the proceeds of crime legislation in
the UK.6 The Home Office has now established an
Asset Recovery Group7 to develop, manage and deli-
ver a national Asset Confiscation Strategy. It is not
clear, however, whether, in so doing, the Group
will replace the Working Group on Confiscation.
The National Confiscation agency is also likely to
have a central policy-making role in the proceeds of
crime community.
As indicated, a broader definition may also include
certain academics, one of the foremost amongst
whom is Professor Barry Rider, the driving force
behind the Cambridge Symposium on Economic
Crime and the editor of a number of books and
journals concerning financial law and crime. Another
internationally respected academic figure is Professor
Michael Levi, who has contributed a number of
pieces of significant research in respect of financial
fraud, money laundering and the proceeds of
crime.8
Barristers in private practice included within the
broader definition are those barristers whose principal
area of practice is restraint, confiscation and money-
laundering casework. Perhaps the best known
examples of such are those counsel who form the
Asset Forfeiture Team in Furnival Chambers, in
particular Andrew Mitchell and Kennedy Talbot,
who are two of the authors of the leading textbook
on the operation of the UK proceeds of crime
legislation.9
Journal of Financial Crime
Vol.
8,
No.
3,
2001,
pp.
207-217
© Henry Stewart Publications
ISSN 0969-6458
Page 207
To continue reading
Request your trial