Mapping the contours and limits of “irresistible inference”
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-03-2020-0027 |
| Published date | 30 May 2020 |
| Date | 30 May 2020 |
| Pages | 735-743 |
| Author | Kenny Foo |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & Finance,Financial risk/company failure,Financial compliance/regulation,Financial crime |
Mapping the contours and limits of
“irresistible inference”
Kenny Foo
The Offices of Kenny Foo, Hong Kong SAR
Abstract
Purpose –In R v Anwoir [2008] EWCA Crim 1354, the English Court of Appeal held that, in money
laundering prosecutions, the criminal provenance of property can be proved by showing that the
circumstances in which the property was handledgive rise to the irresistible inference that it can only have
been derivedfrom crime. The purpose of this paper is to analysesubsequent developments that have revealed
the contours,and some of the limits, of proof by “irresistibleinference”.
Design/methodology/approach –This paper reviews the reported cases in which an “irresistible
inference”was drawnand identifies the features common to most of them. It then explores thelimits of proof
by “irresistibleinference”by reference to the continuing relevance of predicateoffences and the use of money
launderingtools and techniques for non-laundering purposes.
Findings –Most of the cases in which an “irresistibleinference”was drawn fall within a narrowcompass of
five categories. The breadthof the principle is constrained by the characteristics of the predicate offence, and
its usefulness is limited in cases where the typologies of the predicate offence and the money laundering
offence overlapsignificantly.
Originality/value –This paper may be useful to those involved in prosecuting or defending money
laundering cases, as well as regulated persons assessing their money laundering risks and disclosure
obligations.
Keywords Money laundering, Irresistible inference, Burden of proof, Tax evasion
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In money laundering cases, the Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubtthat the
property alleged to have been laundered actually is or represents property obtained as a
two ways to do this. First, the Prosecutioncan show that the property derives from criminal
conduct of a specific kind or kinds. The second way is to adduce evidence of the
circumstances in which the property is handled, which are such as to give rise to the
irresistible inferencethat it can only be derived from crime.
Proof by irresistible inference was firmly established as part of English law by RvAnwoir
cases opened up a new dimension in the prosecution of money laundering offences. They
prompted a call to develop a consensus as to the circumstances that might give rise to the
irresistible inference of criminal provenance. A lively debate also arose as to whether the concept
of a “predicate offence”should have a continuing role in money laundering jurisprudence.
More than a decade has passed since those seminal decisions. This paper reviews some of the
key developments and attempts to map the contours and limits of proof by irresistible inference.
The Contours of “irresistible inference”
The decisions in Anwoir and Ahmad affirmed the principle that criminal provenance could be
proved by circumstantial evidence, but they did not suggest what circumstances –other than the
Irresistible
inference
735
Journalof Money Laundering
Control
Vol.23 No. 4, 2020
pp. 735-743
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1368-5201
DOI 10.1108/JMLC-03-2020-0027
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1368-5201.htm
To continue reading
Request your trial