Obtaining Foreign Assistance to Prosecute Money Laundering Cases: A US Perspective
| Date | 01 April 2001 |
| Pages | 153-164 |
| Published date | 01 April 2001 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026015 |
| Author | James P. Springer |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Journal of Financial Crime — Vol. 9 No. 2
Obtaining Foreign Assistance to Prosecute Money
Laundering Cases: A US Perspective
James P. Springer
INTRODUCTION
This paper provides a detailed analysis of the various
means available to US authorities for obtaining
foreign evidence and other types of international
assistance in money laundering cases. The means
analysed here include mutual legal assistance treaties
(MLATs) and similar processes; multilateral treaties;
tax information exchange agreements (TIEAs) and
tax treaties (for a narrow range of money laundering
offences); court-sponsored procedures for taking
foreign depositions, including letters rogatory; the
use of unilateral compulsory measures, such as sub-
poenas, for obtaining foreign evidence, and the use
of FinCEN and Interpol resources. The initiatives
of the G7, the Financial Action Task Force and the
OECD regarding international cooperation in
money laundering matters are also briefly treated.
This paper is not intended as a primer on the
various money laundering offences under US law.
Nevertheless, in order to structure a discussion
regarding how to obtain foreign evidence for US
money laundering offences, in certain parts of the
paper US money laundering offences are divided
into the following two categories:
(1) money laundering offences not related to tax
administration or enforcement, such as
money-laundering offences under 18 U.S.C.
1956 and 1957 (except for offences under 18
U.S.C. 1956 (a)(1)(A)(ii))1 as well as offences
related to currency transaction reporting
under 31 U.S.C. 5313, offences related to
reporting of international transportation of cur-
rency or monetary instruments under 31
U.S.C. 5316, offences under 26 U.S.C. 7203
for failing to file Forms 8300 under 26
U.S.C.
60501,
and offences relating to reporting
foreign bank and financial accounts under 31
U.S.C. 5314 (a);2 and
(2) tax-related money-laundering offences, such as
offences under 18 U.S.C. 1956 (a)(1)(A)(ii),3 as
well as any other offences described in (1)
where the principal purpose of the conduct is
violate US tax laws.
The offences described in (1) and (2) will be respec-
tively referred to here as 'not tax-related' and 'tax-
related'.
OBTAINING FOREIGN EVIDENCE OR
OTHER TYPES OF ASSISTANCE
UNDER MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
TREATIES
Background
Mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) create a
routine channel for obtaining a broad range of
legal assistance for money laundering and forfeiture
matters, as well as criminal matters generally,
including inter alia obtaining testimony or state-
ments of persons; obtaining documents and other
physical evidence in a form that would be admis-
sible at trial; and obtaining evidence from executing
searches and seizures. These treaties are concluded
by the United States Department of Justice (pri-
marily the Criminal Division) in conjunction with
the United States Department of State. An
MLAT creates a contractual obligation between
the treaty partners to render to each other assistance
in criminal matters in accordance with the terms of
the treaty. It is designed to facilitate the exchange
of information and evidence for use in criminal
investigations and prosecutions. Not all MLATs
cover the full range of US criminal offences; but,
generally speaking, MLATs cover money laundering
and forfeiture matters except, possibly, where the
money laundering offences are tax-related.
MLATs currently in effect
As of 30th June, 2001 the USA has MLATs with the
following jurisdictions: Anguilla, Antigua & Bar-
buda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, the Bahamas,
Barbados, Belgium, Brazil, the British Virgin Islands,
Canada, the Cayman Islands, the Czech Republic,
Dominica, Estonia, Grenada, Hong Kong, Hungary,
Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Journal of Financial Crime
Vol.
9.
No.
2,
2001,
pp. 153-164
© Henry Stewart Publications
ISSN 1359-0790
Page 153
To continue reading
Request your trial