Prosecution for money laundering in the UK
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13590790310808754 |
| Pages | 157-158 |
| Date | 01 April 2003 |
| Published date | 01 April 2003 |
| Author | Simon Maylam |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Prosecution for Money Laundering in the UK
Simon Maylam
Intelligence received by investigators from various
organisations both within the UK and overseas
shows that there is a large amount of money launder-
ing taking place. How much, nobody really knows.
In 1998, the total worldwide ®gure for money laun-
dering was estimated at between $800bn to $1.5trn
(US dollars), with some £2.5bn being laundered
through the UK's ®nancial system.
1
Even if it is not
possible to put an accurate ®gure on the amount of
dirty money being laundered, in most jurisdictions
the level of suspicious transaction reports can be
monitored. UK ®gures have grown from 600 in
1987 to 18,408 in 2000 and while there are various
reasons for the increases in reporting, there is no
doubt that there has been a huge increase in the
amount of intelligence being brought to the attention
of investigators.
So, if there is so much money laundering about,
why have there been so few prosecutions, particularly
in the UK where in the 12 years between 1987 and
1998 there was a total of 357 prosecutions for
money laundering in the jurisdiction of England
and Wales.
Basically there are ®ve areas that have, up to now,
held investigators in the UK back from a more
aggressive attack on money launderers, although
there have been some advances in these areas, even
if some of the advances are yet to be tested.
The ®rst area of diculty is that of suspicious
transaction reports. Although the UK ®gures for
suspicious transaction reporting may seem high,
they are relatively low when considering the impor-
tance of the UK ®nancial market. Australia for
example, which is a vibrant but smaller ®nancial
market, has a suspicious transaction reporting level
4.5 times higher than the UK's.
The level of reporting in the UK is likely to
increase with the introduction of the new Financial
Services and Markets Act, which will allow the
Financial Services Authority (FSA) to take a more
aggressive stance with the regulated sector.
The second area of diculty is the fact that too few
law enforcement resources have been devoted to the
investigation of money laundering and although the
National Criminal Intelligence Service has recently
almost doubled the sta working within the Eco-
nomic Crime Unit, which is where suspicious trans-
action reports are initially received, researched and
disseminated to law enforcement agencies, these
can only investigate a small fraction. There are only
three UK law enforcement agencies that routinely
undertake proactive money laundering investiga-
tions: the National Crime Squad, HM Customs and
Excise and the Metropolitan Police Service.
Both the National Crime Squad and HM Customs
and Excise have recruited more specialist ®nancial
investigators in order to put extra resources into
this area. Additionally, the National Crime Squad
and HM Customs and Excise have just formed a
new joint Money Laundering Investigation Team
to undertake proactive money laundering investiga-
tions, which are connected to the tracking of
cocaine and heroin. Continuing to move towards
multi-agency investigation teams will be a positive
step, either by way of joint units such as this, or as
multi-agency task forces brought together on a
case-by-case basis.
The third area that has been holding back the
money laundering prosecution rate are the diculties
surrounding the fragmented legislation governing
forfeiture, con®scation and money laundering. The
proposed Proceeds of Crime Act, together with the
new Asset Recovery Agency, will consolidate and
simplify the legislation, provide additional investiga-
tive tools and hopefully a more workable regime for
forfeiture, con®scation and the prosecution of money
laundering Ð but only time will tell.
The fourth area of diculty relates to the impact of
investigative and prosecutorial discretion. Again,
only time will tell whether the proposed Proceeds
of Crime Act will make the oence of money
laundering more attractive as a charge both to the
investigator and the prosecutor. It is fair to say that
up until now there has been a tendency for investiga-
tors and prosecutors in the UK to concentrate on the
substantive or primary oences and not include the
associated money laundering. Or, where there is a
separate or stand-alone money laundering oence,
there has been an understandable reluctance to under-
take what is invariably a complex and protracted
Page 157
Journal of Financial Crime Ð Vol. 10 No. 2
Journal of Financial Crime
Vol.10,No. 2,2002,pp. 157 ±158
#HenryStewart Publications
ISSN 1359-0790
To continue reading
Request your trial