"> Anti-money Laundering Systems in the UK – Course Writing Pals

Anti-money Laundering Systems in the UK

Introduction

Money bed-making is the appellation acclimated to call the action that disguises the (usually criminal) antecedent of money.[1] The action of money bed-making involves three recognisable stages. The aboriginal is the ‘placement’ date back the gain of the crime, generally in cash, are ‘placed’ into the banking system, for example, by actuality depositing in a bank. The added is the ‘layering’ date whereby the gain are moved, usually through a alternation of affairs conceivably involving altered entities, altered assets, and altered jurisdictions, in adjustment to bisect any assay aisle and appropriately accomplish archetype their origins harder. The third date is ‘integration’ back the bent resumes ascendancy of the proceeds, chargeless from any articulation to their bent source. An assay will be fabricated of the account that forms the accountable amount of this essay. As an outline, this article will contemplate the admeasurement to which the United Kingdom’s anti-money bed-making administration seeks to abode anniversary date of the action of money laundering. To achieve this article will briefly reflect on the capability of the UK regime. It charge be emphasised that in an article of this nature, ample and circuitous capacity will accept to be reduced.

The UK regime

The Gain of Abomination Act 2002

Banks and alternative banking institutions facilitate the three stages of money bed-making and accommodate an air of appropriateness to the gain back they eventually reappear, accordingly the banking and accompanying sectors accept consistently been positioned at the beginning of the drive to action money laundering. The UK administration – which accouterments the EU Money Bed-making Directives, FATF all-embracing standards and UN anti-terrorist costs measures, comprises three capital apparatus as far as banks are concerned.

First, there is the primary legislation, the Agitation Act 2000 (TACT) and the Gain of Abomination Act 2002 (POCA) which creates a cardinal of ‘money laundering’ and accompanying offences. The declared relegated sector[2] is accountable to added offences to animate its co-operation in advertisement apprehensive activities and transactions.

Part 7 of POCA created three absolute money bed-making offences, concealing[3], arrangements[4] and acquisition, use and possession[5]. The three offences are advanced in a cardinal of respects.

First, the three arch money bed-making offences charge be accompanying to ‘criminal property’[6] which is actual broadly authentic as any ‘benefit’[7] from any bent conduct in any allotment of the UK or ‘would aggregate an answerability in a allotment of the UK if it occurred there[8]. The acceptation of bent acreage has been the accountable of a cardinal of Cloister of Appeal decisions, best afresh R v Akhtar [2011] EWCA Crim 146, a mortgage agent who had allegedly submitted backbiting claims for and on account of his co-defendants, was not accusable of entering into or acceptable anxious in money bed-making arrangements. Clarke LJ submitted that the accustomed an accustomed acceptation of s328(1) is that the adjustment to which it refers charge be one which accompanying to acreage at the time back the adjustment begins to accomplish on it[9]. Bent acreage has the aforementioned acceptation in account of all three arch money bed-making offences as set out in s340: “It does not embrace acreage which the accused intends to access by bent conduct… Acreage is not bent acreage because the wrongdoer intends that it should be”[10] Akhtar followed R v Loizou [2005] EWCA Crim. 1579, area the cloister disqualified that no answerability beneath s327 was fabricated as the acreage was not bent at the point of transfer. To say that it extends to acreage which was originally accepted but became bent alone as a aftereffect of accustomed out the adjustment is to “stretch the accent of the Section aloft its able limits”[11]. [analysis] [add facts of the case and chronicle to stages of ML)

R. v Afolabi == re. s329 acknowledgment some of the facts

Then achieve with analysis in Geary on allotment 7 and again added anaylsis on the extentof the act in stages of ML.

Scope – http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/clj-reporter/R-v-Geary-2010-EWCA-Crim-1925

Arguments that “criminal property” analogue needs to be revised – Article:A acceptable case for treatment: money bed-making and knowledge

Secondly, Accountability arises if declared money acquit knows – see online book altercation amid Hudson and Forston folio 11 and 12 – cases

Thirdly, Drafted to awning every believable answerability – cases

Mens rea – cases

Supplementary money bed-making offences – The ‘failure to report’ offences & Tipping off

As mentioned aloft banks and alternative banking institutions facilitate the three stages of money laundering, as such it is acute to access the co-operation of those institutions who are capital for money bed-making to action at all. Section 330 and 331 of POCA actualize two new offences of declining to accomplish a ‘required acknowledgment as anon as practicable’ afterwards suspicion of money bed-making is or care to accept been aroused. The appellation ‘required’ qualifies the acknowledgment in adjustment to emphasise that the abortion to address is a bent offence.

Slaughter and May – able sector

The Agitation Act 2000 and accompanying provisions

The Money Bed-making Regulations 2007

 

The Money Bed-making Regulations 2007[12] crave ‘relevant persons’[13] to accomplish their business in accordance with defined systems and procedures advised to action money bed-making and the accounts of terrorism. The abeyant bent accountability laid out by the Supplementary money bed-making offences discussed aloft calm wit the authoritative requirements beneath the 2007 Regulations has acquired the banking area to acquaint absolute processes and procedures to ensure that its admiral and advisers fulfil these disclosure[14] obligations and appropriately that they do not abatement abhorrent of the bent sanctions.

The FSA Handbook

Problems airish to banks by money bed-making control

Conclusion

 

I [student number] acknowledge that this allotment of assignment contains # words.

Bibliography

Articles

Shula de Jersey of Russell Jones & Walker (2011). “Wide but not great – the analogue of bent property” Money L.B. 2011, 186, 17-18. Money Bed-making Bulletin

CL& J (2011) “Knowingly appointment a backbiting claim” C.L. & J. 2011, 175(6), 78-79. Bent Law & Justice Weekly

Kenneth Murray, (2012) “A acceptable case for treatment: money bed-making and knowledge”, Journal of Money Bed-making Control, Vol. 15 Iss: 2, pp.188 – 197

Books

Ellinger, E.P and Lomnicka, E and Hare, C.V.M Banking Law (Oxford University Press)

The Law apropos to banking abomination in the United Kingdom / Karen Harrison and Nicholas Ryder

– Hudson, Law of Accounts (first edition, 2009, Sweet & Maxwell)

– Encyclopaedia of Banking Law (available via Lexis Library)

– Paget’s Law of Banking (available via Lexis Library)

Legalisation

Proceeds of Abomination Act 2002

Money Bed-making Regulations 2007/2157

 

Other

http://www.airant.it/pdf/MLB%20Sept%202011_0.pdf [Accessed 03 March 2014]

http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/clj-reporter/R-v-Akhtar-2011-All-ER-D-214-Jan [Accessed 03 March 2014]

http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/clj-reporter/R-v-Geary-2010-EWCA-Crim-1925 [Accessed 05 March 2014]

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1368-5201&volume=15&issue=2&articleid=17031335&show=html [Accessed 05 March 2014]

Cases

Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa [1900] 1 Ch. 656

[1] Ellinger, E. P. [2011] Modern Banking Law: Oxford University Press. pp92

[2] Including banks, banking entities adapted by the Banking Conduct Authority such as accountants, lawyers, acreage agents, traders in aerial amount goods, bank operators.

[3] s327 POCA 2002

[4] s328 POCA 2002

[5] s329 POCA 2002

[6] POCA 2002, s.340(3)

[7] See accoutrement extending the acceptation of ‘benefit’ in s.340(5)-(8)(including pecuniary advantage’) and those as to ‘property’ (s.340(9)).

[8] No restrictions are placed on the ‘predicate offence’, as continued as the conduct breeding the acreage is admired as an answerability in any allotment of the UK, appropriately it does not charge to be an answerability in the country in which it is committed.

[9] R v Geary [2010] EWCA Crim 1925

[10] Lord Justice Elias in Amir and Akhtar

[11] Lord Justice Moore-Bick in R v Geary

[12] S.I. 2007/2157 (as adapted by S.I. 2007/3299 and S.I. 2009/209, in force on 15 December 2007 and replacing the 2003 Regulations.

[13] Reg 3 – Application of the Regulations

[14] More usually alleged ‘reporting’.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Order a Unique Copy of this Paper