PurposeReporting suspicious transactions under anti‐money laundering (AML) laws creates a major dilemma for banks. On the one hand, failure to report suspicious transactions is an offence under the laws. On the other hand, if they report the transaction, they may breach their duty of confidentiality to their customer or could be liable for tipping off the suspected customer. More importantly, it can also undermine customers' trust. The purpose of this paper is to look into these issues and analyse them against the background of the Malaysian AML laws.Design/methodology/approachThis paper mainly relies on statutes as its primary sources of information. As such, the relevant Malaysian AML that affect the reporting obligations will be identified and analyzed. It will be necessary to examine not just the provisions of the Malaysian Anti‐Money Laundering and Anti‐Terrorism Financing Act, but also its regulations and guidelines which affect banks in detail, as this is the most important legislation for the purpose of this paper.FindingsIt is apparent that the reporting suspicious transactions regime has had a significant impact on the operations of banks in Malaysia. While the regime is based on sound principles, the effectiveness of the regime is still unknown. As such, only time will tell whether the banks will be able to cope sufficiently with the increased AML obligations. Obviously, it is critical at this stage, to establish effective coordination between legislators, regulators and the banking industry, in order to minimize problems faced by the banks and thereby to ensure effective implementation of the regime.Originality/valueThis paper provides an examination of the impact of the reporting suspicious transactions regime on Malaysian banks. It is hoped that the study would provide some insight into this particular area for academics, banks, their legal advisers, practitioners and policy makers, not only in Malaysia but also elsewhere. In view of the international nature of money laundering and banking, there will be significant interest in how the AML laws affect banks operating in Malaysia.
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze banking secrecy laws against the background of the Malaysian anti-money laundering laws. It has been argued that the anti-money laundering law makes greater inroads into the banking secrecy rule when compared to the common law or other statutes. Banks can disclose customer’s information on even grounds of suspicion of money laundering. Banking secrecy is a customer privilege, whereas combating money laundering is critical for public safety and security. Indeed, achieving a proper balance is a desirable goal. But how do we go about achieving such a balance is a question encountered by many law enforcement authorities. This paper looks into these issues. Design/methodology/approach – This paper mainly relies on statutes as its primary sources of information. As such, the relevant Malaysian laws that provide the banking secrecy rule will be identified and analyzed. It will be necessary to examine the banking secrecy rule in the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (AMLATFA) and other relevant statutes in detail, as these are the most important legislation for the purpose of this paper. Findings – On closer inspection, it is submitted that AMLATFA provides sufficient safeguards to ensure that the disclosure of customer’s information is carried out in a manner that is not prejudicial to the interest of legitimate customers. This is a positive approach that could protect the innocent customers from being mistreated by the law. Ultimately, it can be said that the growing threat of global money laundering and terrorism makes the overriding of banking secrecy justified because without a flow of information from the banks, the effective prevention of the menace is not possible. Originality/value – This paper analyzes the inroads into the banking secrecy rule under the Malaysian anti-money laundering laws. It would provide some guidelines into this particular area for academics, banks, their legal advisers, practitioners and policy makers, not only in Malaysia but also elsewhere.
Purpose Money laundering is a complex issue which has been ongoing for many years globally. Developed and developing countries form anti-money laundering regime in the view to combat these ever-challenging criminal activities. Laundering of money involves the hiding and cleaning of “dirty money” derived from unlawful activities. Malaysia has come up with its own regime of anti-money laundering. Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (AMLATFA) provides power to forfeit proceeds at the end of proceedings. This paper aims to investigate whether the current civil forfeiture regime in Malaysia is effective in fighting against money laundering. Design/methodology/approach This paper will be based on a doctrinal research where reliance will mainly be on relevant case laws and legislations. AMLATFA is the primary legislation which will be utilised for the purpose of analysis. Findings Despite the enactment of AMLATFA, little study has been carried out on the effectiveness of civil forfeiture regime under Malaysian anti-money laundering laws. Furthering into forfeiture of criminal proceeds, the findings show that forfeiture provisions are the recent law enforcement strategy to fight against crimes. It is implicit that this strategy is more efficient than the conventional approach, which only focused on punishing the individual criminal but failed to diminish the criminal operations as a whole. Originality/value Strengths and weaknesses of AMLATFA are identified where it is less comprehensive in terms of offences covered and standard of proof. With that, this paper analyses the civil forfeiture regime under the Malaysian anti-money laundering laws. This paper would also offer some guiding principles for academics, banks, their legal advisers, practitioners and policymakers, not only in Malaysia but also elsewhere. Anti-money laundering laws can further be improved by being a better and established civil forfeiture regime where Malaysia will be able to discharge its duties well on forfeiting benefits from criminals.
Purpose In Malaysia, Get-Rich-Quick scheme (GRQS) is one of the financial fraud activities prohibited under Malaysian law. The common facet of such schemes involves plans that promise unrealistic rates of returns, and this new scheme continues to proliferate every year as the list of illegal investment companies and websites are growing. Indeed, GRQS will remain proliferating as long as there are people who are easily lured by the promise that wealth can be generated with little skill, effort or time. This paper aims to explain the phenomenon of GRQS in light of the existing laws in Malaysia. This paper also highlights the current development of Australian law pertaining to GRQS for comparative purpose. Design/methodology/approach This paper mainly relies on statutes as its primary sources of information. As such, this paper analyses the scope and provisions of the relevant laws that regulate GRQS and compare the existing GRQS provisions that are equivalent with Australian law. Findings Malaysia has comprehensive laws to combat GRQS activities. However, these laws are far from perfection, and only with immediate amendments, GRQS problems can be resolved more effectively. One of the weaknesses of current Malaysian laws to tackle GRQS is the lack of more stringent punishment against the operators of GRQS as well as the participants of the scheme. A comparison with equivalent GRQS law in Australia demonstrates that Australian laws provide a wide range of punishment to the operators and prohibits participation in GRQS. More importantly, Australia regards the offense as a strict liability offense where the mens rea or guilty mind of the perpetrators is exempted. Indeed, numerous proceedings have been instituted in the Australian Court against the operators and participants of GRQS. Originality/value This paper analyses the scope of relevant laws in Malaysia to combat GRQS and examines the strengths and weaknesses of these laws. This paper also compares Malaysian law with equivalent GRQS-related laws available in Australia. This paper further suggests that Malaysia should regulate sterner punishment for operators and participants of the scheme and that the offense is categorized under a strict liability offense where the mens rea or guilty mind of the offender is exempted.
Purpose Money laundering has been a focal problem worldwide. Governments constantly come up with initiatives to fight against this offence. To clean proceeds of corruption, the laundering of money is utilised, as it transforms “dirty” money into “clean” ones. A comparative analysis between Malaysia’s Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLATFPUAA) and United Kingdom’s Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) is performed on the basis of the similarities and differences of both legislations, in terms of forfeiture provisions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the current forfeiture regime in both jurisdictions is effective in fighting against money laundering. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on a doctrinal research where reliance will mainly be on relevant case laws and legislations. AMLATFPUAA and POCA are key legislations which will be utilised for the purpose of analysis. Findings Strengths and weaknesses of both AMLATFPUAA and POCA are identified through a comparative analysis where findings show that POCA is more comprehensive than AMLATFPUAA in terms of offences covered by it and standard of proof. With that, the anti-money laundering (AML) laws can further be improvised by being a better and efficient regime where Malaysia and United Kingdom will be able to discharge their duties effectively on forfeiting benefits from criminals. Originality/value This paper offers some guiding principles for academics, banks, their legal advisers, practitioners and policy makers, not only in Malaysia but also elsewhere.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.