Does holding offshore jurisdictions to higher AML standards really assist in preventing money laundering?

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to contend that when tackling financial crimes such as money laundering and terrorist financing, international regulators are seeking to hold offshore jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands to higher standards and that this detracts from the pursuit of detecting and prosecuting money launders. Design/methodology/approach This paper will deal with the following perceived issues: firstly, to offshore jurisdictions as a concept; secondly, to outline the efforts made by the Cayman Islands to combat money laundering and to rate these changes against Financial Action Task Forces’ (FATAF’s) technical criteria; thirdly, to demonstrate that the Cayman Islands is among some of the world’s top jurisdictions for compliance with FATAF’s standards; and finally, to examine whether greylisting was necessary and to comment upon whether efforts by international regulators to hold offshore jurisdictions to higher standards detracts from the actual prosecution of money laundering within the jurisdiction. Findings Greylisting the Cayman Islands in these authors’ view was something that should have never happened; the Cayman Islands is being held to standards far beyond what is expected in an onshore jurisdiction. There is a need for harmonisation in respect of international anti money laundering rules and regulations to shift the tone to prosecution and investigation of offences rather than on rating jurisdictions technical compliance with procedural rules where states have a workable anti-money laundering (AML) regime. Research limitations/implications The implications of this research are to show that offshore jurisdictions are being held by FATAF and other international regulators to higher AML standards than their onshore counterparties. Practical implications The author hopes that this paper will begin the debate as to whether FATAF needs to give reasons as to why offshore jurisdictions are held to higher standards and whether it needs to begin to contemplate higher onshore standards. Originality/value This is an original piece of research evaluating the effect of FATAF's reporting on offshore jurisdictions with a case study involving primary and secondary data in relation to the Cayman Islands.

The Nexus of Cybercrime and Money Laundering: A Conceptual Paper

“…To address this perpetual challenge, continuous training programs for cybercrime investigators must be implemented (Sultan & Mohamed, 2022). These programs should focus on the latest cyber threats, advancements in digital forensics techniques, and emerging trends in cybersecurity (Perkins, 2021). Collaborative initiatives involving law enforcement agencies, academia, and the private sector can facilitate the timely exchange of knowledge and expertise, fostering a collective ability to stay ahead of malicious actors in the rapidly evolving cyber landscape (Tiwari et al, 2022).…”

Cross-jurisdictional financial crime risks: what can we learn from the UK regulatory data?

“…Tax evasion and regulatory evasion have also been identified as drivers of perceived jurisdiction risk. Cotoc et al (2021) found that tax evasion is positively associated with perceived money laundering risk in the EU, while Perkins (2022) found that regulatory evasion is a significant driver of perceived money laundering risk in the UK. Regulatory stringency has also been examined as a driver of perceived jurisdiction risk, with FCA (2021a, 2021b) finding that perceived regulatory stringency is positively associated with perceived money laundering risk in the UK.…”

“…As firms' perceptions of financial crime risk at a jurisdiction level rapidly gain supervisory relevance and international firms continue to reconsider their operations in high-risk jurisdictions, it is imperative to bring empirical evidence to bear on the question of whether political stability, evasion of tax and regulations and regulatory stringency explain firms' perceptions of jurisdiction risks (FCA, 2021a). While different measures of financial crime risk exist, it is notoriously challenging to capture firms' perceptions of it, particularly at a cross-jurisdiction level (Simser, 2013;Cotoc et al, 2021;Perkins, 2022). Financial crime risks can vary significantly across different jurisdictions due to differences in legal and Crossjurisdictional financial crime risks regulatory frameworks, cultural norms and levels of economic development.…”