Payback time? To what extent has the new policing of assets provided new assets for policing?

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to identify the extent to which the “new policing of assets” has produced new assets for policing in the UK.Design/methodology/approachThis is achieved by producing an estimate of both the financial benefits and costs to the public purse based upon official documentation where possible.FindingsAsset recovery and anti‐money laundering work has produced some assets to be used for policing, but even using a conservative methodology it is unlikely to have produced a financial benefit which is much more than its costs, indeed the costs are likely to have been greater.Research limitations/implicationsMany parts of the cost are estimates; therefore, researchers are encouraged to ascertain the exact costs.Practical implicationsOf interest to those interested in the costs of government policies and regulations, especially the regulated sector burdened by the costs of complying with the money laundering legislation.Originality/valueThe paper attempts to fulfill the government's desire to improve the quality of the cost‐benefit analyses of the money laundering regime.

Explaining attrition: Investigating and confiscating the profits of organized crime

“…Advocates of ‘follow the money’ often emphasize that financial investigations ‘pay for themselves’, and more. Whether this is the case is questionable, as research in the United Kingdom indicates (Bullock, 2014: 63; Collins and King, 2013; Levi, 2013: 10; Sproat, 2009).…”

Combating Organized Crime

“…Advocates of 'follow the money' often emphasize that financial investigations 'pay for themselves', and more. Whether this is the case is questionable, as research in the United Kingdom indicates (Bullock, 2014: 63;Collins and King, 2013;Levi, 2013: 10;Sproat, 2009).…”

“…Financial investigations are assumed to 'pay for themselves ', and (much) more. Whether the financial benefits generated by 'follow the money' indeed exceed the costs, is questionable, as research in the United Kingdom indicates (Levi, 2013: 10;Sproat, 2009;Collins and King, 2013;Bullock, 2014: 63) (furthermore, the cost-benefit ratio probably differs greatly among the different instruments used to take away criminals' money, as is explained in this section). Financial profitability is not -or should not be -the main issue involved in the confiscation of crime money.…”

“…Financieel rechercheren wordt verondersteld zichzelf terug te verdienen, en (veel) meer dan dat. Of de financiële baten van de financiële aanpak ook daadwerkelijk de kosten overstijgen, is echter maar helemaal de vraag, zoals onderzoek in het Verenigd Koninkrijk indiceert (Levi, 2013: 10;Sproat, 2009;Collins en King, 2013;Bullock, 2014: 63) (de kosten-batenratio zal bovendien ook sterk variëren tussen de verschillende instrumenten die worden gebruikt om vermogen af te pakken, zoals in deze subparagraaf ook wordt toegelicht). Financiële winst is ook niet het enige en misschien ook niet het meest belangrijke oogmerk van het afpakken van criminele verdiensten.…”