To what extent is the UK's anti‐money laundering and asset recovery regime used against organised crime?

Abstract

Purpose -Politicians justified the introduction of the illiberal and liberal parts of the UK's anti-money laundering and asset recovery regime by reference to the extra-ordinary threat posed by organised crime. This paper attempts to evaluate the extent to which the financial measures contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) 2002 and the Serious and Organised Crime and Policing Act 2005 are actually used against this threat. Design/methodology/approach -The objective is achieved by reference to four distinct datasets found on the use of these measures. The first consists of the regular, usually monthly, bulletins on the Proceeds of Crime produced by the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA). The second -which reveals the length of sentences given to those convicted of money laundering offences under the POCA -was gathered from the Financial Action Task Force, the Home Office and Justice Office in Scotland. The third consists of the value of the cases which had been, and which were being, dealt with by the ARA at the time the National Audit Office produced it's report on the institution. The fourth is the number of financial reporting orders which have been imposed upon criminals, follows the discovery of an earlier version whilst examining parliamentary records. Findings -The triangulated results suggest that the POCA powers -originally used by use against organised crime -were used against this alleged threat only on a small minority and number of occasions.Research limitations/implications -This infrequent use raises major questions of either the ability of the policing agencies including the Serious and Organised Crime Agency to take on organised crime and/or the credibility of those who exaggerated a threat of organised crime to justify the (often illiberal) powers. Originality/value -This paper questions whether the POCA will achieve one of its original aims. It will interest politicians and practitioners concerned with the combating of organised crime and/or anti-money laundering and asset recovery as well as criminologists and those interested in civil liberties.

The Back-Door Governance of Crime: Confiscating Criminal Assets in the UK

“…There is, however, little evidence to say whether it has been effective against the most harmful criminal enterprises and networks. Currently, evidence of deterrent, disrupting or harm-reduction impact of asset recovery and anti-money laundering measures on criminal markets, especially in relation to organised crime and terrorism, remains weak (Levi 2003(Levi , 2013Alldridge 2003;Levi and Maguire 2004;Gallant 2005Gallant , 2014Levi and Reuter 2006;Harvey and Lau 2008;Sproat 2009;Goldsmith et al 2014;NAO. 2016;Atkinson et al 2017).…”

Tackling money laundering in Tanzania: are private legal practitioners crime enablers or ineffectual and reluctant gatekeepers?

“…The national AML/CTF laws prescribe custodial sentences and impose monetary fines on accused persons convicted of money laundering and/or its predicate offences (Baldwin, 2003; Gallant, 2003; Chukwuemerie, 2006; Sproat, 2009; Nazri et al , 2019). The laws vest national authorities with powers to freeze, confiscate and forfeit funds, properties, assets and instruments used to commit money laundering or its predicate offences (Bell, 2004; Smellie, 2005; Pavlidis, 2017).…”

Asset confiscation in Europe – past, present, and future challenges

“…Also the UK's UWM is potentially very far-reaching considering that its scope of application does not only cover PEPs, but also individuals reasonably suspected of serious crime based on a wide definition of that concept. However, already some years ago the extensive UK confiscation regime was criticised for catching very few, if any, Mr Big's, while the main bulk of confiscation proceedings related to only small fish, or even plankton (Sproat, 2009). A wide scope in combination with diluted safeguards and a weak link to prior criminality creates a far-reaching and potentially repressive system.…”