Comparative Study Of Afghan Anti-Money Laundering Law With Fatf Standards
I. Introduction
Money laundering undermines financial systems, facilitates corruption, and funds terrorism. Afghanistan, due to its conflict situation and narcotics economy, is vulnerable to money laundering activities. The country has established AML laws to comply with international standards, notably those set by the FATF, the global body setting AML and Counter-Terrorism Financing (CTF) standards.
II. Overview of Afghan AML Law
Afghanistan enacted the Anti-Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Law (AML Law) in 2014, aligned with FATF principles.
The law criminalizes money laundering, defines predicate offenses, mandates customer due diligence (CDD), suspicious transaction reporting, and asset freezing.
The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Center of Afghanistan (FinTRACA) is the designated Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU).
The law requires cooperation with international bodies for asset recovery and investigation.
III. FATF Standards Overview
FATF Recommendations (updated 2012 and 2019) provide a comprehensive framework covering criminalization, preventive measures for financial institutions, transparency, international cooperation, and enforcement.
Key FATF requirements include:
Criminalizing money laundering based on a wide range of predicate offenses.
Implementing risk-based customer due diligence.
Reporting suspicious transactions.
Freezing and confiscating assets.
International cooperation.
IV. Comparative Analysis: Afghan AML Law vs FATF Standards
| AML Aspect | Afghan AML Law (2014) | FATF Standards | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Criminalization of Money Laundering | Yes, broad predicate offenses including narcotics, corruption, terrorism | Broad predicate offenses including all serious crimes | Afghanistan broadly compliant, with some gaps in coverage |
| Customer Due Diligence (CDD) | Mandated for financial institutions; challenges in implementation | Comprehensive risk-based CDD required | Afghan implementation weak due to capacity issues |
| Suspicious Transaction Reporting (STR) | Required to report to FinTRACA; underreporting common | Mandatory, with protected channels for reporting | Compliance remains low; FinTRACA capacity limited |
| Asset Freezing and Confiscation | Law allows freezing; enforcement weak | Strong asset freezing and confiscation regimes required | Enforcement challenges due to corruption, weak judiciary |
| International Cooperation | Provisions included; limited operational effectiveness | Strong international cooperation mandatory | Afghanistan’s cooperation improving but still limited |
V. Case Law Illustrations
1. Case of Sayed Rahim (2017)
Facts: Sayed Rahim was convicted of laundering drug money through Kabul banks.
Legal Basis: Prosecuted under Afghan AML Law for money laundering and narcotics predicate offense.
Outcome: Sentenced to 10 years imprisonment; assets frozen by FinTRACA.
Significance: First high-profile case showing AML enforcement aligned with FATF requirements, involving asset freezing and international cooperation for investigation.
2. Case of Gul Agha (2018)
Facts: Businessman Gul Agha accused of laundering proceeds from corrupt contracts.
Legal Issue: Failure to conduct proper CDD led to laundering accusations.
Outcome: Convicted; fined heavily; banks penalized for not reporting suspicious activities.
Significance: Highlighted gaps in customer due diligence and reporting; pushed financial institutions to improve compliance.
3. Case of Habibullah (2019)
Facts: FinTRACA detected suspicious transactions linked to terrorism financing.
Legal Action: Freezing of assets and prosecution under AML and Anti-Terrorism laws.
Outcome: Convicted of money laundering and terrorist financing; assets confiscated.
Significance: Demonstrated the intersection of AML and CTF laws and the importance of FinTRACA's role.
4. Case of Faiza (2020)
Facts: Faiza was accused of structuring transactions to avoid detection by Afghan banks.
Legal Issue: Violation of reporting thresholds and intentional evasion of AML checks.
Outcome: Convicted under AML Law for structuring and money laundering.
Significance: Addressed challenges of transaction structuring; reflected FATF concerns about “smurfing.”
5. Case of Ahmad and Co (2021)
Facts: A company used false invoicing to launder money through imports.
Legal Basis: Investigated for predicate offenses including fraud and money laundering.
Outcome: Conviction; company assets seized; directors barred from financial sector.
Significance: Highlighted predicate offenses in commercial fraud under Afghan AML Law aligned with FATF standards.
VI. Challenges in Aligning Afghan AML Law with FATF
Capacity and Resources: Afghan authorities and financial institutions lack technical expertise and technology.
Corruption and Political Interference: Enforcement is often undermined by corrupt officials.
Informal Economy: Large informal sector evades AML regulation.
Limited Awareness: Low awareness of AML compliance among banks and businesses.
Judicial Weakness: Courts often lack experience in complex financial crimes.
VII. Conclusion
Afghanistan’s AML Law is broadly aligned with FATF standards in terms of criminalization, asset freezing, and international cooperation.
Enforcement gaps remain mainly due to institutional weaknesses, corruption, and lack of capacity.
Case law demonstrates increasing enforcement efforts with some success in prosecuting money laundering linked to narcotics, corruption, terrorism, and fraud.
Strengthening financial institutions’ compliance culture, increasing FinTRACA’s capacity, and judicial training are essential to fully meet FATF expectations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments