Money Laundering Across Jurisdictions
Overview
Money laundering is the process by which criminals disguise the origins of illegally obtained money to make it appear legitimate. When money laundering involves multiple countries, it becomes a transnational crime that requires international cooperation and harmonized laws for effective investigation and prosecution.
Cross-border money laundering involves complex legal challenges:
Jurisdictional issues
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs)
Extradition of offenders
Coordination between multiple enforcement agencies
Challenges in tracing assets across countries
Key Legal Frameworks
United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (Palermo Convention)
Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs)
Domestic laws like Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in India
Laws in other jurisdictions: USA’s Bank Secrecy Act, UK’s Proceeds of Crime Act
Landmark Case Laws on Money Laundering Across Jurisdictions
1. United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (2012)
Facts:
HSBC was found to have laundered billions of dollars from drug cartels and sanctioned countries by failing to maintain proper anti-money laundering controls.
Held:
HSBC agreed to pay a $1.9 billion fine in a deferred prosecution agreement.
Highlighted the responsibility of global banks to comply with AML regulations.
Emphasized the need for stringent cross-border AML controls and reporting.
Importance:
Showed how financial institutions are held accountable in multiple jurisdictions for laundering money, and the role of regulatory enforcement across borders.
2. Nirav Modi & Mehul Choksi Case (India, 2018 onwards)
Facts:
Indian jeweler Nirav Modi and his uncle Mehul Choksi allegedly defrauded Punjab National Bank of nearly $2 billion and laundered the proceeds abroad.
Held:
Indian Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated proceedings under the PMLA.
International cooperation sought for extradition and asset recovery from multiple countries.
Indian courts emphasized cross-border coordination to tackle laundering.
Importance:
Shows practical challenges in recovering assets and prosecuting offenders in cross-border laundering crimes.
3. United States v. Viktor Bout (2011)
Facts:
Viktor Bout, an international arms dealer, was extradited to the US from Thailand on charges including money laundering related to illegal arms sales.
Held:
The case involved cooperation between US and Thai authorities.
Bout was convicted in the US for money laundering, conspiracy, and other offences.
Demonstrated extradition as a crucial tool in cross-jurisdictional enforcement.
Importance:
Illustrates effective international collaboration and extradition in prosecuting transnational money laundering.
4. R v. El-Guerrouj [2013] EWCA Crim 1677 (UK)
Facts:
Mohamed El-Guerrouj was convicted in the UK for laundering proceeds of crime originating from Morocco.
Held:
Court upheld conviction based on evidence of funds transferred via international banking channels.
Emphasized that money laundering laws apply to funds regardless of origin country.
Highlighted importance of tracing funds through complex international transactions.
Importance:
A landmark UK case underlining the reach of AML laws and judicial authority over international funds.
5. Enforcement Directorate v. Nikesh Tarachand Shah (India, 2019)
Facts:
ED investigated and prosecuted for laundering proceeds from real estate frauds, involving assets in Dubai and India.
Held:
Supreme Court of India upheld the ED’s powers to attach foreign assets under PMLA.
Affirmed cooperation with foreign jurisdictions for recovery of laundered proceeds.
Stressed on wide jurisdictional reach of Indian AML laws.
Importance:
Sets precedent for attachment and recovery of foreign assets in cross-border laundering cases.
6. Libyan Investment Authority v. Goldman Sachs International (2011)
Facts:
Libyan sovereign fund sued Goldman Sachs for fraud and laundering connected to derivative transactions.
Held:
UK courts examined allegations of fraud and improper financial transactions.
Addressed the laundering of sovereign wealth via complex financial instruments.
Highlighted importance of due diligence and cross-border regulatory scrutiny.
Importance:
Shows how financial institutions face liability across jurisdictions for facilitating money laundering.
7. United States v. Alstom SA (2014)
Facts:
French company Alstom paid bribes to win contracts in multiple countries; laundering was involved to conceal bribe proceeds.
Held:
Alstom entered a plea agreement with US authorities paying $772 million in penalties.
Cooperation between US and foreign regulators highlighted.
Demonstrates enforcement of anti-bribery and money laundering laws beyond national borders.
Summary Table of Key Principles
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| US v. HSBC Bank | Global banks must maintain AML controls; multi-jurisdiction enforcement |
| Nirav Modi & Mehul Choksi | Challenges of extradition and asset recovery in cross-border laundering |
| US v. Viktor Bout | Extradition and cooperation essential for transnational laundering prosecutions |
| R v. El-Guerrouj (UK) | Jurisdiction over laundering proceeds irrespective of origin |
| ED v. Nikesh Tarachand Shah (India) | Power to attach foreign assets and cooperation in cross-border AML enforcement |
| Libyan Investment Authority v. Goldman Sachs | Liability of financial institutions across borders for laundering |
| US v. Alstom SA | Enforcement of anti-bribery and laundering laws transcending jurisdictions |
Challenges in Cross-Jurisdictional Money Laundering Prosecution
Differing legal systems and standards of proof.
Lengthy and complex MLAT procedures.
Sovereignty concerns affecting evidence sharing.
Difficulty in tracing cryptocurrencies and decentralized assets.
Enforcement delays leading to dissipation of assets.
Conclusion
Money laundering across jurisdictions requires close cooperation between countries, robust legal frameworks, and proactive enforcement. Courts worldwide have upheld the principles of AML and taken serious action against offenders and facilitating institutions. The case laws illustrate practical and legal dimensions of prosecuting and preventing transnational money laundering.
RELATED Blog
0 comments