Money Laundering And Financing Of Terrorism Fatf Compliance
⚖️ 1. Introduction: Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing
🔹 Money Laundering
Definition: The process of converting illegally obtained money into seemingly legitimate assets.
Purpose: To hide the origin of illicit funds and integrate them into the financial system.
Typical predicate offenses: Drug trafficking, corruption, smuggling, fraud, tax evasion.
🔹 Financing of Terrorism
Definition: Providing funds, directly or indirectly, to support terrorist activities, regardless of whether the funds are legally obtained.
Goal: Facilitate terrorism by funding operations, recruitment, or propaganda.
🔹 International Framework
Financial Action Task Force (FATF): Intergovernmental body setting standards to combat money laundering and terrorist financing (AML/CFT).
Key FATF Recommendations:
Criminalize money laundering and terrorist financing.
Implement customer due diligence (CDD) in financial institutions.
Freeze and confiscate terrorist assets.
International cooperation in investigations.
🔹 Bangladesh Compliance
Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), 2012 (amended 2019)
Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 2009
Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit (BFIU) under Bangladesh Bank
Objectives: Align domestic law with FATF standards and avoid blacklisting.
⚖️ 2. Role of FATF Compliance
Prevention of Terrorist Financing:
Banks and institutions required to monitor transactions, report suspicious activities, and implement CDD.
International Reputation:
Compliance avoids FATF grey/black listing, ensuring foreign investment and banking relations remain healthy.
Legal Enforcement:
Prosecutions under AMLA and ATA must satisfy FATF standards, ensuring effectiveness and fairness.
Prosecution and Asset Recovery:
FATF compliance ensures confiscation of proceeds of crime and freezing of terrorist assets.
⚖️ 3. Key Cases in Bangladesh
Case 1: Bangladesh Bank v. Standard Chartered & Others (2016)
Facts:
Alleged large-scale money laundering through international bank accounts.
Funds allegedly linked to illegal remittances and shell companies.
Judgment:
The court upheld Bangladesh Bank’s authority to investigate and freeze accounts.
Reinforced AMLA powers to freeze suspicious funds and prosecute responsible parties.
Significance:
Emphasized bank accountability and reporting obligations under AMLA.
Highlighted importance of financial intelligence for AML/CFT compliance.
Case 2: State v. Shahidul Islam (2018)
Facts:
Shahidul Islam was charged under AMLA 2012 for laundering funds generated through drug trafficking and tax evasion.
Funds were invested in real estate and businesses to conceal the origin.
Judgment:
Convicted and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment with heavy fines.
Court ordered confiscation of illegally laundered assets.
Significance:
First high-profile conviction under AMLA.
Demonstrated the judiciary’s support for FATF-aligned AML enforcement.
Case 3: State v. Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) Financiers (2019)
Facts:
Several financiers of terrorist operations by JMB were prosecuted under ATA 2009.
Investigations revealed funds were collected via donations, informal banking networks, and remittances.
Judgment:
Defendants convicted of terrorist financing.
Courts authorized freezing of bank accounts and assets, in line with FATF recommendations.
Some were sentenced to death or life imprisonment due to direct involvement in financing terrorist acts.
Significance:
Showed terrorist financing cases are separate from predicate crimes.
Courts recognized need for financial tracking and asset confiscation.
Case 4: State v. Habib & Others (2017) – Counterfeiting and Money Laundering
Facts:
Habib and associates were involved in counterfeiting currency and laundering proceeds through businesses.
Funds used to finance illegal imports and offshore investments.
Judgment:
Convicted under AMLA and Penal Code sections related to fraud and forgery.
Court emphasized international cooperation for tracking offshore assets.
Significance:
Highlighted integration of AMLA with traditional criminal law.
Reinforced that money laundering extends to cross-border and offshore financial crimes.
Case 5: State v. Morshed Alam & Associates (2020) – Bank Fraud & Terrorist Financing Link
Facts:
Morshed Alam laundered funds obtained from bank fraud and embezzlement.
Some laundered funds were traced to terrorist-affiliated groups.
Judgment:
Convicted under AMLA 2012 and ATA 2009.
Confiscation of bank accounts and personal assets ordered.
Court cited FATF guidelines to justify enhanced scrutiny and penalties.
Significance:
Reinforced dual prosecution under AML and ATA when funds are linked to terrorism.
Courts increasingly rely on international standards (FATF) in reasoning.
⚖️ 4. Judicial Principles from AML/CFT Cases
| Principle | Case Reference | Judicial Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Banks’ reporting duty | Bangladesh Bank v. Standard Chartered | Banks must report suspicious transactions |
| Asset confiscation | Shahidul Islam (2018) | Court can seize laundered assets |
| Terrorist financing = separate offense | JMB Financiers (2019) | Funding terrorism prosecuted independently |
| Cross-border AML | Habib & Others (2017) | AMLA applies to offshore laundering |
| FATF compliance guidance | Morshed Alam (2020) | Courts consider international AML/CFT standards |
⚖️ 5. Summary: FATF Compliance in Bangladesh
Legislation: AMLA 2012, ATA 2009 align with FATF recommendations.
Enforcement: Courts actively prosecute money laundering and terrorist financing, with asset confiscation.
International Coordination: Cases increasingly involve cross-border transactions and offshore assets, requiring cooperation with foreign jurisdictions.
Judicial Approach: Courts rely on evidence from banks, financial intelligence units, and international standards.
Impact: Strengthens financial system integrity, deters illicit flows, and improves Bangladesh’s global reputation.
RELATED Blog
comments