Money Laundering And Terrorist Financing
🔹 What is Money Laundering?
Money laundering involves disguising the origins of illegally obtained money, typically by transferring it through complex financial systems to make it appear legal.
🔹 What is Terrorist Financing?
Providing or collecting funds to support terrorist acts or organizations, regardless of whether the funds come from legal or illegal sources.
Important Laws (UK Context)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA)
Terrorism Act 2000
Money Laundering Regulations 2017
🔹 1. R v. Anwoir [2012] EWCA Crim 1074
Facts:
Defendant was charged with laundering proceeds of drug trafficking.
Legal Issue:
Did the defendant knowingly handle criminal property under POCA?
Judgment:
Court held that knowledge or suspicion is enough to establish liability under POCA. The prosecution must prove the defendant knew or suspected the property was criminal.
Principle:
➡ Awareness or willful blindness to criminal origin of funds is sufficient for money laundering charges.
🔹 2. United States v. Kilpatrick, 25 F.3d 158 (4th Cir. 1994)
(Though a US case, often cited in common law)
Facts:
Kilpatrick was involved in complex schemes to launder drug proceeds through legitimate businesses.
Legal Issue:
What constitutes “financial transaction” under anti-money laundering statutes?
Judgment:
Court interpreted “financial transaction” broadly to include any movement of money intended to conceal illicit origins.
Principle:
➡ Money laundering covers a wide range of transactions, including layering and integration stages.
🔹 3. R v. Haider [2017] EWCA Crim 98
Facts:
Haider was convicted for concealing terrorist property by moving funds through multiple accounts.
Legal Issue:
Was the evidence sufficient to prove intent to facilitate terrorism financing?
Judgment:
The court confirmed that even indirect support via financial transactions counts as terrorist financing.
Principle:
➡ Facilitating terrorism through financial means, knowingly or recklessly, is punishable.
🔹 4. R v. Abdullahi [2015] EWCA Crim 1108
Facts:
Defendant was involved in structuring cash deposits to avoid detection.
Legal Issue:
Is “structuring” (breaking large transactions into smaller ones) illegal under money laundering laws?
Judgment:
Court ruled structuring to evade reporting thresholds is an offence as it intends to conceal illicit activity.
Principle:
➡ Structuring is a form of money laundering aimed at avoiding regulatory scrutiny.
🔹 5. R v. Saik [2006] UKHL 18
Facts:
Saik was charged with handling proceeds of crime without knowing the precise criminal origin.
Legal Issue:
Does “knowing” the exact crime matter for laundering liability?
Judgment:
House of Lords held that suspicion or willful blindness suffices; exact knowledge is not necessary.
Principle:
➡ Willful blindness to suspicious funds establishes laundering liability.
🔹 6. R v. Farrell [2018] EWCA Crim 369
Facts:
Farrell moved funds internationally, claimed ignorance of terrorist links.
Legal Issue:
Is recklessness enough for terrorist financing?
Judgment:
Court held recklessness or deliberate ignorance can satisfy the mental element of the offence.
Principle:
➡ Mens rea includes recklessness in terrorist financing cases.
🔹 7. R v. Ahmed [2017] EWCA Crim 1005
Facts:
Ahmed was convicted for providing money to a known terrorist group.
Legal Issue:
Does providing funds indirectly to terrorists amount to an offence?
Judgment:
Yes; courts emphasize strict liability on financing terrorism.
Principle:
➡ Indirect financing, even via intermediaries, is criminalized.
⚖️ Summary Table
| Case | Law Applied | Legal Issue | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Anwoir (2012) | POCA 2002 | Knowledge of criminal property | Knowledge/suspicion enough for laundering |
| US v. Kilpatrick | US Money Laundering Law | Broad interpretation of transactions | Financial transaction includes any concealment act |
| R v. Haider (2017) | Terrorism Act 2000 | Concealing terrorist property | Even indirect facilitation is terrorist financing |
| R v. Abdullahi (2015) | POCA 2002 | Structuring transactions | Structuring to evade detection is criminal |
| R v. Saik (2006) | POCA 2002 | Mental element in laundering | Willful blindness or suspicion suffices |
| R v. Farrell (2018) | Terrorism Act 2000 | Recklessness in financing | Recklessness can establish terrorist financing intent |
| R v. Ahmed (2017) | Terrorism Act 2000 | Providing funds to terrorists | Indirect funding is criminalized |
🧠 Quick Recap Questions
What mental state is required to convict under money laundering laws, according to R v. Saik?
Why is “structuring” considered an offence under money laundering statutes?
How do courts treat indirect financing of terrorism, based on R v. Ahmed?
Can recklessness suffice for terrorist financing liability? Which case confirms this?
RELATED Blog
0 comments