Financial crimes such as money laundering and corruption have been unsettled issues and a serious concern in a world where everything is moving fast with refined digital connection. With this known fact, combating crimes has been a constant challenge for enforcers to detect and impose appropriate sanction on those who are involved. Legal framework and regulatory mechanisms, be it regulatory and enforcement bodies or sets of laws, have to adequately subsist to observe and if not eliminate, minimise the consequence of these illegal activities.
It is apparent that the proceeds of corruption would be rendered of no use if does not go through the process of laundering as aforementioned. This is reasoned as individuals or public officials who have …show more content…
This offence contributes largely to money laundering regime. Legal framework and regulatory mechanisms for both of these crimes are parted, distinctive and obviously there is no overlap when implementation by legal enforcers takes place. In most countries, the problem with some of the mechanisms is that they may not focus on the possible nexus exist between money laundering and corruption.
Moreover, the lack of focus on the meeting point of money laundering and corruption may cause inefficient usage of time as enforcement officers will need to glance at various mechanisms at one go and try to match with relevant provisions or regulations relating to money laundering and corruption in a separate manner.
As Malaysia is one of the developing Asian countries, corruption has been a prevalent crime. To measure corruption level globally, Transparency International (TI) was founded in 1993 by a small group of people who wanted to put an end to corruption and the many ways it undermines positive progress in the world. It consists of more than 100 chapters– locally established, independent organisations – that fight corruption in their respective countries.
According to TI, as of 2014, Corruption Perception Index (CPI) for Malaysia is 52 out of 100 score and is at the 50th rank out of 175 countries. Table 1 shows the statistics between 2008 and …show more content…
Through the transfer of proceeds into a bank account or other negotiable instrument, it is apparent that the originator is attracting tax liability and other obligations. It can eventually allow reporting institutions such as banks to discover those illicit origins of the proceeds.
With the nature of money laundering being known, reporting mechanisms that impose an obligation on financial organisations and professions to declare suspicious transactions may serve as a useful additional tool in detecting potential offenders or criminal activities. Malaysia practices reporting obligations against potential money laundering and corruption activities.
Although the Malaysian AML law is thought to be a piece of legislation that provides a hindrance to money laundering, it may be not an adequate tool in preventing this activity entirely. Alongside, in depriving one’s possession of criminal proceeds, the financial institutions have to carry out the reporting duties efficiently in order to assist law enforcers in fully curbing the illegal activity. In this manner, institutions will have to vary between ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’
It is apparent that the proceeds of corruption would be rendered of no use if does not go through the process of laundering as aforementioned. This is reasoned as individuals or public officials who have …show more content…
This offence contributes largely to money laundering regime. Legal framework and regulatory mechanisms for both of these crimes are parted, distinctive and obviously there is no overlap when implementation by legal enforcers takes place. In most countries, the problem with some of the mechanisms is that they may not focus on the possible nexus exist between money laundering and corruption.
Moreover, the lack of focus on the meeting point of money laundering and corruption may cause inefficient usage of time as enforcement officers will need to glance at various mechanisms at one go and try to match with relevant provisions or regulations relating to money laundering and corruption in a separate manner.
As Malaysia is one of the developing Asian countries, corruption has been a prevalent crime. To measure corruption level globally, Transparency International (TI) was founded in 1993 by a small group of people who wanted to put an end to corruption and the many ways it undermines positive progress in the world. It consists of more than 100 chapters– locally established, independent organisations – that fight corruption in their respective countries.
According to TI, as of 2014, Corruption Perception Index (CPI) for Malaysia is 52 out of 100 score and is at the 50th rank out of 175 countries. Table 1 shows the statistics between 2008 and …show more content…
Through the transfer of proceeds into a bank account or other negotiable instrument, it is apparent that the originator is attracting tax liability and other obligations. It can eventually allow reporting institutions such as banks to discover those illicit origins of the proceeds.
With the nature of money laundering being known, reporting mechanisms that impose an obligation on financial organisations and professions to declare suspicious transactions may serve as a useful additional tool in detecting potential offenders or criminal activities. Malaysia practices reporting obligations against potential money laundering and corruption activities.
Although the Malaysian AML law is thought to be a piece of legislation that provides a hindrance to money laundering, it may be not an adequate tool in preventing this activity entirely. Alongside, in depriving one’s possession of criminal proceeds, the financial institutions have to carry out the reporting duties efficiently in order to assist law enforcers in fully curbing the illegal activity. In this manner, institutions will have to vary between ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’