Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing

Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing

Money laundering has turned into a major concern for legislators over the past few years, particularly due to its association with terrorism. People working in sectors that are regulated are required to report information where they know, suspect, or have established reasonable grounds for suspecting or knowing that an individual or an organization is attempting to or is involved in terrorist financing or laundering of money. This legislative development in the UK imply that financial analysts and auditors risk being transformed into agents of law enforcement for the state within private sector. Since they often work in regulated sectors, auditors are necessitated to file reports to a database online, though have limited guidance with regard to what constitutes suspicion or how a suspicious transaction can be identified. Therefore, understanding the meaning of suspicion as well as reasonable grounds to suspect in line with the responsibility to report cases of money laundering is imperative.

Establishing Suspicion for Money Laundering

With regard to reporting instances of money laundering, suspicion does exist across a broad mental prospect – from the mere instinct that something being done is wrong to near confidence that basing on facts that are evaluated objectively, a misconduct of some kind has been or is being committed. The foundations upon which suspicious instances that could relate to money laundering are reported are derived from a number of causes, some of which are certain objectively, while others are less factual and indefinite. In this light, suspicion for involvement in terrorist financing or money laundering is not established by the use of a given particular process, but rather, surveillance has to identify and effectively process varied information to build a mineable and coherent database comprehensible by the authorities for oversight and control. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act of 2002, the task to define suspicion is assigned the courts. For instance, in the case R versus Da Silva of 2006, it was specified that there must be more than an imaginary likelihood that an individual is involving themselves in money laundering. However, the law did not necessitate such suspicion to be firmly grounded or clear, or founded on reasonable grounds.

Reasonable Grounds for Suspecting Money Laundering

For one to report a given transaction, he/she must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the transaction is linked to terrorist financing or money laundering. An attempt to execute a transaction does not always imply that the transaction qualifies to be suspicious. Nonetheless, the very conditions surrounding the transaction can contribute to one forming reasonable grounds for suspicion of involvement in money laundering. As a general guidance, a given transaction(s) might be linked to terrorist activity or money laundering when you think that it raises unanswered questions or accounts for mistrust, apprehension, or discomfort. In essence, the framework in which the transaction takes place or one attempts to complete it is a significant aspect in determining suspicion. Even though whether a transaction amounts to suspicion varies from business to business, an array of indicators could make a person have reasonable grounds to suspect that given statements or transactions are probably linked to money laundering and terrorism financing. Some indicators that might point to a suspicious transaction include: i) a client has accounts with several banks in one area without any apparent reason, ii) a client conducts his/her activities at different locations in the attempt to prevent detection, iii) an individual or organization appears to informally record large transactions using unconventional methods of bookkeeping, and iv) a client appears to be acting on behalf of another party that does not want to be exposed.