‘Indirect Method of Proof’ and the Kuwaiti Anti-Money Laundering Law: A Lesson from the UK
2021; RELX Group (Netherlands); Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
1556-5068
Autores Tópico(s)Corruption and Economic Development
ResumoThe money laundering offence (ML offence), as established by the Kuwaiti Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 106/2013 (“AML/CFT Act”), has the potential to combat financial crimes. The broad definition of ‘proceeds of crime’ and the ‘all crimes’ approach adopted in the AML/CFT Act are two features that help the ML offence to do so. In relation to Kuwait, where the problem of public corruption is a common, prevalent pattern of criminality, the ML offence becomes of paramount importance. Corruption can be effectively combated by the ML offence. Using the indirect method of proof, the ‘stand-alone’ ML offence can do the trick. Yet, the ML offence is underused by Kuwaiti practitioners; it is used as a secondary, additional charge. In this context, this paper builds on public policy work on ‘policy transfer’ and argues that rather than being a rational response to a real problem, the AML/CFT Act has been transferred to Kuwait based on a ‘coercive transfer’, and that process is responsible for the misapplication and misunderstanding among Kuwaiti practitioners of the AML law. To that end, the Kuwaiti law enforcement authorities, prosecutors, and judges should reconsider their understanding and implementation of the existing AML law, and effectively harness the role of the ML offence in counter-corruption function. This paper’s thesis is a feasible one. Instead of calling for legislating for new laws, which may be stunted by broader political factors, this paper argues for employing existing legal instruments.
Referência(s)