Search results

Anti-money laundering is commonly recognized as a set of procedures, laws or regulations designed to reduce the practice of generating income through illegal actions. In Malaysia, the government and law enforcement agencies have stepped up their capacities and efforts to curb money laundering since 2001. One of these measures was the enactment of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) in 2001. The implementation costs on anti-money laundering requirements (AMLR) can be burdensome to those who are involved in enforcing them. The objective of this paper is to explore the perceived effectiveness of AMLR from the enforcement agencies- perspective. This is a preliminary study whose findings will help to give direction for further AML research in Malaysia. In addition, the results of this study provide empirical evidences on the perceived effectiveness of AMLR prior to further investigations on barriers and improvements of the implementation of the anti-money laundering regime in Malaysia.

A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "To disguise illegally obtained funds, money launderers have traditionally targeted banks, which accept cash and arrange domestic and international fund transfers. However, criminals seeking to hide illicit funds may also be targeting the U.S. securities markets. Although few documented cases exist of broker-dealer or mutual fund accounts being used to launder money, law enforcement agencies are concerned that criminals may increasingly try to use the securities industry for that purpose. Most broker-dealers or firms that process customer payments for mutual funds are subject to U.S. anti-money laundering requirements. However, unlike banks, most of these firms are not required to report suspicious activities. The Treasury Department is now developing a rule requiring broker-dealers to report suspicious activities. Treasury expects that the rule will be issued for public comment by the end of this year. Various intergovernmental groups, such as the Financial Action Task Force, have been working on recommendations that call for member nations to take various steps to combat money laundering through their financial institutions, including requiring securities firms to report suspicious activities. Although many members countries report that they have issued all or many of these recommendations and have applied them to their securities firms, it is difficult to determine how well the measures are being implemented and enforced."

Whereas the prudential supervision of credit and other financial institutions has been a core policy concern of the EU legislator in the aftermath of the 2008 Financial Crisis, the supervision of private sector entities within the European Anti-Money Laundering framework has been subject to less attention. However, on 20 July 2021, the European Commission intervened and published legislative proposals for two regulations and one directive, meant to boost the European response to the phenomenon of Money Laundering. This contribution – after having pointed out the shortcomings of the current legislative framework – pursues a twofold objective: first, offering an in-depth analysis of whether the Single Supervisory Mechanism, set up within the banking union for the purposes of prudential supervision, might be a useful precedent of Europeanisation to build up upon in matters of Anti-Money Laundering supervision, and second, commenting the possible approaches to be taken when setting up an EU level Anti-Money Laundering supervisor. The systemic cross-border importance of AML – beyond the euro area – warrants the establishment of a new EU agency specialised on AML, invested with more supervisory powers than EBA, ESMA and EIOPA and taking over the direct supervision of high-risk obliged entities, while indirectly supervising the remaining entities. It is argued furthermore that such institutional reform should necessarily be accompanied by the establishment of a Single Rulebook, which enjoys direct applicability across the EU.

This paper compares European Union anti-money laundering (AML) efforts with international efforts in scope and intensity through an analysis of the timeline of AML cooperation in Europe from 1980 to 2012, showing the creation or adoption date for relevant organizations and legislation, referred to as actions. The actors include United Nations bodies, the Financial Action Task Force, the Council of Europe, and European Union bodies. This paper also comments on the utility of different European Union (EU) integration theories in explaining the patterns in cooperation. The key finding of this paper is that international AML cooperation operates in waves, with the EU riding, instead of leading, each wave. The realist proposition that cooperation among the member states of the EU is limited to low-risk and high-gain projects best explains this pattern. However, the EU rear-guard position may be due to other factors, such as specific and lengthy legislative processes.