1. Background
Money Laundering Investigation Department
The following prohibited activities are mentioned as criminal elements for the crime of money laundering: converting or transferring property obtained from criminal activity with the aim of concealing, concealing or helping to protect the perpetrator from legal action; knowingly misrepresenting or changing the true nature, source, location, disposition, transaction, rights or ownership of such property; and knowingly acquiring, possessing and using property obtained from criminal activity. After the establishment of the Financial Task Force in 1989 under the auspices of the G-7, the institutional journey of preventing money laundering began with the creation of an obligation for every country to make legal, financial and structural arrangements by declaring the laundering of assets obtained from criminal activities a crime.
Property rights are a fundamental right of individuals as well as a matter of human rights. The state is a protected right. Many other fundamental and human rights issues are interrelated with the right to property. Effectiveness and efficiency are expected in the use of financial and economic resources to achieve the goal of prosperity of the state. Financial resources and means are key in the upliftment, protection and empowerment of citizens. Financial resources are essential for development. These examples establish the fact that a country cannot function without financial resources.
On the other hand, if these financial means and resources are misused and used criminally, it poses a challenge to the state system. The right of citizens to live in a fearless environment is undermined. There is a serious disruption to peace and security. Anti-state and anti-human activities destroy the values of democratic institutions, pushing society towards conflict and instability, creating a state of chaos, which is an obstacle to a democratic and civilized state.
Prevention and eradication of criminal use of property has become a matter of the greatest global importance today. Criminalization, investigation, prosecution and judicial action, confiscation of criminal assets have become short-term and long-term measures for this. For this, effective prevention, financial monitoring, criminalization, dual
Adoption of long-term measures of this system, and enhancement of international cooperation and collaboration are important aspects and foundations of systemic success.
2. Anti-Money Laundering System Pressure or Mandatory Need?
Globalization and rapid development of technology have created both opportunities and challenges in the world, along with the increase in personal relationships, institutional coordination, cooperation and mutual interdependence of people in the world. The development of information technology has developed methods that can convert any value and quantity of assets into an electronic value, and that can exchange only value without physical existence in property transactions. On the other hand, information technology is being misused to increase technology-based criminal incidents. It seems that the nature of information technology-based crimes is becoming more complex.
Since the main target of this type of technology-based crime is the transaction of property, such crimes create disruptions in the implementation of government policies and programs, pushing society towards instability in the long run. Primarily, information technology and globalization are not the only two responsible issues, but there are many other responsible reasons, which have been increasing organized and transnational criminal incidents. Political, economic, social, cultural, psychological reasons are responsible behind the occurrence of crimes. If there is a political, religious, ethnic war and armed rebellion, crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes begin. . People are forced to be displaced from their places of residence, minors are used, criminal activities are carried out against unarmed people. Rape, murder, kidnapping and hostage-taking, sexual crimes, etc. increase and this weakens the state.
When the state fails to address social discrimination, exclusion, deprivation, violence, inequality, oppression, exploitation and oppression by adopting effective measures, the social structure itself becomes disturbed and as a result, criminal incidents increase. Economic exploitation, inequality and the opaque and disproportionate distribution system of resources pose challenges to the fulfillment of basic human needs. As a result, crime is born.
Currently, the interdependence of individuals and entire nations in the world is increasing. The development of technology has transformed the world into a global village. Mutual relationships have begun to be viewed as a village. Just as there is a possibility of cancer in the human body, there is also a criminological belief that crime is a product of society. As the causes of crime have been discussed above, since crime and criminal incidents are a product of society and a social problem, and since it creates challenges in the official, formal system and arrangement of the state, a crime-free, safe and fearless society is a matter of need, desire and basic obligation of every nation, as well as a matter of minimum human rights of citizens.
The role of the state should be effective in minimizing criminal incidents and guaranteeing the right of the people to live in a fear-free environment with dignity. For this, the state has determined the process to ensure this by making laws and structural arrangements. The money laundering prevention system is a dynamic and innovative concept and system developed as a result of a global consensus.
It seems that the successful implementation of the money laundering prevention system can ensure governance integrity. The main objective of this system, which is implemented in accordance with the criminal justice system of each country, is to hide or disguise the illegal source of assets acquired through criminal activities, that is, to change the nature and form of criminal assets, thereby creating a distance between crime and property, preventing such assets from entering the financial and formal sectors as legitimate assets, increasing the integrity of the financial system, confiscating assets from crimes, preventing the use of assets in terrorist activities, and determining criminal liability. There are ample grounds to say that this system is a means of maintaining the effectiveness and transparency of governance and governance integrity and accountability for every country.
The impact of organized and transnational crimes is intense and risky. Since the main goal of such crimes is criminal profit, the impact of criminal acts is felt in different places, the network of crimes is created, and the misuse of financial resources hinders the financial stability as well as the goal of good governance of the state and the journey to prosperity, global interest and activism are necessary in preventing financial crimes. For this, new dimensions of coordination and cooperation have been added.
The mutual evaluation of each country in relation to the prevention of money laundering every 10 years has made countries more responsible for the compliance, implementation and effectiveness of the legal provisions and standards made for the prevention of financial crimes. The resources required for crime are obtained through criminal means, which creates chaos in the world’s currency, banking, financial and trade sectors, erodes financial integrity, weakens the state’s ability to govern, weakens the state of good governance, and creates a deadlock in development and prosperity.
Thus, organized and transnational crime incidents cannot be appropriately and effectively treated by the laws, structures and systems of any single country, this requires global consensus, cooperation, coordination and unity. For this reason, the Financial Action Task Force was established as an effort to make legal provisions to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing under the auspices of the G-7, and based on its 40 recommendations, an anti-money laundering system has been duly established in every country. It can be said that this is not a foreign pressure, but an essential implementation tool to make the governance system of every country accountable, responsible and transparent and to promote financial cleanliness.
3. Property: Development and Destruction
The country can be made prosperous and advanced by using financial resources according to the policies and plans of the state. Efficient use and mobilization of financial resources is necessary to achieve short-term and long-term goals of development. Controlling resource leakage and zero tolerance against corrupt activities are issues of equal importance to all countries of the world. Property is the means and goal of prosperity. On the contrary, misuse of property is certain to create a deadlock in the very objectives of the state and lead to the path of destruction. For example, why is gambling defined as a crime? Gambling is a misuse of property, and it is prohibited because it hinders someone’s personal prosperity.
Misuse of property gives rise to serious problems like terrorism. Which leads the human community to a state of tragedy and barbarity. When criminal incidents occur in series or the state system faces terrorism, a large amount of money is spent, creating a deadlock in the objectives of development and prosperity. It undermines the concept of good governance. The lives of citizens become difficult. Production decreases. Human rights are neglected. Violations of humanitarian law are encouraged in a series.
The main objective of the money laundering prevention system is to prevent the laundering of assets acquired through criminal activities and the financing of terrorist activities. Promoting the integrity of the financial system and bringing the assets obtained from criminal activities to the state treasury are two major tasks at the heart of this system. Considering the sensitivity of financing terrorist activities, it can be understood that financing terrorist activities is serious since the intention to support terrorists is the basis for establishing an offense in our existing legal system.
In order to eliminate the criminal use of property, this system has integrated and determined the responsibilities of all government and private sectors of the state involved in property transactions. For the successful implementation of this system, the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force also indicate that the country should fulfill its international obligations to prevent money laundering by establishing a multi-dimensional and automated system.
The law enforcement mechanisms in the state, high-level central bodies, financial, banking, insurance, commercial, real estate business, casino and other sectors are mainly responsible for implementing this system. Similarly, the coordination committee and implementation committee provided for by the relevant act, the strategic investigation coordination mechanism and the regulatory body coordination mechanism are also responsible for implementing this system. Thus, the main objective of including all state bodies, from the highest level to the private sector, in this system is to prevent money laundering, but there are other underlying global objectives within it –
Maintaining financial cleanliness,
Eradicating criminal use of property,
Providing strong financial intelligence,
Bringing suspicious transactions, border transactions, and suspicious activities under the jurisdiction of law enforcement agencies through financial monitoring,
To determine whether a crime has been committed by analyzing it from the perspective of suspicion,
To determine criminal liability,
To confiscate and return to the country of origin the property obtained from and used in the crime, to plan the use of the property confiscated by the state after completing the due process of law,
To prevent financing of terrorist activities and to implement the obligations created by the international treaties and agreements on the prevention of terrorist activities, and to implement the sanctions list related to the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. This includes adopting legal and procedural measures to freeze the assets and funds of listed terrorist groups or organizations, imposing travel and arms embargoes,
In particular, it is recognized that every country should be prepared to freeze the assets and funds of any terrorist group, group or organization without delay for targeted financial sanctions, and therefore, states should prepare accordingly,
##determine the responsibilities of the indicative institutions, regulatory bodies, and law enforcement agencies and provide them with the necessary authority to fulfill those responsibilities,
##develop a mechanism that can conduct investigation, prosecution, and adjudication by adopting a risk-based approach To,
To increase global cooperation and partnership in crime prevention by exchanging information, data and evidence based on international coordination and cooperation,
To control criminal activities committed through the misuse of legal persons,
To regulate the production and transmission of weapons,
While studying the structural framework of the anti-money laundering system to fulfill the above-mentioned objectives adopted by this system, it seems that every country should build a structure related to (Preventive Measures (From Rec 9 to 23) and law enforcement (From Rec 30 to 31) as recommended by the Financial Action Task Force. In terms of structural arrangements and work responsibilities, there are two types of reporting institutions under Preventive Measures, namely financial and non-financial professionals. In the context of Nepal, many legal provisions of the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2064 are related to preventive measures.
Basically, reporting institutions have to analyze and identify their transactions from the perspective of sensitivity and risk of money laundering and terrorist financing offenses in the course of their work. According to the guidelines of the Financial Intelligence Unit, reports of border transactions, suspicious transactions and suspicious activities have to be given to the Financial Intelligence Unit. Similarly, in addition to this main responsibility, the following matters are the responsibility of the institutions –
Identifying the customers with whom they do business when having a business relationship or doing any transaction,
Adopting simplified and comprehensive measures in terms of customer identification,
Taking information available from third parties or socially as a basis in the process of customer identification,
Adopting a risk-based system by analyzing the identification and assessment of risks,
Complying with the standards related to the prevention of money laundering and financing of terrorist activities,
To arrange for a compliance officer,
To maintain records,
To maintain confidentiality,
To comply with orders and instructions given by regulatory bodies.
4. Investigation and prosecution of money laundering offences
Prior to the amendment of the Money Laundering Prevention Act 2064 dated 2080. 12. 30, the Money Laundering Investigation Department was the investigative body, but the amendment has given the responsibility of investigation to the bodies investigating various related offences. The department itself is an investigative body.
The investigation of money laundering offences will be carried out along with the identification and analysis of criminal elements during the investigation of the related offences, while there is a provision for the investigation of offences related to financial investment in terrorist activities by the Nepal Police. In this regard, the Nepal Police is currently the largest investigative body. When discussing the nature of the crime of money laundering and financing of terrorism, this is a technically defined crime.
The structure of this crime is seen to be complex. By circumventing the legal structures and processes designed for crime prevention, the parties involved in the crime create rigid and complex structures of the crime, misuse the facilities and concessions of civil law to avoid state surveillance and legal action, use advanced technology in the crime, exploit trade and commerce, use the financial system, misuse legal persons, and create complexity in the crime and create complexity in the investigation and prosecution itself.
Recognizing that investigation, prosecution, and criminal prosecution alone are not effective means of preventing such financial crimes, the 40-point recommendations developed by the Financial Action Task Force include provisions such as risk-based systems, coordination, criminalization, identification of beneficial owners, regulatory supervision, and international assistance.
5. For the success of the system
Since the anti-money laundering system itself is a technical subject, it is necessary to pay attention to the following subject areas for the successful implementation of this system:
A. International Responsibilities:
Since the efforts of any single country in the world will not be successful and meaningful in addressing issues such as corruption prevention, terrorism prevention, money laundering prevention, climate change, human rights protection, and natural environmental destruction, among others, which are disturbing the global community and creating challenges in the lives of individuals, there is no alternative but to implement the commitments made by the country at the international level by concluding international conventions as a result of common consensus at the global level and fulfilling the obligations created by those conventions. Since the prevention of money laundering, the prevention of transnational organized crime, and the suppression of terrorism have recently become a matter of unified interest and concern of the global community, a new door of global coordination and cooperation has opened for this.
##ป. Adoption of a risk-based system:
There are mainly two major dimensions in the anti-money laundering system. Regulatory and punitive. Under regulation, indicative institutions and regulatory responsibilities are determined. According to this principle and belief, legal structural and financial processes are determined. Adoption of a risk-based system means that all the relevant institutions, including regulatory bodies and law enforcement agencies, involved in this system should identify, assess and understand the risks under them and decide on a risk reduction strategy accordingly. Generally, within the adoption of a risk-based system, priority should be given to the allocation, use and action of resources in the areas where the risk is higher.
Similarly, there are various elements that create risk. Those elements should be identified and mitigation measures should be adopted. The regulatory body and the investigative body should assess their risks under them and the relevant institutions should assess the risks based on their service and product distribution channels, geographical location, etc. and adopt mitigation measures accordingly. The country should adopt risk reduction measures based on the overall results of the national risk assessment. The money laundering prevention system is a risk-based system.
Risk is the product of Threat and Vulnerability. In systemic terms, Threat is an external element that is related to money laundering, which creates criminal proceeds. The crime of money laundering basically involves the conversion of assets from illegal sources and assets obtained from criminal activities into legal sources and forms. For this, assets are brought into the financial sector. This system recognizes that there should be adequate preparation related to compliance, including identifying the parties involved in the transaction of that asset with the financial sector, verifying and examining the documents that keep records, identifying suspicious matters and transmitting information for financial monitoring, maintaining the confidentiality of transactions, and identifying high-ranking officials.
If all compliance measures are not effective, the risk increases by exploiting the financial system to identify customer transactions and assets, including whether they are related to the crime or not. However, if the financial sector has adequate procedures and processes for the transaction of such assets, no matter how high the threat, the vulnerability will be low, so the amount of risk will also be reduced. This does not affect financial integrity. The financial system cannot be exploited, so it is imperative to adopt a risk-based system in this system.
Recommendation No. 1 of the Financial Action Task Force is related to adopting a risk-based system. In the current context, Nepalese law has placed the responsibility of risk assessment on the shoulders of the reporting institution and the law enforcement agency, so it is understood that the risk-based system is of particular importance.
##c.Generous justice and participatory culture:
There is a system of liberal justice for crimes such as corruption, money laundering and revenue leakage. The main reason for this is that in these crimes, not a specific individual is the victim, but the entire state becomes the victim and victimized. Therefore, by providing the right to file a complaint or information at any time, in any written or oral manner, to anyone who comes to know about such a crime, the protection of the democratic right of the common citizens of that country to participate in the governance system through vigilance should be ensured. The fact that the fundamental right of citizens to participate in every activity of the state is ensured by the jurisprudential recognition that has adopted the principle of liberality in the issue of the source of information and the right to information in such crimes.
##d## Coordination and Collaboration
On a systemic basis, Sections 6 to 7f of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2064 (2007) All banks, financial institutions, insurance companies, real estate agents, casinos, auditors, etc., and their regulatory bodies, including Nepal Rastra Bank, Nepal Insurance Authority, Nepal Securities, Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation,
Inland Revenue Department, Bar Council, Nepal Chartered Accountants Institute, Company Registrar, etc., are responsible for implementing the system through a systematic legal system and ensuring its success. A. When studying the provisions in Sections 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 14A., 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 34, 36, 40, 4, etc. of the Act, the investigative bodies are mainly responsible.
##e. Agility of transaction monitoring and reporting system:
When analyzed in terms of international obligations, it appears that recommendations No. 20 and 29 of the Task Force are particularly related to the transaction monitoring and reporting system. In this, the reporting institutions are primarily responsible for developing business relationships by identifying the customers who come to do business with them, the transactions and assets they do, and reporting suspicious transactions, managing records of their work, and assessing risks.
Since the Anti-Money Laundering System defines all such entities as indicative entities where property is transacted, indicative entities are considered to be the gateways of this system, and therefore the relationship of indicative entities with the Financial Intelligence Unit in the case of suspicious transaction/threshold transaction reporting is with the Financial Intelligence Unit. There is a provision that the unit evaluates and analyzes the matters reported to the Financial Intelligence Unit by indicative entities and transmits the findings of the analysis to law enforcement agencies as a source of information for investigative purposes.
The Financial Intelligence Unit is in fact the Cardio Vascular System of this system. Just as the heart collects blood from different parts of the body in the human body and sends it to different parts of the body, the financial information unit also receives information from various reporting institutions, analyzes it and sends the analysis results to the law enforcement agencies, and since information makes the system lively and active, the financial information unit can be said to be the heart of this system.
Since the crime of money laundering is itself a financial crime, financial information is of utmost importance in establishing this crime. Financial monitoring and financial analysis are the basis for determining whether the transaction of property is related to any crime or whether there is any reasonable basis to suspect or not, or whether the party involved in the transaction is involved in any crime or not, so reporting and intelligence play an important role in this system.
##f##. ##Effective measures for identifying beneficial owners:
##
##
## (a) The issue of beneficial ownership is linked to the registration process of a legal person or legal entity. The transparency and availability of information related to beneficial ownership are important aspects of this system. This is a concept related to Recommendations No. 24 and 25 of the Financial Action Task Force. The current Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2064 (2007) appears to have given the Office of the Registrar of Companies the power to seize a legal entity if it is confirmed that the real owner has established a legal entity by hiding the real owner. In our case, there are three main bases for the definition of the real owner: (b) Share ownership) more than 15 percent (c) Ability to appoint directors (d) Ability to influence decisions (e) The recognition and legal system for identifying the real owner is that the party involved in the crime should be punished. According to this jurisprudential recognition, if a third party is used in the crime, the person who benefits from it should also be brought to justice. On this basis, identifying the real owner is important for law enforcement agencies. On the other hand, some acts committed without intent do not incur criminal liability. Therefore, in the following clause (a)(c)(c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2064, it is mentioned that the intention is to receive or receive the property knowingly or with reasonable grounds to believe that it is the property obtained from the crime. Since Sub-section (3) of Section 34 provides for the protection of the rights of innocent persons who are not involved in the crime, the issue of whether another person is a participant in the crime committed by one person is an important aspect of jurisprudence, so the task of identifying the real owner is important in this system. In terms of preventive measures, identifying the real owner is also the highest priority task of the reporting institutions. Because the person doing the transaction is doing the transaction on his own behalf or on behalf of someone else.
The real owner needs to be identified to determine whether the person behind the curtain is involved in any criminal activity or not and whether the transaction amount is related to any crime or not.
If the real owner cannot be identified correctly, the property acquired through criminal activities will enter the financial system and the basic purpose of this system of maintaining financial integrity will be blurred.
Government of Nepal v. Sapana Malla et al.’
(Case No. 080-CR-0055)
Similarly, the defendant Chhabi Kumari Khatri, Surgeon V. K. The prosecutor has not been able to present any objective evidence that he had conspired with his daughter Sapna Malla to get her married, to get the life insurance of Surgeon V. A. or to kill Surgeon V. A. or participated in the crime. The defendant himself has denied the alleged crime from the beginning. There is no evidence of the co-accused. It seems that his daughter Sapna Malla gave some money to her mother and even bought a piece of land with that money. There is no reason and basis to know that she earned money from criminal activities and there is no basis to know that she knowingly received that money. Although giving money to her mother is a basis to prove the alleged crime in the case of defendant Sapna Malla, her mother, defendant Chhabi Kumari Malla, who received that money, is found to be innocent. Therefore, it is held that the property acquired from the money received by defendant Chhabi Kumari Khatri is liable to be confiscated. In her case, it has not been proven that she committed the crime charged in other charges. She is held to be acquitted of the charges.
Mutual Legal Assistance and International Coordination:
Since the crime of money laundering is a transnational crime, it is found that the crime is committed in one country of the world, the criminal proceeds are generated in another country and the transactions are carried out in different countries. Therefore, Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2064 has assumed extra-territorial jurisdiction. Since the provisions of Recommendations No. 37 to 40 of the Financial Action Task Force are related to international cooperation and coordination, the extradition of criminals has a special place in this system. It is necessary to have an effective arrangement in this regard, as international cooperation and coordination plays an important role in identifying, searching and recovering assets abroad to make investigation, prosecution and judicial proceedings effective by obtaining information and evidence from foreign countries, as well as determining the liability of parties involved in crimes and implementing punishment.
Kathmandu District Court against Prithvi Bahadur Pandey, #Babarmahal, #Kathmandu including
##
# Australia’s request for mutual legal assistance is corruption currency It seems that the issue is related to criminal offenses such as money laundering. According to Section 4(b) of the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2070, mutual legal assistance cannot be provided “in cases of criminal nature where the punishment is imprisonment for less than one year or a fine of less than Rs. 10,000”. Since mutual legal assistance has been requested in the context of offenses punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of 10 (ten) years as per the provisions of the Crime Act, 1958 and the Criminal Code Act, 1995 of Australia, there is no legal obstacle to providing mutual legal assistance even in terms of the extent of imprisonment or fine. It seems that collection or certified copies of bank, financial or business records and other related documents can be provided in accordance with Section 5(c) of the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2070. Since organized crimes including corruption and money laundering have been declared as crimes by both Nepalese law and Australian law, it cannot be assumed that the situation of double criminality does not exist in the context of providing this mutual legal assistance.
G. Proportional, effective and dissuasive punishment:
This system recognizes that the nature of punishment should be proportional, effective and dissuasive. Proportional punishment means that punishment should be given according to the degree of involvement of the offender in the crime, while dissuasive punishment means that the offender and other people in society should create a situation where the fear of punishment prevents them from committing the crime again, while effective punishment means that punishment should not only serve its purpose, but also fulfill its purpose. This means that since the purpose of the state is inherent in the principle of punishment, punishment should be given by considering the degree of guilt of the offender, the impact that the crime has caused or may cause, and other factors. The interpretation made by the Special Court in the following case in this regard was also found to be relevant.
Government of Nepal vs. Sapana Malla et al.
(Case No. 080-CR-0055)
The preamble of the Criminal Offences (Determination and Implementation of Punishment) Act, 2074 BS seems to have the objective of determining appropriate punishment for criminal offenders and implementing such punishment. Section 13 of the same Act directs that the purpose of the offence should be to deter the offender or other person and to protect the society or community, while Section 14 (a) provides that the punishment should not be more than proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of guilt of the offender. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 15 provides that the punishment should be based on the gravity of the offence and the degree of guilt of the offender, and Clause (c) provides that the punishment should be based on the gravity of the offence and the aggravating and mitigating factors. Sub-section (2) of the same Section provides that the offender of a heinous or serious nature should be punished with imprisonment.
The facts considered above have shown that the nature of the offence in question in this case is such that it is not easily conceivable in Nepali society. The assets obtained by committing heinous crimes for purely financial gain have been managed, distributed and even used within a short period of time. Although these defendants do not appear to have been convicted of any crime before, it appears that they have planned and successfully carried out this crime as if it were a professional criminal. A person who does things like marrying, taking out insurance, and killing people and sharing the insurance proceeds is likely to do this kind of thing again. This shows the need to set the punishment in such a way as to prevent and deter them from engaging in such activities again and in the case of other persons.
Confiscation and management of property obtained from crime:
As the analysis and citation in the nature of punishment above have shown, the main objective of the money laundering prevention system is to discourage criminals. Therefore, the central principle of this system is to bring the property obtained through due process of law from the ownership of the criminal to the state treasury. If its main objective is to eliminate the criminal use of property, then the philosophy that the owner of criminal property cannot be a person is inherent in this system.
Since the criminal use of property is a challenge to human rights, peace and security, the effectiveness of short-term and long-term measures for the identification, search and seizure of criminal property and its seizure is a relevant issue of this system. Therefore, the judiciary and various government agencies must work diligently to bring the assets that are to be confiscated by the court order to the state treasury in a timely manner.
## Capacity Development and Training:
Since financial investigation is a technical subject in itself, its investigation requires a manpower with specific knowledge and professional skills. In committing crimes, criminals use sophisticated technology and professionals, but if there is no manpower who can conduct investigations according to the structure and nature of the crime, the expected results cannot be achieved and the system becomes a failure. The investigation of crimes is not an administrative task but a technical task. For this, knowledge of the country’s criminal justice system, the prosecution system, the legal system of neighboring countries, jurisprudence, evidence, law, judicial process, knowledge of criminal property identification and search, knowledge of investigation methods and special investigation methods, knowledge of professional accounting systems, knowledge of the English language, and integrity are required. In bodies like Land Revenue and Municipalities, technical work cannot be performed by manpower who does not have the knowledge of general correspondence. For this, the government must have a plan for manpower production. Otherwise, effective results cannot be achieved from the investigation of this crime and the system itself will fail.
6. Conclusion
The offence of money laundering includes the concealment, concealment, conversion and transfer of the illegal source of property obtained from criminal activities, knowingly or having reasonable grounds to believe that the property is the proceeds of crime, concealing or concealing the true nature, source, location, disposition, transaction, right or ownership of such property, knowingly acquiring, holding and using such property as the proceeds of crime, and aiding, abetting, abetting or conspiring to commit the above acts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted in the case of Madhav Kumar Bhagat that money laundering is not a predicate offence in itself but a co-product of the predicate offence. This makes it clear that the crime of money laundering is not a crime of acquiring wealth, but a process of concealing and defrauding the illegal source of wealth acquired from other criminal activities and making such wealth legitimate by committing prohibited acts such as concealing and defrauding it.
(The author is the Director General of the Money Laundering Investigation Department##, ##From Sampati Patrika 2081 Courtesy)
प्रतिक्रिया दिनुहोस्