International anti-money laundering laws: the problems with enforcement

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore the underlying problem of tackling money laundering, namely, the difficulty of enforcing international laws and whether this is a problem which is too great to overcome in practice. Design/methodology/approach A doctrinal approach is used to discuss international anti-money laundering (AML) laws and question whether money laundering can be truly regarded as an international crime. A comparative approach with case studies of corruption in financial institutions illustrates the problems which law enforcement might encounter. The advantages and disadvantages of tackling money laundering will be highlighted to elucidate both the negative impacts of the crime and the reasons why some states may not be tackling money laundering as forcefully as they could. Findings Uniformity of AML laws among different countries may deter criminals from laundering money. The ratification of the Vienna Convention can help to facilitate uniformity of legal rules. States need robust domestic laws to tackle money laundering. Money laundering is an international crime, although not always a specific crime in international law. Moreover, it is generally advantageous to consider money laundering to be a specific crime under international law. Originality/value The article questions the effectiveness of current AML laws by examining the foundations of international law. Suggestions as to how uniformity can be achieved are given. A comparative approach is also used to demonstrate the extent of the crime, weaknesses in companies’ regulatory regimes and how each State responds to money laundering. The comparison also reveals State-specific issues which fuel money laundering. Moreover, the article explores the practical and legal advantages and disadvantages of money laundering being considered a specific crime in international law.