Is the UK’s anti-money laundering regime “worth the candle”? A tentative cost-benefit analysis

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to raise, and consider, first-order questions about the United Kingdom’s anti-money laundering (AML) regime.Design/methodology/approachThe paper contrasts the original rationale for introducing AML and asset recovery to the UK with data on the assets recovered from organised crime and those involved in drug trafficking. It does this by analysing historical and contemporaneous literature – both official and academic.FindingsWhen assessed against its original aims of combating drugs and organised crime, the tentative conclusion is that the UK’s AML system does not appear to be worth the candle.Research limitations/implicationsWhile based upon publicly available information that is far from ideal, the analysis raises credible questions as to whether the UK’s AML regime is worthwhile and whether it could be done differently.Practical implicationsRaises the question of whether the impact of the AML regime could be made worthwhile by investing a great deal more in those law enforcement agencies that use the suspicious activity reporting regime. It also raises the question as to whether the AML regime could be re-purposed to achieve aims that are different from the original.Social implicationsGiven the financial costs, which run into billions of pounds, and the fact that the regime has failed to have a significant impact on the level of drug trafficking or the revenue of organised criminals, the paper raises questions as to when the policy can be re-designed or abandoned.Originality/valueWhile most other analytical work simply makes suggestions as to how to improve the number of inputs into the AML system, this paper provides a critical analysis of the costs and benefits of the AML regime in the UK.