The recent formulation of “having reasonable grounds to believe”

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to analyse the challenges in devising a suitable formulation to determine whether a person had reasonable grounds to believe that property dealt with represented the proceeds of an indictable crime in the context of money laundering offences. The paper also examines the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal’s recent formulation in HKSAR v. Yeung Ka Sing, Carson (decided July 2016) and evaluates international standards.Design/methodology/approachThe methodology adopted is partly a technical analysis of the various interpretations of “having reasonable grounds to believe” alongside a comparative approach drawing on international standards of the mens rea threshold and the position in the UK.FindingsThe findings are that the Court of Final Appeal’s formulation of “having reasonable grounds to believe” is the best possible outcome given the confines of the statutory provisions. The study confirms that the threshold set by the Court of Final appeal surpasses international standards; however, it argues that current international standards are in need of review.Originality/valueThis paper offers insight into the latest mens rea threshold of “having reasonable grounds to believe” in the context of Hong Kong’s anti-money laundering laws and compares international standards of the mens rea threshold. The discussion is of value to a wide audience both in Hong Kong and globally. It aims to provide guidelines to legal practitioners, law enforcement personnel, persons in the private and public sectors, academics and members of the public. This paper also seeks to provoke discussion as to whether international standards on the mens rea threshold should be reviewed with a view to strengthening international cooperation on the prevention of money laundering.