Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The fight against illicit finance: A critical review of the Labour government's policy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Banking Regulation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this article is to identify and critically consider the effectiveness of the Labour government's policy towards financial crime. The article highlights the general threat posed by financial crime, yet concentrates on the government's policies towards money laundering, fraud and terrorist financing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES AND NOTES

  • Haines, J. (2009) The national fraud strategy: New rules to crackdown on fraud. Company Lawyer 30 (7): 213.

    Google Scholar 

  • BBC News. (2009) Fraudster Madoff gets 150 years. 29 June, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8124838.stm, accessed 3 November 2010.

  • Association of Chief Police Officers. (2008) Police committed to tackling mortgage fraud. 5 March 2008, http://www.acpo.police.uk/pressrelease.asp?PR_GUID=%7B7F278B1E-CA47-4C00-AFD2-CC599E4BA786%7D, accessed 13 September 2009.

  • Chris Swecker, former FBI Assistant Director, Criminal Investigative Division, Introductory Statement: House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, 7 October 2004, as cited in Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008) 2007 Mortgage Report. Washington DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation.

  • International Monetary Fund. (2001) Financial System Abuse, Financial Crime and Money Laundering – Background Paper. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund, p. 5.

  • Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, s. 6(3).

  • Financial Action Task Force. (2004) Report on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Typologies 2003–2004. Paris: Financial Action Task Force.

  • National Audit Office. (2007) The Assets Recovery Agency – Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. London: National Audit Office, p. 4.

  • Vaithilingam, S. and Nair, M. (2007) Factors affecting money laundering: Lesson for developing countries. Journal of Money Laundering Control 10 (3): 352–366, at 353. Of the different types of financial crime discussed in this article it has been argued by several commentators that money laundering has greatest potential to affect a nation's economy and financial services system. See for example Paradise, T. (1998) Money laundering and international political economy. Journal of Money Laundering Control 1(3): 229–244 and Quirk, P. (1997) Money laundering: Muddying the macro economy. Finance and Development 34(1): 7–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • For an excellent commentary on the effects of money laundering on economies see Unger, B. (2007) The Scale and Impacts of Money Laundering. Cheltenham, UK: Edwards Elgar, pp. 109–182.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • The 9/11 Commission. (2004) The 9/11 Commission Report – Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. London: Norton & Company, p. 170.

  • Financial Action Task Force. (2007) Summary of Third Mutual Evaluation Report Anti-money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Paris: Financial Action Task Force, pp. 1–2.

  • HM Treasury. (2007) The Financial Challenge to Crime and Terrorism. London: HM Treasury, p. 6.

  • Home Office. (2004) One Step Ahead – A 21st Century Strategy to Defeat Organised Crime. London: Home Office, p. 1.

  • Scanlan, G. (2006) The enterprise of crime and terror – The implications for good business. Looking to the future – Old and new threats. Journal of Financial Crime 13 (2): 164–176, at 164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HM Treasury. (2002) Combating the Financing of Terrorism. London: HM Treasury, p. 11.

  • HM Treasury. (2004) Anti-money Laundering Strategy. London: HM Treasury.

  • It is important to note that other countries within the European Union have adopted a risk-based approach towards money laundering regulation. See Geiger, H. and Wuensch, O. (2007) The fight against money laundering: An economic analysis of a cost-benefit paradoxon. Journal of Money Laundering Control 10 (1): 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • For a similar view see Leong, A. (2007) Chasing dirty money: domestic and international measures against money laundering. Journal of Money Laundering Control 10 (2): 140–156, at 141–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • It is important to note that drug money laundering was initially criminalised by the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, while money laundering was criminalised by virtue of the Criminal Justice Act 1993.

  • Forston, R. (2008) Money laundering offences under POCA 2002. In: W. Blair and R. Brent (eds.) Banks and Financial Crime – The International Law of Tainted Money. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 155–202, at 157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 327.

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 328.

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 329.

  • For a definition of these terms see Forston21 at pp. 160–161.

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 330.

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 331.

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 332.

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 333A.

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 342.

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 327(1). The interpretation of criminal property broad because it includes property anywhere in the world, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 340(9).

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 340(1). For a critical discussion of the interpretation of this phrase see Bentley, D. and Fisher, R. (2008) Criminal property under PCOA 2002 – Time to clean up the law? Archbold News 2: 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 340(3)(a).

  • Hudson, A. (2009) The Law of Finance. London: Sweet and Maxwell, p. 345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 340(3)(b).

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 3403(a).

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 338.

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 338(1)(a).

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 338(1)(b).

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 327(2).

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 328(1).

  • This section amends and updates section 50 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 and section 93A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 38 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 and Article 46 of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 329(1).

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 329(1)(a).

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s, 329(1)(b).

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s, 329(1)(c).

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s, 329(1)(d).

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s, 329(2A), (2B).

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s, 329(2C).

  • The foundations of the offences created by the Terrorism Act 2000 are to be found in Home Office. (1998) Legislation Against Terrorism – A Consultation Paper. London: Home Office, For an interesting debate on the merger of the two offences of money laundering and terrorist laundering, see Alexander, R. (2009) Money laundering and terrorist financing: Time for a combined offence. Company Lawyer 30(7): 200–204.

  • Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, s. 146.

  • Financial Services Authority. (2006) Money Laundering Handbook. London: Financial Services Authority, The FSA adopted the MLR 1993 via the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Regulations (Relating to Money Laundering Regulations) 2001, S.I. 2001/1819.

  • Financial Services Authority. (2006) FSA Handbook. London: Financial Services Authority, at SYSC 3.1.1.

  • See Financial Services Authority53, at SYSC 3.2.6 C.

  • See Financial Services Authority53, at SYSC 3.2.6 H and I.

  • Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, ss. 165–166.

  • Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, ss. 167–168.

  • Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, s. 169.

  • Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, s. 172.

  • Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, s. 402 (1)(a). The scope of the FSA's prosecutorial powers were approved by the Supreme Court in R v. Rollins [2010] UKSC 39. See Ryder, N. (2010) The financial services authority and proceeds of crime act – too little too late? Financial Regulation International, September: 8–9.

  • Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, s. 206 (1).

  • See generally Ryder, N. (2008) The financial services authority and money laundering: A game of cat and mouse. Cambridge Law Journal 67 (3): 635–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • See for example Financial Services Authority. (2008) FSA fines firm and MLRO for money laundering controls failings. 29 October, http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2008/125.shtml, accessed 29 October 2008.

  • Financial Services Authority. (2010) FSA fines Alpari and its former money laundering reporting officer, Sudipto Chattopadhyay for anti-money laundering failings. 5 May, http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/077.shtml, accessed 6 May 2010.

  • Money Laundering Regulations 2007, S.I. 2007/2157.

  • It is important to note that the reporting obligations imposed by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 have been severely criticised by the Court of Appeal in UMBS Online Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 406.

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 328(1), s.330(2)(a) and s.331(2)(a).

  • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 330(2)(b) and s.331(2)(b).

  • Brown, G. and Evans, T. (2008) The impact: The breadth and depth of the anti-money laundering provisions requiring reporting of suspicious activities. Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation 23 (5): 274–277, at 276.

    Google Scholar 

  • It is important to note that the Court of Appeal in R v. Da Silva [2006] EWCA Cro., 1654 rejected the argument by Da Silva that the court ‘could not imply a word such as “reasonable” into the relevant statutory provision’. See Brown and Evans69, p. 275.

  • K Ltd v. National Westminster Bank plc [2007] WLR 311.

  • Wadsley, J. (2008) Painful perceptions and fundamental rights – Anti-money laundering regulation and lawyers. Company Lawyer 29 (3): 65–75, at 67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Other guidance for the definition of suspicion is offered by Joint Money Laundering Steering Group. (2007) Prevention of Money Laundering/Combating Terrorist Financing Guidance for the UK Financial Sector Part 1. London: Joint Money Laundering Steering Group, Guidance 6.9.

  • [2006] EWCA Cro,. 1654. This case related to the interpretation of the phrase under the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  • [2006] EWCA Civ 1039.

  • Forston21, at p. 163.

  • Brown and Evans69, at p. 275. For a more detailed discussion see K Limited v. National Westminster Bank [2006] EWCA Civ 1039.

  • [2010] EWCA Civ 31; [2010] Lloyd's Rep F.C. 276 (CA (Civ Div)). For an analysis of the impact of this case see Marshall, P. (2010) Does Shah v HSBC Private Bank Ltd make the anti-money laundering consent regime unworkable? Butterworths Journal of International Banking & Financial Law 25 (5): 287–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, K. (2010) Money laundering: a limited remedy for clients. Professional Negligence 26 (1): 56–59, at 58.

    Google Scholar 

  • See for example KPMG. (2003) Money Laundering: Review of the Reporting System. London: KPMG.

  • Fleming, M. (2005) UK Law Enforcement Agency Use and Management of Suspicious Activity Reports: Towards Determining the Value of the Regime. London: University College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serious Organised Crime Agency. (2006) Review of the Suspicious Activity Reports Regime. London: Serious Organised Crime Agency.

  • Sarker, R. (2006) Anti-money laundering requirements: Too much pain for too little gain. Company Lawyer 27 (8): 250–251, at 251.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG80, at p. 14.

  • Serious Organised Crime Agency. (2009) The Suspicious Activity Reports Regime Annual Report 2008. London: Serious Organised Crime Agency, p. 14.

  • Leong19, at p. 142.

  • Home Office. (2004) Report on the Operation in 2004 of the Terrorism Act 2000. London: Home Office, pp. 19–20.

  • The government announced that it intended to introduce a radical overhaul of the laws on fraud in its 2005 general election manifesto Labour Party. (2005) Labour Party Manifesto – Britain Forward Not Back. London: Labour Party.

  • Sarker, R. (2007) Fighting fraud – A missed opportunity? Company Lawyer 28 (8): 243–244, at 243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attorney General's Office. (2006) Fraud Review – Final Report. London: Attorney General's Office, p. 4.

  • National Fraud Authority. (2009) National Fraud Reporting Centre's ‘0300’ line launches in the West Midlands, http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/nfa/WhatAreWeSaying/NewsRelease/Documents/NFRC%20launch%2026%20Oct%2009.pdf, accessed 3 March 2010.

  • Attorney General's Office90, at p. 10. The effectiveness of this decision has been questioned. See for example Rider, B. (2009) A bold step? Company Lawyer 30 (1): 1–2, at 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Other noteworthy attempts to tackle fraud before the Theft Act were the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 and the Financial Services Act 1986.

  • See generally Kiernan, P. and Scanlan, G. (2003) Fraud and the law commission: The future of dishonesty. Journal of Financial Crime 10 (3): 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R. (2007) Developing effective tools to manage the risk of damage caused by economically motivated crime fraud. Journal of Financial Crime 14 (1): 17–27, at 18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • For a more detailed illustration of this problem see generally R v. Preddy [1996] AC 815, 831.

  • Specifically the Law Commission were asked to ‘to examine the law on fraud, and in particular to consider whether it: is readily comprehensible to juries; is adequate for effective prosecution; is fair to potential defendants; meets the need of developing technology including electronic means of transfer; and to make recommendations to improve the law in these respects with all due expedition. In making these recommendations to consider whether a general offence of fraud would improve the criminal law’. See HC Debates 7 April 1998 c.176-177WA.

  • The Law Commission. (1999) Legislating the Criminal Code Fraud and Deception – Law Commission Consultation Paper no 155. London: Law Commission.

  • The Law Commission also published an informal discussion paper in 2000. See Law Commission. (2000) Informal Discussion Paper: Fraud and Deception – Further Proposals From the Criminal Law Team. London: Law Commission.

  • For an analysis of the Law Commission's report see Kiernan and Scanlan94.

  • The Fraud Act 2006 (Commencement) Order 2006, S.I. 2006/3500.

  • For a detailed commentary and analysis of the Fraud Act see Ormerod, D. (2007) The Fraud Act 2006 – Criminalising lying? Criminal Law Review, March: 193–219, However, it is important to note that not all of the offences under the Theft Act 1968 have been abolished. For example false accounting (Theft Act 1968, s. 17), the liability of company directors (Theft Act 1968, s. 18), false statements by company directors (Theft Act 1968, s. 19) and dishonest destruction of documents (Theft Act 1968, s. 20(1)).

  • Fraud Act 2006, s. 2.

  • Fraud Act 2006, s. 3.

  • Fraud Act 2006, s. 4.

  • Dennis, I. (2007) Fraud Act 2006. Criminal Law Review, January: 1–2, at 1.

  • Scanlan, G. (2008) Offences concerning directors and officers of a company: Fraud and corruption in the United Kingdom – The present and the future. Journal of Financial Crime 15 (1): 22–37, at 25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright stated that ‘it is reassuring that the newly formed Serious Organised Crime Agency … will have non-fiscal fraud as one of its major priorities’. See Wright95, at p. 14.

  • Bosworth-Davies, R. (2009) Investigating financial crime: The continuing evolution of the public fraud investigation role – A personal perspective. Company Lawyer 30 (7): 195–199, at 196.

    Google Scholar 

  • See generally Wright, R. (2003) Fraud after Roskill: A view from the serious fraud office. Journal of Financial Crime 11 (1): 10–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Committee was asked to ‘consider in what ways the conduct of criminal proceedings in England and Wales arising from fraud can be improved and to consider what changes in existing law and procedure would be desirable to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal of such proceedings’. See Fraud Trials Committee Report (1986) HMSO.

  • For a detailed commentary of the Roskill Commission see Levi, M. (2003) The Roskill Fraud Commission revisited: An assessment. Journal of Financial Crime 11 (1): 38–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Criminal Justice Act 1987, s. 1.

  • Criminal Justice Act 1987, s. 2. It is important to note that the SFO has other investigative and prosecutorial powers under the Fraud Act 2006, the Theft Act 1968, the Companies Act 2006, the Serious Crime Act 2007, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

  • Serious Fraud Office. (2010) Achievements 2009–2010. London: Serious Fraud Office, p. 3.

  • Mahendra, B. (2002) Fighting serious fraud. New Law Journal 152 (7020): 289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright110, at p. 10.

  • de Grazia, J. (2008) Review of the Serious Fraud Office – Final Report. London: Serious Fraud Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Grazia118, p. 129.

  • Crown Prosecution Service. (2009) DPP announces new head of Fraud Prosecution Division. 31 July, http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/136_09/, accessed 22 January 2010.

  • Masters, J. (2008) Fraud and money laundering: The evolving criminalisation of corporate non-compliance. Journal of Money Laundering Control 11 (2): 103–122, at 104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate. (2008) Review of the Fraud Prosecution Service. London: HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, p. 5.

  • Bosworth-Davies109, at p. 198.

  • This would have seen the FSA focusing its efforts on specific types of fraud or dishonesty which constitute the greatest areas of concern, and where they can make a difference.

  • This would include, for example, considering the firms’ systems and controls against fraud in more detail in our supervisory work, including how firms collect date on fraud and dishonesty.

  • The third approach would involve the FSA liaising closely with the financial sector and other interested parties in order to achieve a more effective approach towards fraud prevention in the financial services sector.

  • The final proposed method would include codification and clarification of the relevant fraud risk management provisions of the Handbook.

  • Robinson, P. (2004) The FSA's new approach to fraud – Fighting fraud in partnership. London, 26 October.

  • For example, in 2008 the FSA successfully prosecuted William Radclyffe for offences under the Theft Acts, the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. See Financial Services Authority. (2008) False stockbroker sentenced to 15 months. 13 February, http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2008/011.shtmlm, accessed 28 March 2010.

  • Financial Services Authority. (2006) FSA fines Capita Financial Administrators Limited £300 000 in first anti-fraud controls case. 16 March, http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2006/019.shtml, accessed 16 March 2006.

  • Financial Services Authority. (2008) Financial Services Authority Annual Report 2007/2008. London: Financial Services Authority, p. 23.

  • Financial Services Authority. (2007) FSA fines Nationwide £980 000 for information security lapses. 14 February, http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2007/021.shtml, accessed 14 February 2007.

  • Financial Services Authority. (2007) FSA fines Norwich Union Life £1.26 million. 4 November, http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2007/130.shtml, accessed 8 October 2010.

  • Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, s. 56.

  • In February 2010 the FSA recovered £270 000 for defrauded investors who were advised to buy shares in Eduvest plc Financial Services Authority. (2010) FSA returns £270 000 to victims of share fraud. 23 February, http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/032.shtml, accessed 21 March 2010.

  • National Fraud Authority. (2010) The National Fraud Strategy – A New Approach to Combating Fraud. London: National Fraud Authority, p. 10.

  • For a more detailed discussion of how this is to be achieved see The Attorney General's Office. (2008) Extending the Powers of the Crown Court to Prevent Fraud and Compensate Victims: A Consultation. London: Attorney General's Office.

  • Rider92, at p. 1.

  • Bosworth-Davies109, at p. 199.

  • National Fraud Authority136, at p. 3.

  • Kiernan, P. (2003) The regulatory bodies fraud: Its enforcement in the twenty-first century. Company Lawyer 24 (10): 293–299, at 295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Fair Trading. (n/d) Prevention of Fraud Policy. London: Office of Fair Trading.

  • See for example Office of Fair Trading. (2009) Scamnesty 2010 Campaign Strategy. London: Office of Fair Trading.

  • See for example Office of Fair Trading. (2003) Memorandum of Understanding Between the Office of Fair Trading and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office. London: Office of Fair Trading.

  • See for example Office of Fair Trading. (2005) OFT and Nigerian financial crime squad join forces to combat spam fraud. 4 November, http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2005/210-05, accessed 2 August 2005.

  • See for example HM Revenue and Customs. (2009) Renewal of the ‘Tackling Alcohol Fraud’ Strategy. London: HM Revenue and Customs.

  • See HM Customs and Excise. (2002) Oils Fraud Strategy: Summary of Consultation Responses Regulatory Impact Assessment. London: HM Customs and Excise.

  • Fisher, J. (2010) Fighting Fraud and Financial Crime A New Architecture for the Investigation and Prosecution of Serious Fraud, Corruption and Financial Market Crimes. London: Policy Exchange, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timesonline. (2010) Conservatives confirm plans for single Economic Crime Agency, http://timesonline.typepad.com/law/2010/04/conservatives-confirm-plans-for-single-economic-crime-agency.html, accessed 26 April.

  • HM Government. (2010) The Coalition: Our Programme for Government. London: HM Government, p. 9.

  • Leigh, D. and Evans, R. (2010) Cost of new economic crime agency could prove prohibitive. The Guardian, 2 June, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/02/economic-crime-agency-scheme-cost, accessed 12 July 2010.

  • See generally Fraud Advisory Panel. (2010) Roskill Revisited: Is There a Case for a Unified Fraud Prosecution Office?. London: Fraud.

  • Attorney General's Office90, at p. 7.

  • Home Office. (n/d) Fraud, http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/fraud/fraud17.htm, accessed 7 December 2009.

  • It is important to note that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 applies to serious crime, which includes fraud.

  • Home Office. (2004) Home Office Circular 47/2004 Priorities for the Investigation of Fraud Cases. London: Home Office.

  • Financial Services Authority. (2008) FSA Handbook – SUP (Supervision). London: Financial Services Authority, at SUP 15.3.17R.

  • Financial Services Authority157, at SUP 15.3.19G.

  • Financial Services Authority157, at SUP 15.3.20G.

  • HM Treasury. (2002) Combating the Financing of Terrorism – A Report on UK Action. London: HM Treasury.

  • Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, s. 13. Also see Levi, M. (2010) Combating the financing of terrorism: A history and assessment of the control of threat finance. British Journal of Criminology 50 (4): 650–669, at 652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • For a more detailed discussion of terrorist funding in Northern Ireland see Tupman, W. (1998) Where has all the money gone? The IRA as a profit-making concern. Journal of Money Laundering Control 1 (4): 303–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. (2003) The confiscation, forfeiture and disruption of terrorist finances. Journal of Money Laundering Control 7 (2): 105–125, 113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Home Office50, at paragraph 6.15.

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 15(1).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 15(2).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 15(3).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 16(1).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 16(2).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 17(1).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 17(2).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 18(1)(a).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 18(1)(b).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 18(1)(c).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 18(1)(d).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 18(2).

  • Bell above, n 189 at p. 113.

  • Home Office. (2009) Lord Carlile Report on the Operation in 2008 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and of Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. London: Home Office, p. 68.

  • Also see Financial Action Task Force. (2007) Third Mutual Evaluation Report Anti-money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism – The United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Paris: Financial Action Task Force, p. 45.

  • Home Office178, at p.18.

  • Terrorism Act 2000, schedule 6.

  • Home Office178, at p. 23.

  • Terrorism Act 2000, schedule 6, paragraph 2(a).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, schedule 6, paragraph 2(b).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, schedule 6, paragraph 3.

  • Peddie, J. (2008) Anti-terrorism legislation and market regulation. In: W. Blair and R. Brent (eds.) Banks and Financial Crime – The International Law of Tainted Money. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 437–458, at 440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrorism Act 2000, schedule 6, paragraph 7.

  • Peddie above, n 213 at p. 441.

  • Terrorism Act 2000, ss. 15–19.

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 23.

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 28.

  • Terrorism Act 2000, schedule 4.

  • Peddie186, at p. 443.

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 38A.

  • Binning, P. (2002) In safe hands? Striking the balance between privacy and security – Anti-terrorist finance measures. European Human Rights Law Review 6: 737–749, at 747.

    Google Scholar 

  • Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, schedule 7.

  • Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, schedule 7, part 1.

  • Financial Action Task Force. (2009) FATF Statement. 25 February, http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/18/28/42242615.pdf, accessed 3 August 2010.

  • HM Treasury. (2009) HM Treasury warns businesses of serious threats posed to the international financial system. 11 March, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_26_09.htm, accessed 3 August 2010.

  • Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, Schedule 7, part 2 paragraph 3.

  • Goldby, M. (2010) The impact of Schedule 7 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 on banks and their customers. Journal of Money Laundering Control 13 (4): 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • For a description of the losses suffered by Bank Mellat see Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury [2010] EWHC 1332 (QB), para 2 and Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury [2010] EWCA Civ 483, para 12.

  • See Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury [2010] EWHC 1332 (QB).

  • Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, Schedule 1, Part 2.

  • Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, ss. 4–16.

  • Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, Schedule 1, Part 1.

  • This provision repealed the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964, s. 2.

  • The Act provides that HM Treasury is not required to prove actual detriment to freeze the assets of a suspected terrorist, but that a threat is sufficient.

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 4(1)(a) and (b).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 5.

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 7 and 9.

  • The freezing of assets is permitted by the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 (SI 2006/2657).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, Part II, Schedule 1.

  • Ryder, N. (2007) A false sense of security? An analysis of the legislative approaches towards the prevention of terrorist finance in the United States of and the United Kingdom. Journal of Business Law, September: 821–850, at 843.

  • HM Treasury13, at p. 27.

  • Ryder214, at p. 844.

  • 15 July 2009: Column WS96.

  • Financial Action Task Force179, at p. 76.

  • HM Treasury16, at p. 11.

  • S.I 2006/2657.

  • 27 December 2001, on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism.

  • HM Treasury107, at pp. 25–26.

  • [2008] EWHC 869.

  • One of the applicants unsuccessfully argued that an order granted against himself by the Al-Qaeda and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006, S.I. 2006/2952 should be set aside.

  • For a more detailed discussion of this issue see M v. HM Treasury [2008] UKHL 26.

  • A v. HM Treasury [2008] EWCA Civ 1187.

  • The Court of Appeal stated that the method adopted should be comparable with that adopted in Secretary of State for the Home Department v. MB [2008] A.C. 440.

  • S.I. 2009/1747.

  • S.I. 2009/1747, article 5.

  • Johnston, A. and Nanopoulos, E. (2010) Case comment the new UK Supreme Court, the separation of powers and anti-terrorism measures. Cambridge Law Journal 69 (2): 217–220, at 220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 21A(2).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 21A(3).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 21A(4).

  • Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, schedule 2 part 3.

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 21A.

  • Home Office100, at p. 18.

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 21B.

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 21B(2).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 21B(3).

  • Terrorism Act 2000, s. 21B(4).

  • Terrorism Act 2000 and Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Amendment) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/3398.

  • Home Office178, at pp. 19–20.

  • Serious Organised Crime Agency82, at p. 13.

  • Serious Organised Crime Agency. (2008) The Suspicious Activity Reports Regime Annual Report 2008. London: Serious Organised Crime Agency, p. 42.

  • Serious Organised Crime Agency. (2010) The Suspicious Activity Reports Regime Annual Report 2009. London: Serious Organised Crime Agency, p. 11.

  • Rhodes, R. and Palastrand, S. (2004) A guide to money laundering legislation. Journal of Money Laundering Control 8 (1): 9–18, at 17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maylam, S. (2002) Prosecution for money laundering in the UK. Journal of Financial Crime 10 (2): 157–158, at 157–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Faculty of Business and Law, University of the West of England, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK

    Nicholas Ryder

Authors
  1. Nicholas Ryder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ryder, N. The fight against illicit finance: A critical review of the Labour government's policy. J Bank Regul 12, 252–275 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/jbr.2011.1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jbr.2011.1

Keywords

Search

Navigation