Benjamin Musau
Compliance and Counter-Terrorist Financing
Critique of the article on Compliance and Counter-Terrorist Finance (CTF) in the United Kingdom.
Background of Peter A Sproat
Dr Peter A Sproat is the holder of BA (Hons), PGCE, MA, PhD and Lecturer in Policing. He is Module Co-ordinator, Security in a Global Age (Honours) and a member of the Supervision Team, Criminal Justice Honours Dissertation at the University of the West of Scotland.
Benjamin Musau’s Critique of Peter A Sproat’s Article
The author analyses the UK Terrorism Act 2000 and the four main CTF offences of fundraising, use and possession, funding arrangement and laundering. He also discusses the crimes of omission created by imposition of positive legal duties on particular people in particular the offences of failure to report and tipping off.
Peter Sproat also explains the orders that the judiciary is permitted to authorize for investigation of CTF offences under schedule 6 of the Terrorism Act 2000 including customer information orders, production orders, and account monitoring orders. He then goes on to discuss provisions for seizure and forfeiture of terrorist-related cash, the freezing of terrorist’s financial assets (see Schedule 1 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) and the contrasting situation of freezing of assets that is achieved by the use of a number of legal routes.
In the analysis of open source materials the author laments that he experienced significant challenges in obtaining quantitative and qualitative data on all aspects of the UK’s CTF policies. The Intelligence and Security Committee was unable to get evidence of successful conviction of terrorists since March 2004. The Committee found that such evidence was not only unused but was also not even available. The author was nevertheless able to get information based on which he produces Table I in the article. The author critiques Jeffery Robinson’s claim that terrorist money-laundering prosecutions in British courts “have mostly failed” as well as Donohue’s suggestion of a credible evaluation needed to consider the “level of operations interrupted” and “the importance of individuals captured via CTF policies”. He blames both claims as unsubstantiated and lacking in evidence.
The author laments that there have been over 100 convictions under terrorism legislation offence in Great Britain alone since September 11, 2001 which resulted in at least 10 individuals being convicted of a CTF offence.
There are very few articles that have been published on counter-terrorist finance (CTF) policies in the United Kingdom (UK) and fewer still have attempted to evaluate their effectiveness.
Peter’s article seeks to examine both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the UK’s CTF policies from open-source materials and in doing so considers their effectiveness in light of the data gathered.
The findings contained in the paper are that there have been just over 100 convictions under terrorism legislation offence in Great Britain alone since 11 September, 2001 resulting in at least ten individuals being convicted of a CTF offence. In terms of assets frozen or seized, Robinson appears to have a point when he argued that: “when you look closely at those frozen assets, you discover that most of them have been unfrozen”, given the tens of millions of pounds returned to the Afghan Government.
The article is quite original and of great value to academics, politicians, compliance officials in the public and private sectors, practitioners and other people who are interest in the use of CTF policies.
The article is very useful in putting together compliance (Anti-Money Laundering) and terrorist financing aspects.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are a lot of laws that are geared towards the anti-money laundering, terrorism and CTF. The Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 are the main laws that are directed towards CTF. However, other CTF laws are found in other ordinary criminal statutes including the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and the Theft Acts 1968 and 1978.
However, while it is necessary to keep CTF legislation under review, law enforcement needs better training and industry needs to work with law enforcement. These measures will make it harder for terrorists to use ML for CTF purposes, and make the world a happier place to live in.,
References:
- http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1889774&show=html
- http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/4/1/5/7/4/p415741_index.htmlhttp://www.uws.ac.uk/schoolsdepts/socialsciences/cjpolcentre/peter_sproat.asp
- Speech by Philip Robinson in Asia-Pacific Financial Crime Conference & Exhibition 2006, Singapore, http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/Speeches/2006/0727_pr.shtml
- Sprout, P. (2010). Counter-terrorist finance in the UK: a quantitative and qualitative commentary
March 1, 2011
I am a Kenyan Advocate and the Managing Partner of B M Musau & Co., Advocates, a position I have held since 1999. My work encompasses regulatory reforms, reduction of administrative burdens, the structure of business entities, joint ventures, acquisitions, banking, foreign investment and other general corporate areas
Write a comment: