Financial Crime World

Here is the converted article in Markdown format:

Confusion and Ineffectiveness in Bulgaria’s Anti-Money Laundering Measures

A recent review of Bulgaria’s anti-money laundering laws has raised questions about the scope of facilitation of crime specified in the Criminal Code and whether it falls within the purview of the Anti-Money Laundering Measures Act. The inquiry highlights a discrepancy between the two laws, leading to confusion and ineffective application of preventive measures.

Inconsistent Definitions

The investigation found that while the Criminal Code defines money laundering, the Anti-Money Laundering Measures Act does not explicitly specify the form of association necessary for individuals’ actions to be considered money laundering under the law. This ambiguity has sparked controversy among legal experts, who argue that the lack of clarity creates confusion and hinders the effective application of preventive measures.

Discrepancies in Associations

Moreover, the analysis revealed another contradiction in the legislation regarding associations for the purpose of committing a crime. The Criminal Code defines an association as three or more individuals conspiring to commit a crime, whereas the Anti-Money Laundering Measures Act does not specify what form of association constitutes money laundering.

Concerns about Effectiveness

The introduction of similar legal concepts in separate laws raises concerns about the effectiveness of Bulgaria’s anti-money laundering measures and the potential for contradictory interpretations. The inaccurate regulation of criminal law terminology in the Anti-Money Laundering Measures Act calls into question the legitimacy of the law and its ability to prevent money laundering.

Expert Analysis

Experts argue that the unclear definition of money laundering in the Anti-Money Laundering Measures Act not only confuses obliged persons but also puts them at risk of personal criminal responsibility for failing to implement preventive measures. The lack of clarity in the legislation may lead to the prosecution of individuals for purposes other than the prevention of illegal acts, which contradicts the spirit and meaning of the law.

Call to Action

The controversy surrounding Bulgaria’s anti-money laundering laws highlights the need for clarification and consistency in the regulation of money laundering crimes. As the country continues to grapple with these issues, it is essential that legal experts and policymakers work together to ensure that the legislation effectively prevents money laundering and promotes financial stability.

References

  • Achim, M.V., & Borlea, S. (2021). Economic and financial crime: Corruption, shadow economy and money laundering. Springer. Switzerland.
  • Lewisch, P. (2008). Money laundering laws as political instrument: The social cost of arbitrary money laundering enforcement. European Journal of Law and Economics.
  • Nizovtsev, Y., Parfylo, O., Barabash, O., Kyrenko, S., & Smetanina, N. (2021). Mechanisms of money laundering obtained from cybercrime: The legal aspect. Journal of money laundering control.
  • Zavoli, I., & King, Ch. (2021). The challenges of implementing anti-money laundering regulation: An empirical analysis. Modern Law Review. University of Leeds.
  • Zlyvko, S., Shkliar, S., Kovalenko, A., Sykal, M., & Snigerov, O. (2021). Legitimization of income of clients as a factor of financial stability of banks. Entrepreneurship and sustainability issues.

Additional Resources