Kuwait’s Anti-Money Laundering Law: A Key Weapon Against Corruption - A Lesson from the UK

Amidst growing concerns over financial crimes and public corruption, Kuwait’s Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 106/2013 (AML/CFT Act) has emerged as an essential tool in the country’s arsenal. However, the law, which includes the money laundering offence (ML offence), is not being utilized to its full potential, according to Khaled S. Al-Rashidi, a scholar from Kuwait University’s School of Law.

The Potential of Kuwait’s AML/CFT Act

In his paper titled “‘Indirect Method of Proof’ and the Kuwaiti Anti-Money Laundering Law: A Lesson from the UK,” Al-Rashidi asserts that the broad definition of “proceeds of crime” and the “all crimes” approach adopted in the AML/CFT Act enable the ML offence to effectively combat financial crimes, including corruption.

• The broad definition of proceeds of crime: The AML/CFT Act defines proceeds of crime as “the total gain or value derived from an offence”. This definition is broad enough to cover a wide range of financial crimes, including corruption.
• The ‘all crimes’ approach: The AML/CFT Act applies to all crimes, not just those listed in a specific schedule. This approach ensures that the ML offence can be used to combat a wide range of financial crimes.

According to Al-Rashidi, the ML offence has the potential to combat financial crimes in Kuwait, particularly in the context of public corruption. He emphasizes that corruption can be effectively combated using the indirect method of proof and the stand-alone ML offence.

Challenges in Implementing the AML/CFT Act

Despite its potential, Al-Rashidi argues that rather than being a rational response to the real problem of public corruption in Kuwait, the AML/CFT Act was transferred to the country through a coercive process. This is responsible for the misapplication and misunderstanding of the AML law among Kuwaiti practitioners and results in the ML offence being underused. It is often only used as a secondary or additional charge.

To combat financial crimes in Kuwait, Al-Rashidi urges Kuwaiti law enforcement authorities, prosecutors, and judges to reconsider their understanding and implementation of the AML law. He suggests employing existing legal instruments to tackle the issue and raise awareness among practitioners about the benefits and potential of the ML offence.

Conclusion

Al-Rashidi’s thesis is timely, given the prevalence of public corruption in Kuwait and its potential role in financial crimes. By understanding and implementing the existing AML law, Kuwaiti authorities can more effectively combat these crimes and bring perpetrators to justice. This would be a significant first step in combating financial crimes in Kuwait.