Financial Crime World

Here is the converted article in Markdown format:

Regulatory Labyrinth: Inaccurate Terminology in Anti-Money Laundering Law Raises Concerns

A recent analysis has revealed significant flaws in the Bulgarian Anti-Money Laundering Measures Act, which could lead to confusion and ineffective application of preventive measures against money laundering.

Flaws in the Regulation

The study found that while the regulation is detailed and explicit, it also leads to contradictions with criminal law. Specifically:

  • The list of persons whose actions constitute money laundering within the meaning of the law is exhaustive, except for the direct perpetrator, leaving a certain category of perpetrators outside the scope of the law.
  • The definition of an association for the purpose of committing a crime in the Criminal Code differs from that in the Anti-Money Laundering Measures Act.

Consequences of Inaccurate Regulation

The lack of clarity on these issues raises questions about the relationship between the application of the regulation in the general Criminal Code and the Anti-Money Laundering Measures Act. The study suggests that these contradictions lead to:

  • Conflicting interpretations in practice, potentially undermining the effectiveness of the law.
  • Introduction of the same legal matter in separate laws, violating basic principles of rule-making.

Call to Action

The authors of the study argue that the inaccurate regulation of criminal law terminology in the Anti-Money Laundering Measures Act calls into question the effectiveness of the law and the preventive measures established in it. They emphasize that a correct definition of money laundering is essential for those obliged by the law to apply prevention measures and provide information about their clients in case of suspected money laundering actions.

Conclusion

The study concludes that the differences between the concepts in the regulation complicate its real application, making it impossible for the measures established in the Anti-Money Laundering Measures Act to achieve the preventive effect intended by the legislator. The authors urge lawmakers to address these contradictions and ensure that the law is effective in preventing money laundering.

References

  • Achim, M.V., & Borlea, S. (2021). Economic and financial crime: Corruption, shadow economy and money laundering. Springer.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Anti-Money Laundering Measures Act
  • Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and Financing of Terrorism
  • Council Directive 91/308/EEC
  • Criminal Code
  • United Nations Convention against Corruption