Just fancy window-dressing?

In a training session today, someone asked me a question that I have not been asked before – I do love it when that happens.  (And before you rush off to your “Big Book of Fiendishly Difficult University Challenge Physics Conundrums”, I mean an AML question, of course.)  “Given the amount of dirty money in the world,” he asked, “And the profit made from it by the financial and related sectors, and by extension therefore by governments, do jurisdictions really want to stamp out money laundering – or is it all just for show?”  Phew-eee – there’s a man who’s lost his faith in benign government.

But he’s not the only one to question what my late nan used to call the posterior motives of those in charge.  (To put it in context, she also called her surprised hairdresser bisexual [rather than unisex] and reckoned that a downpour of rain was a dulage.)  In a recent article in the Moscow Times, Russian-born-but-now-US-resident journalist Alexei Bayer made the economic case for money laundering: “The existence of such enormous underground flows [of money] is a fact of life.  There has to be some kind of mechanism for accommodating them within the financial system.”  Moreover, he argues, the demand by the über-rich for such specialist services should not be ignored: “The new international class of the super-wealthy… requires a special banking system to cater to their needs, including tax avoidance.”  Ah yes, let us not forget the poor persecuted tax avoider.

So how did I answer my questioner?  Not very helpfully, I fear, with some flannel about living in expectation.  But on reflection I suspect that the truth is both more complicated and simpler than that: it varies.  Some jurisdictions sincerely wish to get rid of money laundering – from their own shores at least – while others are entirely neutral about money laundering itself (the “money has no smell” school of thought) but realise that refusing to put in place AML legislation is not a wise move on the world stage.  Over to you: what would you have said?

This entry was posted in AML, Money laundering and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Just fancy window-dressing?

  1. Money Jihad says:

    I think you answered it very well. The only additional point I may have made to the questioner is that while many governments (somewhat dependent on their region and their stage of development) may truly want to stamp out money laundering, certain powerful actors among their populations do not share the goals of their governments…

  2. Dear Money Jihad
    That’s an excellent observation – you are absolutely right. The government might well be under the control of (as you all them) certain powerful actors. Yet another reason to fight the good fight against money laundering – to prevent such people gaining such control in the first place.
    Best wishes from Susan

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s