Search results

Until the late 1980s little had been heard of the topic of money laundering. It was known in the USA, but the subject only really gained prominence as a result of the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and the almost contemporaneous Statement of Principles of 12th December, 1988 issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Regulations and Supervisory Practices. The UN Convention illustrates how far the profile of money laundering has been associated with drug trafficking, but it is the Basel Statement which has been of particular importance in the development of safeguards within the banking community against abuse by money launderers.

This paper considers the rules of English law which apply to fix financial intermediaries and their advisers with liability for handling the proceeds of crime. Consideration of this topic falls into two distinct parts. This paper looks at responsibility in civil law, including liability for breach of contract; liability as constructive trustee; liability for money had and received; equitable tracing and other liabilities. It then examines issues of criminal responsibility, and closes with consideration of an anomaly.

Atlantis is one of the poorest 20 countries in the world. According to official UN statistics, its GDP per capita in 1997 was US$200. Formerly a Portuguese colony, it gained independence in 1961. It had been supported by all the Western powers, in particular the USA, as it was seen as a bulwark against communism.

The author's attention was first drawn to this subject by one paragraph in the Money Laundering Steering Group guidelines issued by BBA in June 1997:

In preparing this report, the compliance sub‐group has set out to (a) summarise the current compliance regime as a matter of law and practice, (b) identify particular problem areas within that regime concerning public sector officials (PSOs), and (c) suggest recommendations for change. The result may be seen as providing features of a ‘model’ compliance structure designed to cause difficulties for corrupt PSOs seeking to launder the proceeds of their corruption; UK law and practice has formed the springboard for the model, but it should be stressed that in order to be of any utility any suggested changes would have to be adopted (effectively) universally throughout the financial world. Piecemeal adoption by one or a few states would merely be likely to drive the tainted monies elsewhere, and would not serve the desired purpose of reducing the extent/profitability of corruption.

Parallel investigations and litigation occur quite commonly. Investigations are frequently lengthy in areas of financial crime, where months can be spent building evidence. Within this period, civil litigants can easily commence an action. The main problem in this situation is when and how much disclosure should take place and to whom. Disclosure in one set of proceedings may be detrimental to another or to an ongoing investigation. For example, a defendant may not wish to disclose certain information in civil proceedings, as it would be detrimental to his criminal trial. However, these documents may be the best way of preventing the civil action from succeeding against him. Thus, the defendant must choose between a successful civil outcome and a possible or even probable criminal conviction. The same predicament faces the prosecution authorities who may risk a certain victory in one set of proceedings against the possibility of revealing a source or prejudicing an ongoing investigation. A variation is where a criminal investigatory body requests non‐disclosure to the defendants in a civil trial to prevent prejudicing a criminal investigation. The Court of Appeal encountered this problem in C v S and others.

After setting out the background, authority and objectives of the Accountants' Joint Disciplinary Scheme, the author examines the considerable changes made to it in January 1993.

The policies of personalisation and choice have reawakened the underlying policy debates about the relationship between the ideologies of service reform and the implementation of policies that affect disadvantaged people. Service users themselves are responding through a range of initiatives that link self‐management, personal budgets, advocacy and the emerging aspiration for ‘co‐production’. By bringing together learning from a community of practitioners this paper identifies both the opportunities for partnership, including with multi‐disciplinary teams, and the threats of new forms of testing that have deep roots in social policy debates. In so doing it begins to identify the real choices that users, citizens and professionals now face.

The purpose of this paper is to describe key policy and practice issues regarding a significant subgroup of people with intellectual disability – those with offending behaviour being treated in forensic hospitals.

The reasons why psychiatrists continue to be involved in the treatment of people with intellectual disability and mental health or behavioural problems and the factors that may lead to patients needing hospital admission are examined. Using two illustrative examples, three key questions – containment vs treatment, hospital care vs conditional discharge and hospital treatment vs using deprivation of liberty safeguards usage in the community are explored.

Patients with intellectual disability, mental health problems and offending behaviours who are treated within forensic inpatient units tend to have long lengths of stay. The key variable that mediates this length of stay is the risk that they pose to themselves or others. Clinicians work within the framework of mental health law and have to be mindful that pragmatic solutions to hasten discharge into the community may not fall within the law.

This paper makes practical suggestions for the future on how to best integrate hospital and community care for people with intellectual disability, mental health and offending behaviours.