Dirty Assets: Experiences, reflections, and lessons learnt from a decade of legislation on criminal money laundering and terrorism financing

当代公众对有组织犯罪的形象受到媒体和/或好莱坞对“有组织犯罪”的表现的影响，例如《教父》、《黑道家族》和《火线》。这种描述创造了一种“有组织”犯罪的流行形象。公众舆论自然反映了这一情况，政治家/政策话语强化了这一观点，即有组织犯罪是一个等级结构，需要大量新的警务权力来有效打击它。有组织犯罪现在是犯罪辩论中政策话语的核心特征。同样，恐怖主义被描述为一级国家安全威胁，关于威胁和应对措施的辩论已经突出了十年或更长时间。然而，关于有组织犯罪和恐怖主义的政策论述没有充分得到以证据为主导的研究的支持。这在打击此类犯罪的“追踪资金”方法中尤为明显，这些方法被认为是：起到威慑作用；破坏犯罪网络/市场；提高检出率；并导致更多的情报流向警察机构。然而，犯罪学研究证明，事实并非如此。此外，尽管在这一领域有广泛的立法（例如2002年的《犯罪收益法》，2000年的《恐怖主义法》，2001年的《反恐、犯罪和安全法》以及2010年的《恐怖主义资产冻结法》），但几乎没有证据表明“追踪资金”的方法对有组织犯罪或恐怖主义活动产生了影响。有必要对这些立法的“影响”进行评估。反洗黑钱/犯罪收益/反恐怖主义融资法例颁布至今已有十年，这是一个回顾和评估“追踪资金”方法，以及确定政策、实践和研究未来方向的良机。“追踪资金”是打击有组织犯罪和/或恐怖主义的传统警务策略的另一种方法。该网络将把政策制定者、实践者和研究人员聚集在一起，探讨新出现的问题，包括：-我们如何衡量响应性制度的成功？-反资产战略对破坏犯罪或恐怖活动和减少对社会的危害有什么影响？-与传统的“普通”犯罪相比，是否有可能量化破坏有组织犯罪活动的影响？-执法机构在实施反资产策略时，在制度或运作形式上面临的主要困难是什么？-反资产策略对网络货币（如比特币）有何影响？-是否有进一步的制度或操作工具或机会可以改善反资产策略？-反资产策略的成本是什么（特别是货币成本和个人权利成本）？-在反犯罪和反恐怖主义部门之间以及从其他司法管辖区可以学到什么经验？该网络将借鉴其他司法管辖区的经验，包括美国、澳大利亚、加拿大、意大利和保加利亚。国际行动（例如FATF的建议；《联合国制止资助恐怖主义国际公约》）和行动者（例如FATF； MONEYVAL； GRECO）将进一步为讨论提供信息。该网络将涉及不同学科（如法律、商业、政治学、社会学、犯罪学）以及政策和实践的关键利益相关者。

Contemporary, public, images of organised crime are influenced by media and/ or Hollywood representations of 'organised crime' in, eg, The Godfather, The Sopranos, and The Wire. This depiction has created a popular imagery of what 'organised' crime is. Public opinion naturally reflects this picture, reinforced by politicians/ policy discourse that organised crime is a hierarchical structure requiring significant new policing powers to effectively combat it. Organised crime is now a central feature of policy discourse in the crime debate. Similarly, terrorism is depicted as a Tier 1 national security threat, and debates about the threat and counter-measures have been prominent for a decade or more.Yet, policy discourse on organised crime and terrorism is inadequately informed by evidence-led research. This is especially apparent in 'follow the money' approaches to tackling such crime, which are presumed: to operate as a deterrent; to disrupt criminal networks/ markets; to improve detection rates; and to result in increased intelligence flows to policing agencies. Yet, criminological research has proved that this is not necessarily so. Moreover, despite extensive lawmaking in this field (eg the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, and the Terrorist Asset Freezing etc Act 2010), there is little evidence that 'follow the money' approaches are impacting upon organised crime or terrorist activities. There is a need for evaluation of the 'impact' of these pieces of legislation. A decade on from the enactment of the anti-money laundering/ proceeds of crime/ anti-terrorist financing legislation provides an opportune time to step back and evaluate 'follow the money' approaches, and to identify future directions in policy, practice and research.'Following the money' represents an alternative approach to conventional policing stratagems to tackling organised crime and/ or terrorism. This network will bring together policymakers, practitioners, and researchers to explore emerging issues, including: - How do we measure the success of the responsive regime?- What impacts does an anti-assets strategy have on disrupting criminal or terrorism activity and reducing harm to society?- Is it possible to quantify the impact of disrupting organised criminal activity, as compared to more conventional 'ordinary' crime?- What are the main difficulties in institutional or operational forms facing law enforcement agencies when putting into operation an anti-assets strategy?- How does the anti-asset strategy impact on online currencies (eg Bitcoin)?- Are there further institutional or operational tools or opportunities which might improve the anti-assets strategy? - What are the costs of the anti-assets strategy (especially in terms of monetary costs and cost to individual rights)?- What experiences can be learned as between anti-criminal and anti-terrorist sectors and from other jurisdictions? This network will draw upon experiences from other jurisdictions, including the United States, Australia, Canada, Italy, and Bulgaria. International action (eg FATF Recommendations; UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism) and actors (eg FATF; MONEYVAL; GRECO) will further inform discussion. The network will engage different academic disciplines (eg law, business, political science, sociology, criminology) as well as key stakeholders from policy and practice.