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

当代，公众，有组织犯罪的形象受到媒体和/或好莱坞对“有组织犯罪”的描述的影响，如教父，黑道家族和电线。这种描述创造了一种流行的形象，什么是“有组织的”犯罪。公众舆论自然反映了这一情况，政治家/政策话语加强了这一点，即有组织犯罪是一个等级结构，需要大量新的警务力量来有效打击它。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讨论没有充分得到以证据为导向的研究的信息。这一点在处理这类犯罪的“跟着钱走”的办法中尤其明显，这些办法被认为是：起到威慑作用;扰乱犯罪网络/市场;提高破案率;增加向警察机构提供的情报。然而，犯罪学研究证明，情况未必如此。此外，尽管在这一领域制定了广泛的立法（例如2002年《犯罪收益法》、2000年《恐怖主义法》、2001年《反恐怖主义、犯罪和安全法》以及2010年《恐怖分子资产冻结等法》），但几乎没有证据表明“跟着钱走”方法正在影响有组织犯罪或恐怖活动。有必要评估这些立法的“影响”。反洗钱/犯罪收益/反恐怖主义融资立法颁布十年后，提供了一个适当的时机，可以退后一步，评估“跟踪资金”的方法，并确定政策、实践和研究的未来方向。“追踪金钱”是对付有组织犯罪和/或恐怖主义的传统警务策略的另一种方法。该网络将汇集政策制定者，从业者和研究人员，探讨新出现的问题，包括：-我们如何衡量响应机制的成功？反资产战略对破坏犯罪或恐怖主义活动和减少对社会的危害有什么影响？与更传统的“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战略时在体制或业务形式上面临哪些主要困难？反资产策略如何影响在线货币（如比特币）？是否有进一步的体制或业务工具或机会可以改进反资产战略？- 反资产战略的成本是什么（特别是在货币成本和个人权利成本方面）？在打击犯罪和打击恐怖主义部门之间以及从其他法域可以学到什么经验？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（如反洗钱金融行动特别工作组的建议;联合国《制止向恐怖主义提供资助的国际公约》）和行为者（如反洗钱金融行动特别工作组、评价反洗钱措施的特设专家委员会、反腐败国家集团）将进一步为讨论提供信息。该网络将涉及不同的学科（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攸关方。

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.