Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 0:23:29 GMT -5
It is simple to observe the path taken in Brazilian legislation. In the original wording there was a comprehensive list of “preceding crimes” that is specific criminal offenses whose economic proceeds could be “laundered” . Furthermore at the time the prevailing understanding was that the crime of money laundering was only established if the agent acted with direct intent. Finally and most importantly some level of sophistication in financial activities was required in order to recognize the practice of money laundering. The situation in less than years has changed drastically.
In Making it possible to characterize money laundering in relation to the proceeds not only of any and all crimes but also of criminal misdemeanors. Typical performance began to be accepted based on the assumption of risk that is eventual intent was admitted as a subjective element of this type which gives rise to very CG Leads strong practical effects. As a consequence the immemorial and still effervescent controversy surrounding the lack of safe criteria for distinguishing between eventual intent and conscious guilt was brought into the investigation of money laundering which ends up allowing the punishment of many merely careless behaviors as if they were intentional. In a nutshell: this represents the veiled criminalization of doubt and carelessness situations in which the norm applies very far from those originally conceived for the strategic and planned clearing of illicit assets.
Of all the changes however the one that draws the most attention is the one that refers to the exemption by contemporary jurisprudence of the minimum degree of sophistication to recognize the capital whitening operation. It can be said that currently almost any destination that the agent gives to assets arising from a previous criminal offense will constitute money laundering.
A drug trafficker or smuggler without any legal occupation opens a service shop barbershop tattoo studio dog hotel and declares money from the sale of narcotics or piracy as if it were income lawfully earned from his trade. An advertiser or lawyer issues an invoice with a value ten times higher than that actually referring to the services provided and transfers the excess to accounts held by third parties linked to the supposed client. A corrupt public servant invests the bribe received in shares of publicly traded companies based in a foreign country. These are basic models of money laundering in which in fact the agent “conceals or disguises the nature origin location disposition movement or ownership of goods rights or values arising directly or indirectly from a criminal offense”. The tightening of the criminal policy to combat laundering involves extending the limits of the type and expanding the area of incidence of the incriminating norm by dispensing with any and all levels of elaboration or effort by the agent in order to hide or disguise the illicit origin of the assets turning the mere act of spending the proceeds of the preceding crime into money laundering.
In Making it possible to characterize money laundering in relation to the proceeds not only of any and all crimes but also of criminal misdemeanors. Typical performance began to be accepted based on the assumption of risk that is eventual intent was admitted as a subjective element of this type which gives rise to very CG Leads strong practical effects. As a consequence the immemorial and still effervescent controversy surrounding the lack of safe criteria for distinguishing between eventual intent and conscious guilt was brought into the investigation of money laundering which ends up allowing the punishment of many merely careless behaviors as if they were intentional. In a nutshell: this represents the veiled criminalization of doubt and carelessness situations in which the norm applies very far from those originally conceived for the strategic and planned clearing of illicit assets.
Of all the changes however the one that draws the most attention is the one that refers to the exemption by contemporary jurisprudence of the minimum degree of sophistication to recognize the capital whitening operation. It can be said that currently almost any destination that the agent gives to assets arising from a previous criminal offense will constitute money laundering.
A drug trafficker or smuggler without any legal occupation opens a service shop barbershop tattoo studio dog hotel and declares money from the sale of narcotics or piracy as if it were income lawfully earned from his trade. An advertiser or lawyer issues an invoice with a value ten times higher than that actually referring to the services provided and transfers the excess to accounts held by third parties linked to the supposed client. A corrupt public servant invests the bribe received in shares of publicly traded companies based in a foreign country. These are basic models of money laundering in which in fact the agent “conceals or disguises the nature origin location disposition movement or ownership of goods rights or values arising directly or indirectly from a criminal offense”. The tightening of the criminal policy to combat laundering involves extending the limits of the type and expanding the area of incidence of the incriminating norm by dispensing with any and all levels of elaboration or effort by the agent in order to hide or disguise the illicit origin of the assets turning the mere act of spending the proceeds of the preceding crime into money laundering.