ORGANISED CRIMES & THE LAW: A Comparative Study on Combating Money Laundering in Nigeria, India and Germany

money laundering that the proceeds are sought to be disguised to enable the perpetrators enjoy these profits without legal jeopardy. These underlying offences are known as predicate offences. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, a predicate offence is ...the criminal activity from which the proceeds of the crime are derived, with money laundering being the derivative crime.7 Different countries take different approaches when legislating on predicate offences. On the one hand there are those that explicitly list specific criminal activities as predicate offences. One major defect with such approach is that it limits the scope of illegal activities that could precipitate money laundering, thus creating an avoidable loophole for accused persons to escape justice.8 On the other hand, there are countries that criminalise laundering of proceeds obtained from any criminal act whatsoever.9 2.1.1 Nigeria The Nigerian AML Regime is largely governed by three statutes namely; the Money Laundering Prohibition (Amendment) Act (hereafter MLPAA),10 the Advanced Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act11 and the 2004 Economic and Financial Crimes
7

Commission (Establishment) Act (hereafter 2004 EFCCEA).12 Under this AML Regime, predicate offences include any criminal activity such as common theft.13 The author opines that this approach is good for Nigeria as it keeps her in tandem with international trends of widening the definition and scope of money laundering. Secondly, it a positive approach as it hits at the laundering of the proceeds of any crime so as to principally cripple its financing and logistic support which is the main aim of such international instruments as the United Nations Convention on Transnational Crimes and successful national legislation in countries like the United Kingdom.14 2.1.2 India India is a bit similar to Nigeria in that the fundamental Act itself, 2002 Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter 2002 PMLA)15 takes a general definition of any crime and does not restrict itself to specific predicate offences; yet, other statutes supplement it by explicitly identifying specific activities that constitute predicate offences. They include terrorist activities as per the 1967 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (hereafter UAPA),16 and illicit traffic in drug and psychotropic substances as per the 1985 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter 1985 NDPSA). This approach is commendable because it casts the net wide enough to capture all illicit activities, and at the same time provides itself with checks and balances not to lose focus. Such approach could have been prone to the criticism for ambiguity
12 13

UNODC, Predicate Offence in UNDOC, Money Laundering Terms Dictionary (2005). Accessed on 30 September 2009, at
http://www.babylon.com/definition/Predicate_offence/English
8

A. Adekunle, Seizure of Proceeds of Criminal Activity: Trends in Recent Financial Crimes Legislation in Nigeria in Modern Practice Journal of Finance and Investment Law (1999) Vol. 3, No. 2, 250 at 262. 9 R. Ezeani, Impact of International and Domestic Laws on Money Laundering Activities in the ECOWAS: A Legal Perspective (2005) 3, accessed on 30 September 2009 at www.aeandelegal.com/dynamicdata/flash/MONEY%20LA UNDERING%20in%20Ecowas%20reviewed.pdf 10 Of March 2004 amending the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act No 7 of 2003 (hereinafter MLPA) 11 No 3 of 1995.

Repealing the December 2002 edition R. Ezeani, op cit, 3. 14 Proceeds of Crimes Act No c. 29 of 2002. 15 (28 November 2002), Section 3 16 Section 21

Page 2 of 13