Money Laundering l Newsvine : A Jetpak created by eyocopeland : Jeteye
As one of the leading serious fraud firms in UK, Bark & Co regularly have to advise their clients on the implications of money laundering charges which often accompany investigations and prosecutions of fraud. UK legislation is wide ranging and recent changes to the law have increased the likelihood of money laundering charges being pursued vigorously by the authorities. The team at Bark & Co are experts in the interpretation of the law and in particular the parameters open to the prosecuting authorities in respect of money laundering charges.
In the UK, primary legislation on money laundering includes the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-Terrorism Crime & Security Act 2001, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2005 and the Serious Crime and Police Act 2005. Secondary legislation comprises Money laundering Regulations 2003 and 2007. These increasingly stringent regulations put the onus on businesses to ensure that certain controls are in place to prevent them being used for money laundering purposes including customer due diligence measures and internal controls and monitoring systems.
Under UK law, it is a money laundering offence when a person enters into, or becomes concerned in, an arrangement which facilitates by whatever means the requisition, retention, use or control of criminal property (assets or money) by another person. In many cases, the authorities seek to block suspected money laundering activities at an early stage by applying severe constraints even where there is scant evidence of wrong doing. Actions include forfeiture of assets etc.
lunes, 18 de junio de 2012
Money Laundering l Newsvine - The-looser-it-s-me
Money Laundering l Newsvine - The-looser-it-s-me
As one of the leading serious fraud firms in UK, Bark & Co regularly have to advise their clients on the implications of money laundering charges which often accompany investigations and prosecutions of fraud. UK legislation is wide ranging and recent changes to the law have increased the likelihood of money laundering charges being pursued vigorously by the authorities. The team at Bark & Co are experts in the interpretation of the law and in particular the parameters open to the prosecuting authorities in respect of money laundering charges.
In the UK, primary legislation on money laundering includes the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-Terrorism Crime & Security Act 2001, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2005 and the Serious Crime and Police Act 2005. Secondary legislation comprises Money laundering Regulations 2003 and 2007. These increasingly stringent regulations put the onus on businesses to ensure that certain controls are in place to prevent them being used for money laundering purposes including customer due diligence measures and internal controls and monitoring systems.
Under UK law, it is a money laundering offence when a person enters into, or becomes concerned in, an arrangement which facilitates by whatever means the requisition, retention, use or control of criminal property (assets or money) by another person. In many cases, the authorities seek to block suspected money laundering activities at an early stage by applying severe constraints even where there is scant evidence of wrong doing. Actions include forfeiture of assets etc.
Bark & Co: Money Laundering l Newsvine
Bark & Co: Money Laundering l Newsvine
As one of the leading serious fraud firms in UK, Bark & Co regularly have to advise their clients on the implications of money laundering charges which often accompany investigations and prosecutions of fraud. UK legislation is wide ranging and recent changes to the law have increased the likelihood of money laundering charges being pursued vigorously by the authorities. The team at Bark & Co are experts in the interpretation of the law and in particular the parameters open to the prosecuting authorities in respect of money laundering charges.
In the UK, primary legislation on money laundering includes the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-Terrorism Crime & Security Act 2001, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2005 and the Serious Crime and Police Act 2005. Secondary legislation comprises Money laundering Regulations 2003 and 2007. These increasingly stringent regulations put the onus on businesses to ensure that certain controls are in place to prevent them being used for money laundering purposes including customer due diligence measures and internal controls and monitoring systems.
Under UK law, it is a money laundering offence when a person enters into, or becomes concerned in, an arrangement which facilitates by whatever means the requisition, retention, use or control of criminal property (assets or money) by another person. In many cases, the authorities seek to block suspected money laundering activities at an early stage by applying severe constraints even where there is scant evidence of wrong doing. Actions include forfeiture of assets etc.
Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution Agreements l Newsvine : A Jetpak created by eyocopeland : Jeteye
Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution Agreements l Newsvine : A Jetpak created by eyocopeland : Jeteye
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously scrutinized in open court”.
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously scrutinized in open court”.
Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution Agreements l Newsvine - The-looser-it-s-me
Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution Agreements l Newsvine - The-looser-it-s-me
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously scrutinized in open court”.
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously scrutinized in open court”.
Bark & Co: Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution ...
Bark & Co: Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution ...
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously
scrutinized in open court”.
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously
scrutinized in open court”.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)