Clause 94 - Money laundering: defence where overseas conduct is legal under local law

Part of Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:15 pm on 13 January 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Caroline Flint Caroline Flint Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office) 4:15, 13 January 2005

At the outset, let me thank the taskforce that assists me in listening not only to the financial industry, but to accountants, lawyers, the Law Society and others. On this and other parts of the Bill, it has very much helped me and my officials in understanding the issues that have affected those groups as a result of the Proceeds of Crime Act. We try to ensure that we listen and we are trying to improve the position. The present provisions are one point at which we have tried to make improvements   following the extensive discussions that were held first time round.

Under our proposal, the Secretary of State will have powers to prescribe by order specific types of offence that, although not criminal offences in the country concerned, would constitute serious crimes if committed in this country. Our problem with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is that they could open up major loopholes in our defences against not only money laundering, but activities in which all of us would consider it completely unacceptable for the UK to be used as a source of assistance—he gave the example of slavery.

Such cases, as well as being serious, can generate significant criminal profits. We therefore think it right that they be regarded as money laundering offences and that the regulated sector should continue to have an obligation to report them to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. For example, we would expect to include in the order the corruption offences listed in section 109(3) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Requirements to report money laundering in respect of such offences are also imposed by the United Nations convention against corruption. Furthermore, article 7 of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions provides that

''Each Party which has made bribery of its own public official a predicate offence for the purpose of the application of its money laundering legislation shall do so on the same terms for the bribery of a foreign public official, without regard to the place where the bribery occurred.''

There will be other serious offences, which might not be criminal offences in the country abroad but which also need to be excluded from the proposed defence and to be included in the order. They include, for example, paedophilia, drug cultivation and the trafficking of people. We shall consult law enforcement bodies and others on the offences that should be included in the order, and they will, as I said, be serious offences. If amendments Nos. 236 to 240 were made, there would be no obligation on the financial sector to report some of those serious offences. We do not want to have to give any of those people free rein to launder in this country the proceeds from those countries where their activities are not classified as criminal offences.

The main purpose of Clause 94 is to filter out the need for the regulated sector to report activities such as, for example, the profit from bullfighting in Spain—whether one is for or against it—or companies engaging in what is apparently lawful business abroad. Switzerland, for example, does not have such a detailed system for regulating financial markets as the UK under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. As the regulated sector in the UK has impressed on us, we do not want to create a situation in which business transactions cannot happen within the UK and therefore affect jobs in our economy.  

With regard to amendments Nos. 246 to 250, the duty to disclose money laundering arises only if the conduct will amount to an offence if committed here. We are not concerned with acts that are not unlawful in this country. I hope that it is clear from the present tense in the clause that the test is to be applied with reference to the law of the country at the time when the disclosure falls to be made. In that respect the test is the same as that relating to the offences to be listed in the order by the Secretary of State. I hope that that answers the question about the date.

Clause

A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.

Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.

During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.

When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.

Secretary of State

Secretary of State was originally the title given to the two officials who conducted the Royal Correspondence under Elizabeth I. Now it is the title held by some of the more important Government Ministers, for example the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

clause

A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.

Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.

During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.

When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.