I read an article about regulation in Nepal recently and based on this I conclude that the purpose of Anti Money Laundering Acts seems only to minimize crime. Is there any other purpose of the Anti Money laundering Act? If not then what was lacking from existing laws that prompted the government to pass this act?
-
1Greater government control over the assets of individuals and organizations. Makes tracking the money a lot easier.– GµårÐïåñAug 6, 2014 at 2:33
-
@ChrisW.Rea did the editing.– kinkajouAug 6, 2014 at 9:33
-
I updated this question to be more in line with the expectations of a good question at Politics SE– SoylentGrayAug 6, 2014 at 13:31
-
Could you link to the article? Is there some reason that minimizing crime wouldn't be an adequate reason for a law?– ohwilleke ♦Sep 12 at 20:56
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
AML in 1990's was mostly to prevent revenue loss. i.e. Black Money being converted into white and then avoid taxes etc. It involves fake invoices, billing, round robin trip of money, etc.
AML is 2000's realised that quite a bit of this activity was being used by Terrorist and drug mafia to fund operations.
Every country has laws to monitor such activities and report to regulator.