Financial Crime Cross-Border
Overview of Cross-Border Financial Crime
Cross-border financial crime involves illegal activities related to finance or financial systems that transcend national boundaries. These crimes are often sophisticated, involving multiple jurisdictions, regulatory frameworks, and financial institutions. They may include:
Money laundering
Terrorist financing
Tax evasion
Bribery and corruption
Fraud (e.g., securities, investment, banking)
Due to the international nature, such crimes often involve complex legal cooperation, including mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs), Interpol notices, extradition, and cross-border asset recovery.
Let’s explore five major cross-border financial crime cases, analyzing facts, legal issues, jurisdictional challenges, and outcomes.
Case 1: United States v. HSBC Holdings plc (2012)
Jurisdictions Involved: United States, Mexico, UK, others
Type: Money Laundering and Sanctions Violations
Facts:
HSBC, a major global bank headquartered in the UK, was found to have facilitated money laundering for drug cartels in Mexico and violated U.S. sanctions by doing business with countries like Iran and North Korea.
HSBC failed to monitor over $881 million in drug trafficking proceeds.
Allowed prohibited transactions with sanctioned countries.
Legal Issues:
Violation of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)
Failure to implement effective Anti-Money Laundering (AML) programs.
Breach of U.S. sanctions laws.
Outcome:
HSBC paid $1.9 billion in fines (one of the largest ever at the time).
Entered a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
Appointed an independent monitor for 5 years.
Cross-Border Challenges:
UK regulatory cooperation was necessary.
Monitoring compliance across HSBC’s global operations required international oversight.
Case 2: United States v. Standard Chartered Bank (2012 & 2019)
Jurisdictions Involved: United States, UK, Iran, Sudan, Myanmar, Cuba
Facts:
Standard Chartered, another UK-based bank, was accused of violating U.S. sanctions by processing financial transactions for entities in Iran and other sanctioned nations.
The bank concealed billions of dollars in transactions.
Used stripping techniques to remove identifying information from wire transfers.
Legal Issues:
Violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Involvement in terrorist financing risk due to transactions with sanctioned entities.
Outcome:
Fined over $1.1 billion in total across settlements with DOJ, OFAC, and UK regulators.
Required to enhance its compliance infrastructure and submit to ongoing supervision.
Cross-Border Challenges:
U.S. jurisdiction over foreign banks because of USD clearing in New York.
Coordination between U.S. and UK regulators was essential.
Case 3: R v. Sani Abacha (UK and International Enforcement)
Jurisdictions Involved: Nigeria, Switzerland, UK, U.S., Jersey, Luxembourg
Facts:
General Sani Abacha, military ruler of Nigeria (1993–1998), looted billions of dollars from Nigeria’s treasury. The funds were laundered through complex networks involving shell companies and bank accounts across Europe and the Caribbean.
Legal Issues:
Embezzlement and politically exposed person (PEP) risks.
Cross-border money laundering and asset concealment.
Difficulties in asset freezing and repatriation.
Outcome:
Multiple jurisdictions cooperated to recover and return stolen assets.
As of 2020, over $1.5 billion has been repatriated to Nigeria.
UK and Swiss authorities froze and returned substantial amounts.
Cross-Border Challenges:
Complex web of offshore companies.
Mutual Legal Assistance was critical.
Political considerations in asset return agreements.
Case 4: Bernie Madoff – International Victim Compensation (2008)
Jurisdictions Involved: U.S., UK, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, and others
Type: Securities Fraud / Ponzi Scheme
Facts:
Bernie Madoff ran the largest Ponzi scheme in history, with total losses estimated at $65 billion. While based in the U.S., many investors were from Europe, Asia, and Latin America.
The scheme lasted for decades.
Funds were funneled through various feeder funds and offshore entities.
Legal Issues:
Securities fraud under U.S. SEC regulations.
Cross-border investment fraud and recovery.
Trustee actions to claw back funds from foreign recipients.
Outcome:
Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison.
Over $14 billion has been recovered for victims.
International legal cooperation was required to trace and seize assets abroad.
Cross-Border Challenges:
Recovery of funds from foreign entities and banks.
Feeder funds in Europe (e.g., Fairfield Greenwich) became defendants.
Complex civil litigation in multiple countries.
Case 5: Danske Bank (Estonia) – 2007–2015 Money Laundering Scandal
Jurisdictions Involved: Denmark, Estonia, Russia, UK, U.S., Cyprus
Facts:
The Estonian branch of Danske Bank laundered over €200 billion in suspicious transactions, much of it from Russian sources, using shell companies and non-resident accounts.
Legal Issues:
Breach of EU AML regulations.
Lack of effective controls in high-risk jurisdictions.
Willful blindness by senior management.
Outcome:
Danske Bank was fined in Denmark and faced criminal investigations in the U.S.
U.S. DOJ launched a probe due to dollar transactions.
CEO resigned; reputational damage was immense.
Cross-Border Challenges:
Major involvement of shell entities in Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands.
Cooperation between EU regulators and U.S. authorities.
Tracing money through complex, multi-layered structures.
Key Legal Concepts in Cross-Border Financial Crime:
Jurisdictional Reach: Some countries (like the U.S.) assert jurisdiction if illegal funds flow through their financial systems, even if the crime occurs abroad.
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs): Crucial for evidence sharing and extradition.
Sanctions Enforcement: U.S. OFAC has global reach due to the centrality of the U.S. dollar.
Asset Recovery: Often done through civil forfeiture, with assistance from international institutions like the World Bank’s Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative (StAR).
Conclusion
Cross-border financial crime poses unique legal, regulatory, and enforcement challenges. The cases above highlight how international cooperation, effective AML systems, and coordinated enforcement are essential to combating these crimes. Legal systems must evolve with the increasing sophistication of transnational criminal networks.
RELATED Blog
0 comments