Money Laundering Cross-Border
Below I explain how cross‑border money‑laundering typically works, the key legal tools used to fight it, then walk through five influential real‑world cases (or enforcement matters) that illustrate different legal issues, factual patterns, enforcement strategies and policy lessons. I can’t browse the web right now, so everything below is based on my training (knowledge cutoff June 2024). I’ll be explicit where matters are illustrative or where facts and outcomes are high‑level summaries rather than exhaustive court citations.
Quick primer: what is cross‑border money‑laundering?
Money‑laundering is the process of disguising the illicit origin of funds so they can be used legitimately. Cross‑border money‑laundering adds layers: moving funds across jurisdictions that have differing levels of regulation, secrecy, or enforcement to frustrate detection and asset recovery.
Typical stages (may overlap):
Placement — introducing illicit cash into the financial system (e.g., cash deposits, purchase of instruments).
Layering — moving funds through multiple transactions/accounts, jurisdictions, shell companies, trade misinvoicing, casinos, or cryptocurrencies to obscure origin.
Integration — using laundered funds as “clean” money (investment, real estate, business purchases).
Key legal/operational tools used against cross‑border laundering:
National criminal statutes (e.g., U.S. money‑laundering statutes 18 U.S.C. §§1956/1957; UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002).
Asset forfeiture / civil recovery and international mutual legal assistance (MLA).
Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and AML/CFT regulation (banks’ compliance obligations).
International standards and coordination (FATF recommendations; UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime).
Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs), fines, and regulatory enforcement against banks.
Case studies (detailed)
1) Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) — global collapse and transnational prosecutions
Facts / scheme:
BCCI was an international bank (founded 1970s) with operations across dozens of countries. Over time regulators discovered massive fraud, regulatory concealment, bribery, and use of the bank to facilitate laundering by criminals, corrupt officials and sanctioned parties. The bank used complex ownership structures, nominee accounts, and subsidiaries in secrecy jurisdictions to hide transactions.
Legal actions / outcome:
Regulators in multiple countries closed BCCI in 1991. Civil and criminal proceedings followed in several jurisdictions. Investigations revealed widespread failures of internal controls, enabling tax evasion, fraud and money laundering. Some directors and officials were prosecuted or sanctioned; recoveries to victims and creditors were pursued through coordinated civil litigation and asset tracing across jurisdictions.
Key legal issues & significance:
Regulatory arbitrage: BCCI exploited differing supervisory regimes and secrecy to avoid oversight — classic cross‑border laundering facilitator.
Cooperation gaps: The case highlighted the need for cross‑border supervisory cooperation, common standards and information‑sharing.
Remedies: Asset tracing and civil recovery across multiple jurisdictions are legally complex and can take decades—BCCI became a touchstone for when and how regulators coordinate to close a bank and follow assets globally.
Compliance lesson: Strengthened bank licensing, consolidated supervision, and AML obligations were among reforms accelerated after BCCI.
2) United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. — massive AML failures and a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (2012)
Facts / scheme:
U.S. authorities alleged that HSBC allowed Mexican drug cartels and other illicit actors to move large sums into and out of the U.S. financial system through lax controls in its U.S. operations and through correspondent banking relationships. Allegations included inadequate SAR filing, weak Know‑Your‑Customer (KYC) procedures, and insufficient monitoring of high‑risk cross‑border flows (notably U.S. dollar clearing).
Enforcement / outcome:
HSBC entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with U.S. Department of Justice in 2012. The bank paid large monetary penalties (reported roughly $1.9 billion), accepted undertakings to strengthen AML controls, and was subject to an independent monitor for a number of years. The DPA avoided a criminal conviction that might have barred HSBC from U.S. operations.
Key legal issues & significance:
Corporate liability for AML failures: Even without proof that senior management directly laundered funds, regulators held the bank responsible for systemic compliance failures that enabled cross‑border laundering.
Use of DPAs: DPAs became an important tool to obtain remediation and penalties while preserving continuity of banking services.
Compliance and correspondents: The case stressed the hazards of correspondent banking relationships: U.S. dollar clearing provides access to the U.S. system and, therefore, regulatory exposure.
Global ripple effects: The case incentivized banks worldwide to tighten AML controls, especially for high‑risk regions and product lines.
3) Operation Car Wash (Lava Jato) — Brazil’s cross‑border corruption and money‑laundering prosecutions
Facts / scheme:
What began as a domestic anti‑corruption investigation in Brazil (targeting Petrobras contracts) expanded into a massive probe revealing a multiyear pattern of bribery, kickbacks, and complex laundering. Corporations, intermediaries, and politicians used shell companies, ghost contracts, offshore accounts and banking networks across multiple countries to disguise payments and move illicit funds. The multinational construction conglomerate Odebrecht became centrally implicated; it maintained a large network of offshore entities and secret accounting to move and conceal bribes.
Enforcement / outcome:
Prosecutors obtained numerous convictions, large fines and negotiated plea agreements with companies and executives. Odebrecht and other firms entered into leniency and settlement agreements that included cooperating with prosecutors in other jurisdictions. Authorities in Switzerland, the U.S., several Latin American countries and Europe assisted in asset recovery and parallel prosecutions.
Key legal issues & significance:
Cross‑border coordination & plea cooperation: The case demonstrates how domestic corruption can be traced into foreign bank accounts and real estate, and how plea bargains and corporate cooperation can unlock cross‑border evidence and recoveries.
Corporate settlements as investigative leverage: Global settlements (including deferred or plea agreements) with multinational firms yielded information about networks and other actors.
Asset recovery complexity: Recovering assets requires MLATs, civil lawsuits, and negotiation with multiple sovereigns — often slowed by differing legal standards for ownership, evidence, and bank secrecy.
Policy takeaway: The case catalyzed international anti‑corruption cooperation and highlighted the importance of cross‑jurisdictional investigative tools.
4) Danske Bank — Estonian branch scandal (non‑resident client flows)
Facts / scheme:
The Estonian branch of Danske Bank accepted and processed extraordinarily large volumes of non‑resident deposits (clients from Russia, former Soviet states, and elsewhere). Investigations alleged the branch failed to properly vet clients, allowed rapid inbound/outbound flows, and operated with inadequate AML controls. A very large portion of the flows were later characterized as suspicious and potentially linked to illicit origins (tax evasion, fraud, predicate offenses).
Enforcement / outcome:
The revelations led to major regulatory investigations in Denmark, Estonia and other countries, resignations of senior executives, and significant legal and reputational consequences for Danske. Authorities in several jurisdictions looked into related banks and persons; investigations into correspondent banks and beneficial owners followed. The full legal and financial consequences (fines, civil suits, criminal prosecutions) unfolded over years.
Key legal issues & significance:
Non‑resident accounts & high‑risk products: Concentrations of non‑resident business in a branch are a known red flag; weak controls create systemic laundering corridors.
Reputational & systemic risk: Even absent immediate convictions, massive AML failures can trigger regulatory overhaul, loss of correspondent relationships, and market fallout.
Need for consolidated supervision: The case emphasized oversight across group entities and the challenge of supervising branches versus subsidiaries under different home/host rules.
Operational lesson: Banks must apply group‑wide AML standards and treat high‑risk branches as potential targets for illicit finance.
5) United States v. Santos (Supreme Court — on the definition of “proceeds” under money‑laundering law)
Facts / legal question:
This U.S. Supreme Court case addressed whether the term “proceeds” in the federal money‑laundering statute (18 U.S.C. §1956) requires “profits” (gain over cost) or can include gross receipts. The defendant ran an illegal gambling business and was charged under money‑laundering statutes based on the gross receipts from that illegal business. The question was whether those receipts were “proceeds” of the unlawful activity.
Holding / reasoning (high level):
The Supreme Court held that, in the statutory context at issue, “proceeds” meant profits, not gross receipts — at least for certain money‑laundering provisions. Thus, applying the statute to gross receipts when no net profit could be shown raised a problem. (Note: this is a simplified summary; the decision’s scope and subsequent statutory / prosecutorial responses are complex.)
Key legal issues & significance:
Statutory interpretation matters: Precision in statutory language affects prosecutors’ ability to charge laundering based on different measure of “proceeds.”
Proof complications: Proving net profit can be harder than proving gross receipt — an evidentiary challenge in laundering prosecutions derived from businesses used as vehicles for illegal activity.
Legislative & prosecutorial responses: After such decisions, prosecutors and legislators often adapt by charging different statutes or relying on other theories (e.g., structuring, distribution of illegal proceeds, or different money‑laundering counts).
Cross‑case themes & practical lessons
Secrecy jurisdictions and correspondent banking are focal points. Correspondent banking and the use of offshore entities are frequent enablers of cross‑border laundering.
Banks can be prosecuted or penalized for systemic compliance failures. The HSBC and Danske examples show regulators target institutions that create permissive environments.
Cooperation across states is essential but slow and legally complex. MLATs, asset forfeiture across different legal systems, and differing evidentiary standards complicate cross‑border recovery. Operation Car Wash shows cooperation can be effective when firms provide evidence, but it takes time.
Legal definitions and proof requirements matter. Santos demonstrates how statutory language shapes what prosecutors must prove.
Corporate settlements and DPAs have become common enforcement tools. They combine monetary penalties with compliance mandates and information exchange.
Prevention beats cure. Robust KYC, suspicious‑transaction monitoring, and cross‑jurisdictional supervision reduce the risk that a bank becomes a laundering conduit.
If you want more
I can:
Provide statutory text comparisons (e.g., U.S. §§1956/1957 vs. UK POCA) and explain how those differences affect cross‑border prosecutions.
Draft a checklist for AML due diligence on correspondent banks or non‑resident clients.
Summarize asset‑recovery tools and MLAT basics step‑by‑step.
RELATED Blog
0 comments