Aldridge : Money Laundering Law

This book was prepared after the UK’s Proceeds of Crime Act was passed but published before that Act entered into force - a reflection of the constant dilemma facing publishers and authors at a time when the legal and regulatory regimes they are concerned with are moving far too fast.

It an academic book for academics. It is readable enough for AML professionals but the sections which are not strictly legal analysis are either shallow, wrong or hackneyed. For example, "money laundering is the process of transforming the proceeds of illegal activities into legitimate capital." Not so: the word "seemingly" or something similar should appear before "legitimate."

Writing on parallel remittance systems, Aldridge says "typically, they were developed as mechanisms by which immigrant workers sent money to their families." No, sorry. For a much better idea, see "Lords of the Rim" by Stirling Seagrave and "The History of Money" by Glyn Davies.

Aldridge’s research on this point is notably weak and has really simply repeated the "conventional wisdom" of international bodies. It is notable that he quotes the FATF’s 2000 comments - but in 1998, the secretary of the FATF told World Money Laundering Report, in effect, that parallel remittance systems were not on the FATF’s radar screen.

Further, in his discussion of taxation offences as predicate crime, he asserts that money laundering offences apply to identifiable property only and therefore argues that proceeds of tax evasion, which cannot be individually identified, as potentially beyond the reach of the UK’s money laundering laws. The implication is that a person would be able to say "I know X dodges his taxes and yes I had money from him but how could I know that the particular money I had was his proceeds of tax evasion." However, he completely omits any discussion of commingled funds, a principle that would permit tracing into - and indeed through - an account without having to identify specific funds. Also he examines the question of tax evasion in this limited way and in isolation not making any consideration of the fact that if tax evasion is to be treated in this way by reason of the impossibility of identifying the individual property that represents the benefit, then any pure economic or financial crime (that is one where what is stolen is money or money’s representation) would suffer the same consequence. In short, it would render near impossible the recovery of the proceeds of fraud. The logical conclusion to Aldridge’s argument is that once money hits a bank account, then unless the bank account is frozen immediately, it would not be possible to continue the pursuit. That cannot be a sustainable conclusion.

So, is it worth having this book? For sure it’s not for the novice nor for anyone who doesn’t have time to question what he reads. It has many valuable counterpoints to what others post as conventional (but is all too often "received") wisdom. For example, the discussion of AML laws and their conflicts with human rights is interesting, albeit simplistic. There is no bibliography but the footnotes display a reading list that is surprisingly drawn from, mainly, the usual suspects showing too little is added to that already appearing in the mass of articles that appear in many academic or quasi-academic journals: it might be painful for some to learn that academics recycling each others’ work really does not add a lot of value to the pool of human knowledge - as displayed by the majority of "-ology" publications where seemingly marks are given for quoting others rather than having one’s own opinions.

In summary, it’s hardly Masters’ degree level work despite the fact that Aldridge used to be a Reader at Cardiff University where he has contact with the iridescent and irrepressible Mike Levi, one of a small number of people in the world who has really got money laundering issues taped: but Levi is an exceptionally clever man in comparison with whom most suffer. Aldridge is now Professor of Law at Queen Mary & Westfield College, London.

As a basis for discussion amongst those who already know the subject and can argue against its flaws, it’s got a lot going for it.

But as a general reference work? No.

And we should tell you that in five years of book reviews, this is only the second time we have said this of any work.

Buy this book now