Research priorities for the international control of economic and financial crime

Over the last three decades, much has been achieved in the global fight against economic and financial crime. Much, however, remains to be done. Three areas, in particular, need to be addressed. Firstly, the representation of developing countries in the fora that determine the international standards in this area needs to be improved if those standards are not to continue to be seen, at least in some quarters, as rules written by the developed world and imposed on the developing world with at best partial heed to their applicability to it. A greater number of developing countries not merely in FATF-Style Regional Bodies (where they are already represented) but on the FATF itself would make a valuable contribution here. Secondly, the widespread application of a double criminality rule poses decided problems. This is especially true in the context of asset recovery, but also, in many jurisdictions, in that of money laundering as well. As things stand, the proceeds of acts committed abroad cannot, in many jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, be the subject of a civil recovery action; in some, such as Singapore, they will not even be covered by the anti- money laundering provisions. It is salutary to note here that some of the jurisdictions that have the widest-ranging provisions in respect to the proceeds of overseas acts are developing countries such as South Africa and Uganda. Finally, the potential for cryptoasset businesses and other Virtual Asset Service Providers to be used for criminal purposes poses a challenge. While the FATF has taken action to address this, full implementation has yet to be achieved. Indeed, while there remains a lack of global consensus as to the nature of cryptoassets, and hence how to regulate them, it is hard to see how implementation of the new standards that is both global and effective can be achieved.