Prevention and Prohibition of Money Laundering Under Nigerian Laws: A Comparative Analysis

Abstract

Money laundering has increasingly gained prominence globally through the unbridled use of financial and non-financial institutions and mechanisms such as cash couriers, money transmission systems, cash-intensive businesses, shell corporations, high-value assets, property transactions, investment in front companies, high levels of conspicuous consumption, and moving large amounts of money to foreign jurisdictions. Money laundering has been criminalised in all countries because of its economic impact, such as the making secret profits and the flourishing of criminal goods. The ingredients of a money laundering offence include concealment, disguising, conversion, transfer, or removal of criminal property from a jurisdiction, entering into or becoming concerned in an arrangement knowingly or suspecting it to facilitate the acquisition, retention, use, and control of criminal property on behalf of another person, and acquiring, using, or possessing criminal property. In spite of the international, regional, and national measures to combat money laundering, it has remained intractable because of its secretive nature; it is almost impossible to measure its scope and extent. This article explores the intricacies of the money laundering offence through doctrinal, comparative, and analytical techniques. Findings made during the research include endemic corruption as a crucial bane for combating money laundering in Nigeria. The institutional and legal frameworks for combating money laundering in Nigeria, the UK, and the USA meet international standards, but yet the offence of money laundering has not been nipped in the bud because organised criminals and terrorists continue to invent new and even more sophisticated techniques to either launder their proceeds of crime or to fund terrorism without utilising countries’ financial institutions. The article also offers some proposals for reforming legal frameworks for combating money laundering. These include, but are not limited to: maximisation of terms of imprisonment; adequate protection for whistleblowers; the UK FCA should instigate more stringent criminal proceedings for money laundering in line with the decision in RV Rollins; the USA should strengthen its customer due diligence and requirements for the availability of corporate ownership information; and certain designated non-financial institutions and professions.