2014Pace law reviewOpen access

Money Spending or Money Laundering: The Fine Line between Legal and Illegal Financial Transactions

Matthew R. Auten

Open full text 2 citations

Abstract

In this Article, I will examine the history of legislative efforts to combat money laundering in the United States, including the intent and purpose of the Money Laundering Control Act 1986.13 I will then analyze how courts have addressed the challenge of characterizing dual-purpose transactions by developing factors whose presence may show that a transaction was entered into with an intent to conceal. In addition to providing an analysis of several cases where courts grappled with the challenges of characterizing dual-purpose transactions, I will also examine the development of a “heightened” evidentiary standard that is often applied to scrutinize whether sufficient evidence exits to characterize a dual-purpose transaction as money laundering rather than money spending. Finally, I will make recommendations for minimizing the challenges of characterizing dual-purpose transactions.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In this Article, I will examine the history of legislative efforts to combat money laundering in the United States, including the intent and purpose of the Money Laundering Control Act 1986.13 I will then analyze how courts have addressed the challenge of characterizing dual-purpose transactions by developing factors whose presence may show that a transaction was entered into with an intent to conceal. In addition to providing an analysis of several cases where courts grappled with the challenges of characterizing dual-purpose transactions, I will also examine the development of a “heightened” evidentiary standard that is often applied to scrutinize whether sufficient evidence exits to characterize a dual-purpose transaction as money laundering rather than money spending. Finally, I will make recommendations for minimizing the challenges of characterizing dual-purpose transactions.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In this Article, I will examine the history of legislative efforts to combat money laundering in the United States, including the intent and purpose of the Money Laundering Control Act 1986.13 I will then analyze how courts have addressed the challenge of characterizing dual-purpose transactions by developing factors whose presence may show that a transaction was entered into with an intent to conceal. In addition to providing an analysis of several cases where courts grappled with the challenges of characterizing dual-purpose transactions, I will also examine the development of a “heightened” evidentiary standard that is often applied to scrutinize whether sufficient evidence exits to characterize a dual-purpose transaction as money laundering rather than money spending. Finally, I will make recommendations for minimizing the challenges of characterizing dual-purpose transactions.

Key concepts: Money laundering, Database transaction, Business, Dual (grammatical number), Financial transaction, Legislature, Control (management), Law and economics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Money Spending or Money Laundering: The Fine Line between Legal and Illegal Financial Transactions — Research Paper | ScholarLens