2024
Cristina MIREA, PhD student, Faculty of Law, University of Bucharest, Money laundering. Meaning and proof of the predicate situation.
DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.31178/AUBD/2024.18
Abstract: The autonomous nature of the money
laundering offence was widely debated, both when international instruments did
not provide a concrete answer in this respect, and after such clarification
appeared, requiring the intervention of the High Court of Cassation and Justice
at national level to settle the issue (§1). This further paved the way
for interpretation of what is meant by "proceeds of crime", focusing
on the meaning of "crime" and, implicitly, on the proof requirements
for this predicate situation when there is no prior or concurrent conviction
for a predicate offence. Thus, three schools of thought have emerged on the
matter, one to the effect that the term "offence" is the one
described by Art. 15 para. (1) of the Criminal Code on the essential features
of the offence, one to the effect that it must be understood in the light of
the constituent elements of the predicate offence, and another to the effect
that the term is, in this case, sui-generis, a view with which we agree
(§2) and which we will outline in the light of the coordinates that may
be taken into account when deciding on the existence of the illicit origin of
the property, as established both in case law and by reference to the Spanish
legal system (§3).
Key
words: money laundering, crime, predicate
situation, predicate offence, evidence, illicit origin, criminal origin.
« back