Abstract
This chapter deals with the enforcement pillar of the anti-cyberlaundering (ACL) legal regime. Much like the preceding chapters of this study that attempt to pave an untreaded path in the law and unravel a novel issue currently unexplored, this chapter takes the ACL campaign a step further by exploring legal ramifications pertaining to the prosecution of cyberlaundering. It completes the discussion on the pillars of the ACL legal regime, and complements the prevention and compliance pillars discussed in the preceding chapter.
The chapter begins by identifying certain important issues and challenges that come with the prosecution of cyberlaundering. Under the enforcement pillar, this chapter discusses investigative and jurisdictional issues, borrowing from similar principles falling under the current anti-money laundering (AML) legal regime. In establishing the enforcement pillar, this chapter also follows the adaptive approach to regulating cyberlaundering, as posited in the preceding chapter. Given that the current AML legal regime does not cater for this, the adaptive approach employed here also requires a probe into how current anti-cyber crime (ACC) laws can be adopted, as the prosecution of cyberlaundering cases does not only require the mind of money laundering investigators, but also cyber forensic experts who have tactical intelligence on hi-tech criminality, such as cyberlaundering demands. This chapter further discusses recent case studies that provide evidence of the urgent need for a proper ACL prosecutorial policy. Certain technical issues or formalities involved in establishing the ACL legal regime complete the discussion on the enforcement pillar.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
A databank is synonymous with a database, and it implies an electronic repository of information classified into different subjects, in order to facilitate the use and quick retrieval of deposited information when required.
- 5.
- 6.
See the discussion in paragraph 5.4 below.
- 7.
Electronic traffic data refers to data on telephonic and electronic traffic, such as information via telephonic terminals (i.e. calls on fixed landlines and mobile networks), as well as fax, short message service (sms), multimedia message service (mms), and electronic mails (emails).
- 8.
As the name suggests, data on location refers to data relating to the location or geographic site of the electronic communication device used.
- 9.
This refers to personal information that can be accessed from video-surveillance installations, which are ideally meant for the protection of persons and property. These tallies with biometric analysis which enables law enforcers to assess the geometry of the face, irises. The acquired information can then be compared with data previously recorded. Busia (2004, p. 87).
- 10.
- 11.
Act 25 of 2002.
- 12.
See sections 51 and 52 of the Act.
- 13.
Act 70 of 2002. See sections 2 to 11.
- 14.
Act of 1982, Title 12, U.S.C. sections 3401–3409.
- 15.
Act 18 of 1986, U.S.C. section 2510(12).
- 16.
See sections 3401–3409 of the RFPA.
- 17.
See sections 2510(12) of the ECPA.
- 18.
For example, in Germany, many of these provisions are contained in the Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz—BDSG) 2001.
- 19.
- 20.
An enscrow is an agreement reached between two contracting parties and a neutral third party, which obligates the third party to deliver an item held in his/her trust to either of the parties when a certain condition is fulfilled.
- 21.
Scheier (1998, p. 14). Cf Straub (2002, p. 530).
- 22.
Straub (2002, p. 530).
- 23.
Casey (2004, p. 12). Cf Marcella and Greenfield (2002, p. 29), and Nelson et al. (2010, p. 102). In some jurisdictions, such as South Africa, the term ‘data message’ is used instead of electronic evidence. This is defined in section 4 of South Africa’s Electronic Communications Transactions Act 25 of 2002 as meaning any “data generated, sent, received or stored by electronic means and includes- (a) voice, where the voice is used in an automated transaction; and (b) a stored record.” This definition is consistent with Article 2 of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996. In South Africa, within the ambits of the law of evidence, the definition of data message is currently being revised. See South African Law Reform Commission ‘The Review of The Law of Evidence—Draft discussion paper on the review of the law of evidence’ Committee Paper 02/2012 Project 126, 29 September 2012.
- 24.
Computer-generated data include web logs, call detail records, financial instrument trades (some purely machine-generated, some human-based, network event logs, though often associated with web logs), telemetry collected by the government (especially for intelligence purposes), online gaming data, genetic or gnemone research data, energy research data, location and/or movement data, amongst others. See DBMS2: A Monasch Research Publication (2010. Examples of Machine-Generated Data’ available at <http://www.dbms2.com/2010/04/08/machine-generated-data-example/> [accessed on 22 February 2013]. Cf Manning (2010, p. 140).
- 25.
Computer-stored data includes central processing units (CPU) of computers, random access memory (RAM) of computers; read only memory (ROM) of computers; tape libraries, optical juke boxes, optical discs, flash memory or universal serial bus (USB) devices, floppy discs, zip disks, or punched cards, among several others. See Wise Geek (an undated website document. What is data storage?’ available at <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-data-storage.htm> [accessed on 22 February 2013].
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
These factors are often readily ascertainable from the relevant domestic law. For example, in the United States (US), Rule 401 of the Federal Rule of Evidence (Act of 1975, Title 28, United States Code) states the meaning of relevant evidence to include “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” This definition embodies the factors of materiality and probative value.
- 29.
For more details, see the Legal Information Institute (an undated internet report. Rule 401, Test for Relevant Evidence’ available at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401> [accessed on 16 February 2013]. In the highly-regarded United States (US) case: United States of America v. Foster 986 F.2d 541 (D.C. Circuit) (1993), the Court stated that the crucial first step in determining relevancy is to “identify the matter properly provable.”
- 30.
Mason and Sheldon (2010, p. 776). Cf Casey (2004, p. 19). The principle relating to the authentication of electronic evidence is one that has received much attention over the years, particularly in the United States (US). This legal rationale has grown with court precedence. For example, in the case of United States of America v. Scholle, 553 F.2d 1109 (8th Cicuit). (1976), the court called for a more authentic foundation for the authentication of electronic evidence, given its novelty at the time. Later court decisions such as the United States of America v. Vela, 673 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Circuit) (1982) averred that electronic evidence should be treated with the same circumspection as any other evidence. In the United Kingdom (UK), the Association of Chief Police Officers have developed guidelines for the authentication of electronic evidence, such as are now used in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. These guidelines include the obligation incumbent on police officers not to change data held on a storage device which might be used as electronic evidence in court; that where a circumstance exists that warrants a person to access original data held on a storage device, such person must have the competence to do so, with the capability of giving evidence that explains the relevance and implications of such actions; that an audit trail and all processes applied to electronic evidence of a computer-based nature should be made and preserved; an independent third party should be capable of examining the same processes and achieving the same result, and the relevant supervising law enforcement officer has the responsibility of ensuring that the law and these principles are all observed. Association of Chief Police Officers (undated website document. Good Practice Guide for Computer-Based Electronic Evidence’ Official Release Version 4.0 available at <http://www.7safe.com/electronic_evidence/ACPO_guidelines_computer_evidence_v4_web.pdf> [accessed on 22 February 2013].
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
Such exceptions can be wide-ranging, depending on the jurisdiction concerned. For example, in the United States (US), Rule 801(d)(1)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Evidence Act of 1975 provides that the prior statement of a witness is not hearsay if the person who made the statement is subject to cross-examination at the trial. Amongst several others, some other exceptions include a statement made by a person that conveys his or her sense of the state of an event or condition of something (Rule 803(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence Act of 1975); a statement made as a result of an excited utterance (Rule 803(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence Act of 1975); a statement made for medical diagnosis of treatment (Rule 803(4)(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence); public records (Rule (803(8) of the Federal Rules of Evidence Act of 1975); family records (Rule 803(13) of the Federal Rules of Evidence Act of 1975) and statements in ancient documents (Rule 803(16) of the Federal Rules of Evidence Act of 1975). In the United Kingdom (UK), there is a distinction between statutory exceptions on the one hand (i.e. statements relating to unavailable witnesses, business documents and previous consistent or inconsistent statements—contained in sections 116 of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003) and common law exceptions on the other hand (for example, public information, reputation or family tradition and common enterprise—contained in Section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003).
- 34.
The United States (US) is an example of how this poses a grave challenge for courts: In the cases of Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Circuit) (2007); United States of America v. Fujii, 301 F.3d 535, 539 (7th Circuit) (2002); United States of America v. Briscoe, 896 F.2d 1476, 1494 (7th Circuit) (1990), the courts held that computer-based electronic evidence is prima facie admissible under section 803(6) of the Federal Rule of Evidence. However, a more grounded rationale soon developed, which is that electronic evidence results from a process and is consequently not averments made by individuals, hence not falling into the category of hearsay evidence. Thus the printed result of a computer-based test (United States of America v. Washington, 498 F.3d 225, 230-31 (4th Circuit) (2007)), a computer based header (United States of America v. Hamilton, 413 F.3d 1138, 1142-43 (10th Circuit) (2005)), and the utterances of a machine (United States of America v. Khorozian, 333 F.3d 498, 506 (3d Circuit) (2003)) do not amount to hearsay evidence. For details see United States Department of Justice (an undated website document. Computer Crime’ available at <http://www.cyber crime.gov/ssmanual/05ssma.html> [accessed on 22 February 2013]. Cf Frieden and Murray (2011, p. 25).
- 35.
- 36.
The best evidence rule dates back to the English case of Omychund v Barker (1745) 1 Atk, 21, 49; 26 ER 15, 33, in which Lord Harwicks held that no evidence was admissible unless it was the best that the nature of the case will allow. The reasoning was based on the fact that, in the eighteenth century, an original document was often reproduced or rewritten by hand, and the principle held that if the original was not produced, then there was a high probability that the copy was illegitimate for reasons of fraud or error. See Gilbert (2010, p. 203).
- 37.
In the United Kingdom (UK), in the case Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of Victoria, (1987) 164 CLR 180, the court held that the copy of a tape recording is admissible electronic evidence. The court followed the rationale that the content of the tape recording, and not the tape recording itself, is of relevance, and thus it should not matter that a copy is presented as evidence. Also, the court stated that this does not mean that the highly revered best evidence rule is not followed. It further stressed that the law should be developed in line with modernity and should never be left in a state of uncertainty. In the United States (US), Rule 1001(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that if data is stored in a computer, any print-out or output readable by sight is an original, as long as it is shown to reflect the data accurately. As in the United Kingdom (UK), the courts in the United States (US) are commonly of the opinion that copies or print-outs of electronic data do not circumvent the best evidence rule. For example, in the case Aguimatang v. California State Lottery (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 769 [286 Cal.Rptr. 57], the court held that a computer print-out does not violate the best evidence rule as it is considered an original, if it meets the requirements of relevance and authenticity.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
See paragraph 5.2.3 below.
- 41.
Casey and Schatz (2011, p. 187).
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
- 46.
- 47.
Reyes et al. (2007, p. 86).
- 48.
Reyes et al. (2007, p. 86).
- 49.
- 50.
Palmer (2001, p. 25). Cf Abdullah et al. (2008, p. 215) and Arthur and Venter (2006, p. 3). Certain factors have led to developments in the field of computer forensics, such as the growing dependence of law enforcement bodies on computing, the now ubiquitous nature of computers and computing, and the concomitant growth in new offences such as cyberlaundering. Cf Abdullah et al. (2008, p. 215) and Arthur and Venter (2006, p. 3).
- 51.
- 52.
- 53.
The physical model form of digital investigation entails a scenario where the digital investigative process is related, continually associated or linked to the physical crime scene, thus oddly perceives the investigated digital device itself as a crime scene. This model is further sub-grouped into the ‘readiness group, deployment group, physical crime scene investigation, digital crime scene investigation, and presentation.’ Casey and Schatz (2011, p. 190) and Carrier and Spafford (2003, p. 1).
- 54.
As the name implies, with the staircase model of digital investigation, the investigative process symbolizes an ascending sequence of stairs, on which cyber crime investigators, forensic experts and the public prosecutor work together to scale each step from bottom to top, in a systematic fashion, in order to have a compelling story at the stage of forensic presentation. Generally, the steps include incidents alerts and accusations, assessment of worth, incident crime scenes protocols, identification or seizure, preservation, recovery, harvesting, reduction, organisation and research; analysis, reporting, persuasion and testimony, with the encompassing feature of case management for each step of the way. Casey and Schatz (2011, p. 193). Casey and Palmer (2004, p. 5).
- 55.
The evidence flow model of digital investigation is primarily geared towards describing the flow of information in digital investigation from the moment investigators become aware of the crime, until the investigation concludes. This model is akin to the staircase model, save for a significant deviation, being that it goes beyond the given steps by adding certain features, such as the authorization, notification, proof/defense, and transportation of evidence. Casey and Schatz (2011, p. 191) and Ó Ciardhuáin (2004, p. 3).
- 56.
The sub-phase model borrows from other models in a multitier fashion, and adds different sub-phases to the respective step or phase of the digital investigation. For example, the main steps used in this model are preparation, incident response, data collection, data analysis, findings presentation and incident closure, and the corresponding sub-phases are mainly to survey, extract, and examine with the aim of reducing the amount of data to analyze; assessing the skill level of suspects; recovering deleted files; find relevant hidden data, determining the chronology of file activity; recovering relevant ASCII data; recovering relevant non-ASCII data; ascertaining non-email activity history; and recovering relevant emails and attachments. Casey and Schatz (2011, p. 195) and Beebe and Clarke (2005, p. 149).
- 57.
Otherwise known as the FORZA model, this model is suited for cases that require complex digital investigation. It focuses not only on technical issues that follow digital investigation, but also on certain key legal and managerial issues. It defines eight principal roles (i.e. the case leader, system owner, legal advisor, security/system architect, digital forensic specialists, forensic investigator/system administrator, forensic investigator/forensic analysts and the legal prosecutor) and provides six key questions that each role player must answer in an investigation (i.e. who, what, how, when, where and why). However, in this model, the process within each role is not outlined. Thus, it is imperative to reference other models, explaining why the model operates entirely as a higher level of abstraction. Casey and Schatz (2011, p. 196) and Ieong (2006, p. 4).
- 58.
- 59.
- 60.
For more details see paragraph 6.4.4.3 below.
- 61.
- 62.
See Chapter 4 for an outline of the cyberlaundering elements.
- 63.
The state is a victim of a money laundering offence because the interests that are protected by criminalising money laundering are the economy of the state and effectiveness of the judicial process. Cf Unger (2007, p. 149) and Tanzi (2005, p. 91). This rationale is the same with cyberlaundering, which shares the same protected interests. Cf discussion in paragraph 5.3.2 below, and the discussion in Chapter 1, paragraph 1.4.1.
- 64.
- 65.
- 66.
Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 November 2000 and came into force on 29 September 2003.
- 67.
Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 7 December 1987, and came into force on 11 November 1988.
- 68.
Articles 11(5) and 3(8) of the Palermo and Vienna Conventions, respectively.
- 69.
Sections 1956 and 1957, Title 18 of the United States Code.
- 70.
- 71.
- 72.
See the anti-money laundering (AML) principles set out in Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1.2. Recommendations 22 and 23 of the Forty Recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force provide that, other than financial institutions, the duty to report is also incumbent on lawyers, notaries, other independent legal professionals and accountants who engage in the activities of their clients, such as real estate transactions; management of client money and other assets including securities; management of bank, savings and securities accounts; creation, operation or management of legal persons or arrangements; buying and selling of business entities, and the organisation of contributions for the creation, operation or management of companies. See Financial Action Task Force (2012a, p. 20), Cf Financial Action Task Force (2003, p. 8). Also, the obligation is incumbent upon non-financial entities, such as dealers in precious metals or stones, as well as trust and company service providers. See Financial Action Task Force (2012a, p. 20). Cf Financial Action Task Force (2003, p. 16).
- 73.
For a detailed discussion on what amounts to ‘reasonable suspicion,’ see discussion in Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1.2. The concept of reasonable suspicion is incumbent on the existence of a predicate offence for cyberlaundering, as one of its constituent elements. See discussion in paragraph 5.4.3.2 below.
- 74.
- 75.
See Jamali (2009, p. 43).
- 76.
For more information see Red Plc (an undated website document. PRISM Merchant System’ available at <http://www.redplc.com/about/> [accessed on 16 February 2013].
- 77.
Red Plc (an undated website document. PRISM Merchant System’ available at <http://www.redplc.com/about/> [accessed on 16 February 2013].
- 78.
- 79.
Ascertaining the presence of mens rea comes at the analysis stage. See paragraph 5.3.2 below.
- 80.
- 81.
The Palermo and Vienna Conventions do not have express provisions in this regard. It is, however, stated in Articles 3(4) and 3(5) of the Council of Europe Directive 2005/50/EC on the prevention and use of financial systems for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of Europe of the European Union on 26 October 2005, which came into force on 25 November 2005. Cf Basel Institute on Governance: Assets recovery Knowledge Centre (2007. Anti-Money Laundering’ available at <http://www.assetrecovery.org/kc/node/82bce589-7805-11dd-9c9d-d9fcb408dfee.3> [accessed on 5 February 2013].
- 82.
- 83.
- 84.
- 85.
- 86.
For a discussion on how the relevant jurisdiction can be determined, see paragraph 5.3 below.
- 87.
Cf Walden (2010, p. 607).
- 88.
- 89.
Article 3 of the Convention which was adopted by the Council of Europe on 16 May 2005, and which came into force on 1 December 2009.
- 90.
- 91.
Article 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Palermo Convention. Cf Article 5(1)(a) of the Vienna Convention which does not entail this scenario. Nor is there an applicable provision in the Council of Europe Convention on Cyber crime (otherwise known as the Budapest Convention) which was adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 08 November 2001 and came into force on 1 July 2004. However, as discussed in Chapter 3, paragraph 3.2.1, a similar law that should apply is the SB-82 (NV Senate Bill 82-75th, BDR 14-266, which came into effect on 1 July 2009) of the American state of Nevada, which permits law enforcement agencies to investigate suspicious activities involving smart cards and freeze funds for up to 10 days after such seizure.
- 92.
Casey and Schatz (2011, p. 210).
- 93.
- 94.
- 95.
- 96.
Casey and Schatz (2011, p. 212).
- 97.
- 98.
- 99.
Data recovery means where deleted, hidden, lost or damaged data is extracted from available sources, regardless of its relevance to the case at hand. Casey and Schatz (2011, p. 214).
- 100.
Data harvesting refers to how the investigator can harvest data for later analysis. However, an important feature of this process is that, unlike the data recovery process, only relevant data is harvested. Thus it requires a more logical application of thought. Casey and Schatz (2011, p. 215).
- 101.
Organisation and search involves the grouping of derived data in units in order to accelerate later analysis. As such, relevant data may be grouped, tagged, or clearly separated in order to allow law enforcement to find the relevant data during the analysis stage. Cf Casey and Schatz (2011, p. 214). Cf Cohen (2009, p. 413).
- 102.
Like separating the wheat from the chaff, reduction focuses on the overall structure of the object, and not the content. It looks at the smallest set of digital investigation having the highest potential of containing greatest potential for containing data of probative value. Casey and Schatz (2011, p. 214). Cf Cohen (2009, p. 413).
- 103.
- 104.
- 105.
The statute of limitation discussion in paragraph 5.2 answers the statute of limitations question sufficiently.
- 106.
- 107.
Cf Madinger (2012, p. 107).
- 108.
- 109.
See paragraph 5.2.3
- 110.
- 111.
- 112.
Cf Walden (2010, p. 610).
- 113.
- 114.
- 115.
- 116.
- 117.
Etymologically, jurisdiction has Anglo-French and Latin origins, and when interpreted syllabically, it means to speak the law (i.e. iuris—meaning ‘law’; dicare—meaning ‘speak’). See Merriam-Webster Dictionary (an undated website document. Juirsdiction’ available at <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jurisdiction> [accessed on 22 February 2013].
- 118.
Certain factors determine jurisdiction locally. This is dependent on the structure of the relevant jurisdiction (i.e. federal government system, unilateral system, provincial, etc). Vertically, jurisdiction in the local sphere is categorized into subject-matter jurisdiction, which allows a local court to establish jurisdiction for the crime because of its related subject matter; in personam jurisdiction whereby jurisdiction is established with respect to the capacity of the person (often either as a perpetrator or victim); and in rem jurisdiction, which pertains to a thing or property. Cf Cater and Weiner (2011, p. 728); Henkin et al. (2009, p. 1048); Oxman (1987, p. 277) and Brenner and Koops (2004, p. 29).
- 119.
- 120.
- 121.
See United States (US) Legal (an undated website document. Jurisdiction’ available at <http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/jurisdiction/> [accessed on 22 February 2013]. Cf Twitchell (1988, p. 610).
- 122.
- 123.
- 124.
The nationality principle presupposes that countries would have jurisdiction over their nationals who have committed crimes outside their territories. This principle is supported by Article 4(b)(i) of the Vienna Convention, and Article 15(2)(b) of the Palermo Convention.
- 125.
The objective territoriality principle implies that a country would have jurisdiction because the action had an actual or intended effect on the country’s territory without the necessary occurrence of the action in that territory. An indirect reading of this principle can be gleaned from Article 4(a)(i) of the Vienna Convention, and Articles 15(1)(a), (b)(i) and (ii) of the Palermo Convention.
- 126.
The universality principle of jurisdiction means that any state would be able to claim jurisdiction on the basis that the alleged offence is of such a serious nature that it threatens the international peace, human rights and integrity that they affect all states and all people. This principle is grounded in customary international law. See discussion at paragraph 5.3 below.
- 127.
The passive personality principle of jurisdiction holds that jurisdiction can be established on the basis of the fact that the national of a states party is a victim of the alleged offence. This principle is supported by Article 15(2)(a) of the Palermo Convention.
- 128.
- 129.
- 130.
Article 6(2) of the Vienna Convention, and Article 6(2) of the Palermo Convention. An important caveat to this principle is the concept of dual criminality which might serve as a bar to founding jurisdiction. Essentially, where a predicate offence is an offence in one country, but not in another, the former country cannot punish the offence or offences based on said offence (i.e. money laundering) as it is tantamount to governing into another sovereign states’ territory and jurisdiction, which defies the principle of international law.
- 131.
Essentially, the crime of money laundering has the potential to create multi-jurisdictional claims, as it is not focused on whether the crime has an effect or result in that territory, but on whether an essential part of the conduct took place there.
- 132.
The issue of extradition is unsettling in the international arena, for political reasons. In principle, jurisdiction itself serves as a strong barrier to extradition. Many times, other barriers, such as a lack of dual criminality of the offence, the political nature of the alleged crime, the death penalty, or the threat of torture tend to subdue a request for extradition. For example, due to differences in the French and United States (US) human rights laws, it took years, and with strong pressure from the international community, before the President of France, Jacque Chirac, gave in, in 2002, to the extradition request of the United States (US) to have Ira Eihon (famously dubbed ‘the Unicorn killer’) extradited. He was an American who killed his wife and locked her up in the closet for 20 years. More recently, in July 2010, the extradition request made by the United States (US) to Switzerland, for famed international filmmaker, Roman Polanski, who is charged in the United States (US) with sexual assault allegedly committed in the United States (US) in 1978, was refused, on what the United States (US) considers immaterial grounds. New York Times (2010. Swiss Reject United States (US) Request to Extradite Polanski’ available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/movies/13polanski.html?src=mv> [accessed 24 February 2013]. Also, in certain cases where the barriers to extradition are lowered, as evident in the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), to which the principle of dual criminality does not apply, the issue of extradition is still not without political concerns. The EAW issued by the Swedish authorities against Julian Assange on grounds of having committed sexual assault is a good example. The matter is embroidered with political concerns, which slows down the entire process of extradition. For more details see the case of Julian Paul Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority [2013] UKSC 22. Also see Rundle, G (2010. Did he or didn’t he?’ available at <http://www.theage.com.au/national/did-he-or-didnt-he-the-murky-politics-of-sex-and-consent-20101211-18tie.html> [accessed on 15 July 2013].
- 133.
The Convention was drawn up by the Council of Europe in Strasburg, with participation of the Council of Europe, observer states Japan, Canada and China. The Convention was adopted by the Committee of the Ministers of the Council of Europe at its 109th session on 08 November 2001. On 23 November 2003, it was open for signature in Budapest, and on 1 July 2004, it came into force. As at 9 March 2012, the Convention had been ratified by 32 states parties. In tandem with the Convention is the Council of Europe Convention on Cyber crime: Additional Protocol to the Convention adopted by the Council of Europe on 7 November 2002 and came into force on 1 March 2006. For more information see the Treaties Office of the Council of Europe at <http://conventions.coe.int/> [accessed on 9 February 2013]. Cf discussion in Chapter 3, paragraph 3.2.1.
- 134.
See page 326 of the judgment.
- 135.
See sections 5-27-606 of the Annex to the Arkansas Criminal Code of 2003, sections 14-453-.2 of the North Carolina General Statute of 2002, and sections 53(a)-261 of the Annex to the Connecticut General Statute of 2004.
- 136.
See article 2 of the Dutch Criminal Code (Strafwetboek) of 1994; article 3 of the Belgian Criminal Code (Strafwetboek belgie) of 2012 and section 3 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) of 1998. Cf South African legislation: Section 90 Electronic Communications and Transactions Act No. 22 of 2002.
- 137.
- 138.
See article 11(3) of the Singapore Computer Misuse Act of 1993, and article 9(2) of the Computer Crimes Act of 1997.
- 139.
- 140.
A web server refers to computer hardware, or computer software, such as a computer application that delivers accessible content through the internet. The web server is often used to host websites, amongst other functions such as enabling gaming activities, storing of data, as well as for conducting several internet enterprises. See Web Developers Note (an undated website document. What is web server—A computer of a program’ available at <http://www.webdevelopersnotes.com/basics/what_is_web_server.php> [accessed on 1 March 2013].
- 141.
A content provider is an enterprise that develops content for electronic commerce websites. It studies and incorporates a search engine optimized technology to help customers find content, and it tends to attract the attention of website users. The fact that all website owners (i.e. having the web servers) do not always create their own content tells why a content provider’s business is lucrative, given as most of such website owners often lack the skill. See eHow (an undated internet article. What is an Internet Content Provider’ available at <http://www.ehow.com/about_6695350_internet-content-provider_.html> [accessed on 2 March 2013].
- 142.
- 143.
- 144.
As a further example, this principle also reflects largely with virtual worlds, and the act will be said to have been committed in the territory where the web server and content provider of the virtual world website are located within the territory of the country seeking jurisdiction.
- 145.
See article 5(2)(b) of the Computer Misuse Act of 1990, Chapter 18. Cf a similar provision exists in article 257F(2)(b) of the Tasmanian Criminal Code Act of 1924.
- 146.
This principle is supported in the case United States of America v. Nippon Paper Industries Co. Ltd 109 F. 3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1997) where the court elucidated the matter in depth, stating that a state can readily proscribe conduct outside its territory, where such conduct has a substantial effect within its territory, so long as the standards of reasonableness are met.
- 147.
See sections 7(2)(1) of the Strafgesetzbuch (German Criminal Code of 1998); article 5(1)(2) of the Wetboek van Strafrecht (Dutch Criminal Code of 1994); article 11 of the Wet houdende de voorafgaande title van het Wetboek van Strafvordering (Belgian Criminal Code of 2012) and the sections 4 and 5 of the Computer Misuse Act of 1990, Chapter 18. Cf South African law: Section 90 Electronic Communications and Transactions Act No. 22 of 2002.
- 148.
This principle is embedded in Article 18(9) of the Palermo Convention and Article 7 (15) (c) and (d) of the Vienna Convention.
- 149.
This is typically the case with Germany and Belgium. See sections 7(2)(1) of the Strafgesetzbuch (German Criminal Code of 1998), and article 11 of the Wet houdende de voorafgaande title van het Wetboek van Strafvordering (Belgian Criminal Code of 2012). Certain states in the United States (US) such as Michigan also have similar provisions. See section 762.2(1)(d) of the Michigan Compiled Laws, Act of 2004.
- 150.
- 151.
This principle was propounded further in the case before the International Court of Justice: Belgium v Spain (Second Phase) ICJ Rep 1970 3 at paragraph 33.
- 152.
For example, in the Netherlands, cyber crimes do not fall under the universal jurisdiction clause (article 4 of the Wetboek van Strafrecht (Dutch Criminal Code of 1994). Conversely, countries such as Germany and Belgium can claim universal jurisdiction for prosecuting the cyber crime of child pornography—sections 6(6) and 184(b) of the Strafgesetzbuch (German Criminal Code of 1998) and article 10ter(1) of the Wet houdende de voorafgaande van het Wetboek van Strafvordering (Belgian Criminal Code of 2012). Cf commentaries by Brenner and Kooper (2004, p. 28).
- 153.
Section 1030 (e)(2)(b) of the United States Code also embeds another principle of international jurisdiction known as the principle of protection. This principle allows a state to exercise jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed outside of its borders, where such allegedly committed crimes threaten its security and basic functions. Nichols (1997, p. 305). Cf Brenner and Koop (2004, p. 26). The protective principle is not included in the Budapest Convention and is not discussed separately due to the fact that it would be a reiteration of the universality principle with which it is synonymous.
- 154.
For example, a criminal mastermind who knows his way around the internet could very well combine multiple avenues in order to launder his funds. The avenues of online banking, online gambling, virtual worlds, and online barter trading are but only few examples of such avenues. See discussion in Chapter 2, paragraph 2.4.
- 155.
- 156.
See discussion in paragraph 5.3.2 above.
- 157.
- 158.
- 159.
Cf discussion in paragraph 5.1.1 above.
- 160.
United States of America v. E-Gold Ltd, Douglas Jackson, Barry K. Downey, and Reid A. Jackson, 521 F.3d 411, 417 (D.C. Circuit) (2008).
- 161.
- 162.
- 163.
See the website of Gold and Silver reserve Inc at <https://www.e-gold.com/unsecure/pgpkey.htm> [accessed on 13 February 2013].
- 164.
Prior to this time, several other e-gold currency companies had come to compete with E-gold Ltd such as OS-Gold, Standard Reserve and INTGold, but none recorded the measures of success recorded by E-Gold Ltd. Most of these other companies have been under scrutiny for money laundering and for being a facade of a sheer Ponzi Scheme. Cf Hallam-Baker (2008, p. 343).
- 165.
The indictment can be found at website of the United States (US) Department of Justice at <http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/Press%20Releases/DC%20egold%20indictment.pdf> [accessed on 13 February 2013].
- 166.
‘The United States District Court for The District of Colombia, Holding a Criminal Term, Grand Jury Sworn in on May 11 2006, United States of America v. E-gold, Ltd Gold and Silver Reserve, INC, Douglas L. Jackson, Barry K. Downey, and Reid A. Jackson as Defendants (Criminal No. 07-109): Indictment’ page 3, available at <http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/Press%20Releases/DC%20egold%20indictment.pdf> [accessed on 13 February 2013].
- 167.
United States of America v. E-Gold Ltd, Douglas Jackson, Barry K. Downey, and Reid A. Jackson, 521 F.3d 411, 417 (D.C. Circuit) (2008).
- 168.
See page 413 of the judgement.
- 169.
Together with the sentence of 300 hours of community service for each of the non-juristic entity defendants, they each paid minimal amounts of fines between $ 300 and $ 200.
- 170.
As discussed in Chapter 4, the elements of the crime of money laundering include the disguise and concealment of the proceeds of the relevant criminal activity, along with the violation of government or state activities and its management system by causing instability in its financial sector, and obstructing the normal activities of the justice and the investigation of crime, (i.e. the actus reus of the crime). Together with this, the requisite mens rea elements must also exist on the part of the accused in the form of knowledge and intention of the conduct described.
- 171.
- 172.
- 173.
- 174.
Some of these other websites include < www.megavideo.com > , < www.megapix.com > , < www.megalive.com > , and < www.megabox.com > .
- 175.
These facts are all contained in an indictment charge against the defendants: ‘In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, United States of America v. Kim Dotcom, Megaupload Ltd, Vestor Ltd, Fin Batato, Julius Bencko, Sven Echternach, Mathias Ortmann, Andrus Nomm, and Bram van der Kolk as Defendants (Criminal No. 1:12CR3): Indictment, dated 5 Januaray 2012’ page 3, available at `http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204616504577171180266957116.html [accessed on 13 February 2013].
- 176.
‘In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, United States of America v. Kim Dotcom, Megaupload Ltd, Vestor Ltd, Fin Batato, Julius Bencko, Sven Echternach, Mathias Ortmann, Andrus Nomm, and Bram van der Kolk as Defendants (Criminal No. 1:12CR3): Indictment, dated 5 Januaray 2012’ page 1, available at `http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204616504577171180266957116.html [accessed on 13 February 2013].
- 177.
RTHK (2011. HK seizes $ 330 in Megaupload raids’ available at `http://m.rthk.hk/news/20120121/813246.htm [accessed on 16 February 2013].
- 178.
Cf Articles 3(4) and 3(5) of the Council of Europe Directive 2005/50/EC.
- 179.
Act 28 of 1998, Title 17, United States Code.
- 180.
Inference can be drawn from the fact that the defendants had a knowedge or suspicion of the illegality of their conduct due to the fact that, in a prior civil action case against Megauplaod—Perfect 10, INC v. Megaupload, Kim Schmitz Case No. 11cv0191– IEG (BLM) (2011)—the court found that the defendant (Megaupload) had directly infringed on the copyright right of the plaintiff. This should have been a good basis upon which Megaupload should have desisted from the conduct.
- 181.
For example, on 17 January 2012, with the efforts of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States, two Russian citizens, Vladimir Zdorovenin and Kirill Zdorovenin, were extradited from Switzerland to the United States (US). They were charged in the United States (US) with committing cyber crime offences such as the theft of victims’ personal identification information, including credit card numbers, by means of computer programs that were surreptitiously lodged in the victims’ computers and that recorded the information as it was entered. The accused persons also allegedly purchased stolen credit card numbers from other individuals, and used the stolen credit card information to make ‘legitimate’ purchases of goods from numerous internet businesses that they operated (i.e. layering). Apparently, the purchases were fraudulent and were meant to deceive banks, credit card service providers, credit card holders, among others, thereby enabling the accused persons to steal the money they funneled to their websites. In essence, via the internet, the accused persons successfully laundered the loot derived from the commission of other cyber crimes. Interestingly, the accused persons were not charged with money laundering, because the elements of the crime are not present. However, the elements of the crime of cyberlaundering are present, and, as such, prosecution of this would have been possible, where laws exist to that effect. For more information see Federal Bureau of Investigation ‘Manhattan US Attorney and FBI Assistant Director in Charge Announce Extradition of Russian Citizen to Face Charges for International Cyber Crimes’ Press Release (17 January 2012) available at <http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2012/manhattan-u.s.-attorney-and-fbi-assistant-director-in-charge-announce-extradition-of-russian-citizen-to-face-charges-for-international-cyber-crimes> [accessed on 11 February 2013].
- 182.
- 183.
References
International Instruments
Agreement on the Swiss Bank Code of Conduct with Regard to the Exercise of Due Diligence. 28 January 1998. <http://www.swiss banking.org/en/home/>. Accessed 11 Jan. 2013.
Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime adopted by the Council of Europe on 8 November 2001 and came into force on 1 July 2004.
Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime: Additional Protocol to the Convention adopted by the Council of Europe on 7 November 2002 and came into force on 1 March 2006.
Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime, adopted by the Council of Europe on 8 November 1990, and entered into force on 1 September 1993.
Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the Council of Europe on 16 May 2005, and came into force on 1 December 2009.
Council of Europe: Council Directive 2002/38/EC on the value added tax arrangements applicable to radio and television broadcasting services and certain electronically supplied services, adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly on 07 May 2002 and came into force on 01 July 2003.
Council of Europe: Council Directive 2002/58/EC on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly on 12 July 2002 and came into force on 31 July 2002.
Council of Europe: Council Directive 2005/60/EC on the prevention and use of financial systems for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly on 26 October 2005 and came into force on 25 November 2005.
Council of Europe: Council Directive 2009/110/EC on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions, adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly on 16 September 2009 and came into force on 30 October 2009.
Council of Europe: Council Directive 2009/136/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly on 25 November 2009 and came into force on 18 December 2009.
Council of Europe: Measures Against the Transfer and Safekeeping of Funds of Criminal Origin: Recommendation No R (80) and Explanatory Memorandum, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 27 June 1980.
European Council: Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA on attacks against information systems adopted by the European Parliament on 24 February 2005.
European Union Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 adopted by the European Parliament on 26 October 2005 and came into force on 15 December 2005.
European Union Telecommunications Reform Package COM (2007) 697 and COD/2007/0247.
Inter-American Convention against Terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly of the Organisation of American States on 6 March 2002, and entered into force on 7 October 2003.
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996.
United Nations Convention against Corruption adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 31 October 2003 and entered into force on 15 December 2005.
United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 7 December 1987, and entered into force on 11 November 1988.
United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 November 2000, and entered into force on 29 September 2003.
United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1999, and entered into force on 10 April 2002.
United States-Switzerland Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty 27 UST 2019, TIAS 8302, signed on 23 May 1973 and entered into force on 23 January 1977.
Official Reports
Asian Development Bank/Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2007. Mutual legal assistance, extradition, and recovery of proceeds of corruption. In Asia and the Pacific region. <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/28/47/37900503.pdf>. Accessed 12 June 2013.
Association of Chief Police Officers. an undated website document. Good practice guide for computer-based electronic evidence. Official Release Version 4.0. <http://www.7safe.com/electronic_evidence/ACPO_guidelines_computer_evidence_v4_web.pdf>. Accessed 22 Feb. 2013.
Australian Centre for Policing Research. 2000. The virtual horizon: Meeting the law enforcement challenges. <http://www.joelschwarz.com/SpeechTestDocs/VirtualHorizonAustralia.pdf>. Accessed 19 Feb. 2013.
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. 1988. Prevention of criminal use of the banking system for the purpose of money laundering, statement of principles. <http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbsc137.pdf>. Accessed 25 July 2013.
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. 1997. Core principles for effective banking supervision. <http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs30a.pdf>. Accessed 25 July 2013.
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. 1999. Core principles methodology. <http://www.bis.org/publ/bsbs61.pdf>. Accessed 25 July 2013.
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. 2001a. Customer due diligence for banks. <http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs85.pdf>. Accessed 25 July 2013.
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. 2001b. Statement of principles on the prevention of criminal use of the banking system for the purposes of money laundering. <http://www.bis.org>. Accessed 18 Feb. 2013.
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. 2009. Due diligence and transparency regarding cover payment messages related to cross-border wire transfers. <http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/moneyval/web_ressources/Guid_basel2009.pdf>. Accessed 25 July 2013.
Board of the Federal Reserve System. an undated report. Transparency and compliance for US banking organisations conducting cross-border funds transfer. <http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/srletters/2009/sr0909a1.pdf>. Accessed 12 April 2013.
Drug Enforcement Administration: National Drug Intelligence Program. 2010. National drug threat assessment 2010. <http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs38/38661/3866ip.pdf>. Accessed 31 March 2013.
Egmont Group. 2004a. Best practices for the exchange of information between financial intelligence units. <http://www.egmont group.org/bestpractices.pdf>. Accessed 30 Aug. 2013.
Egmont Group. 2004b. Interpretative note concerning the egmont definition of a financial intelligence unit. <http://www.egmontgroup.org/library/download/8>. Accessed 30 Aug. 2013.
Egmont Group. 2004c. Principles of information exchange. <http://www.egmontgroup.org/princ_info_exchange.pdf>. Accessed 30 Aug. 2013.
Egmont Group. 2004d. Procedure for being recognised. <http://www.egmontgroup.org/procedure_for_being_recognised.pdf>. Accessed 30 Aug. 2013.
Egmont Group. 2004e. Statement of purpose. <http://www.egmontgroup.org/statement_of_purpose.pdf>. Accessed 30 Aug. 2013.
Egmont Group. 2011. Annual report 2010–2011: FIUs in action. <http://www.egmontgroup.org/library/annual-reports>. Accessed 8 Feb. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 1997. 1996–1997 report on money laundering typologies. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/31/29/34043795.pdf>. Accessed 5 Feb. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2001a. FATF IX special recommendations. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/8/17/34849466.pdf>. Accessed 20 July 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2001b. Report on money laundering typologies. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/reports/money_laundering_typologies/>. Accessed 31 Jan. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2002a. FATF annual report for 2001–2002. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/43/53/34949558.pdf>. Accessed 5 Feb. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2002b. Report on money laundering capabilities 2002–2003. <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/m 28/18/2494366.pdf>. Accessed 14 Aug. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2002c. The review of the forty recommendations: Consultation paper. <http://www.antiguagaming.gov.ag/Money%20Laundering/FATF%2040%20Review.pdf>. Accessed 22 May 2010.
Financial Action Task Force. 2003. The forty recommendations plus nine special recommendation. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/document/98/786123/>. Accessed 15 April 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2004a. Mandate renewed for 8 years. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/09102/>. Accessed 2 Jan. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2004b. Revised interpretative notes on special recommendation VII: Wire transfers. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/datoecd/revised_notes/>. Accessed 8 Feb. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2006. Report on new payment methods. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/30/47/37627240.pdf>. Accessed 30 Aug. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2007a. Annual review of non-cooperative countries and territories 2006—2007: Eighth NCCT Review. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/14/11/39552632.pdf>. Accessed 14 Aug. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2007b. Guidance on the risk-based approach to combating money laundering and terrorist financing: High level principles and procedures. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/4/591.pdf>. Accessed 7 Feb. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2008. Report on casinos. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/5/61/41584370.pdf>. Accessed 21 Jan. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2009a. FATF statement-25 February 2009. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/18/28/42242615.pdf>. Accessed 14 Aug. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2009b. Vulnerabilities of casinos and gaming sector. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/Vulnerabilities%20of%20Casinos%20and%20Gaming%20Sector.pdf>. Accessed 30 March 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2009c. Risk-based approach: Guidance for money service businesses. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/4/5002883.pdf>. Accessed 7 Feb. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2010a. Global money laundering and terrorist financing threat assessment. <http://www.fatf-gafi.com/documents/51/>. Accessed 10 Feb. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2010b. Money laundering and the vulnerability of free trade zones. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/pages/0,2987,en_32250379_32235720_1_1_1_1_1,00.html>. Accessed 31 Jan. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2010c. Money laundering and terrorist financing: Vulnerabilities of commercial websites and internet payment systems. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/resource_file678/>. Accessed 8 Jan. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2010d. Money laundering using new payment methods. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/4/56/ 46705859.pdf>. Accessed 7 Feb. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2010e. Mututal evaluation report: Anti-Money laundering and combatting the financing of terrorism—Germany. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/mer/ MER%20Germany%20full.pdf>. Accessed 26 Aug. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2012a. International standards on combatting money laundering and the financing of terrorism and proliferation. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendationspdfs/FATF%20Recommendations%20(approved%20February%202012)%20reprint%20May%202012%20web%20version.pdf>. Accessed 7 June 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2012b. Financial action task force mandate. (2012–2020). <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/FINAL%20FATF%20MANDATE%202012-2020.pdf>. Accessed 5 May 2013.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. 2006. The role of domestic shell companies in financial crimes and money laundering: Limited liability companies. <http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/files/LLCAssessment_FINAL.pdf>. Accessed 22 May 2013.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. 2008a. Annual report 2008. <http://www.fincen.us.gov/>. Accessed 20 May 2013.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. 2008b. Strategic plan for the fiscal years of 2008–2012. <http://www.fincen.gov/ about_fincen/wwd/>. Accessed 9 Aug. 2013.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. 2009. Annual report: Fiscal year of 2009. <http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/files/YEreport/FY2009/annualreport.html>. Accessed 22 June 2010.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. an undated report. Money in cyberspace. <http://www.fincen.org/resource-moneyincyberspace/1212>. Accessed 17 June 2010.
Financial Service Information sharing and Analysis Centre. 2012. Survey on information security program organisation. <http://www.fsisac.com/files/public/db/p335.pdf>. Accessed 7 Feb. 2013.
House of Lords: European Union Select Committee. 2009. Money laundering and financing of terrorism. <http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committee-archives/>. Accessed 11 Feb. 2013.
Human Rights Watch. 2011. World report. <http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011>. Accessed 24 July 2013.
International Centre for Assets recovery, Basel Institute on Governance. 2009. Tracing stolen assets: A practitioner’s handbook. <http://www.baselgovernance.org/fileadmin/docs/publications/books/asset-tracing_web-version.pdf>. Accessed 7 June 2013.
International Finance Corporation. 2009. Annual reports. <http://www.cait.gov.kw/>. Accessed 30 July 2010.
International Intellectual Property Association. 2011. Statement of the international intellectual property alliance (IIPA): The copyright industries celebrate ‘World Intellectual Property Day 2011’ and call upon governments to redouble their efforts to combat global piracy. <http://www.iipa.com/pdf/IIPA2011WorldIPDayStatement042611.pdf>. Accessed 9 Aug. 2013.
International Monetary Fund. 2000. Offshore financial centers: IMF background paper. <http:www.fsfoum.org>. Accessed 22 April 2013.
International Monetary Fund. 2008. Quarterly reports. <http://www.imf.org/quarterly-reports/>. Accessed 8 Aug. 2013.
International Monetary Fund. 2010. Germany: Detailed assessment report on anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism. <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2010/cr1078.pdf>. Accessed 22 May 2013.
International Monetary Fund. 2011. United Kingdom: Anti-Money laundering/the combating the financing of terrorism technical note. <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2011/cr11231.pdf>. Accessed 7 June 2013.
International Telecommunications Union. 2009. Understanding cybercrime: A guide for developing countries. <http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-understanding-cybercrime-guide.pdf>. Accessed 14 Feb. 2013.
Internet Crime Complaint Centre. 2010. 2010 internet crime report. <http://www.ic3.gov/report_2010>. Accessed 31 March 2011.
Kellerman, T. 2004. Money laundering in cyberspace. The World Bank Financial Sector Working Paper 11 (15): 1.
KPMG International. 2010. Online gaming: A gamble or a sure bet? <http://www.kpmg.com/GI/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/Online-Gaming-A-Gamble-or-a-Sure-Bet.pdf>. Accessed 3 Aug. 2013.
Legal Information Institute. an undated internet report. Rule 401, Test for relevant evidence. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401>. Accessed 16 Feb. 2013.
Lehdonvirta, V., and M. Ernkvist 2011. Converting the virtual economy into development potential: Knowledge map of the virtual economy. Washington, DC; infoDev/World Bank. <http://www.infodev.org/publications>. Accessed 4 Aug. 2013.
MindArk: Entropia Universe. 2009. Virtual world developer mindark granted real world banking license. <http://www.mindark.com/press/press-releases/documents/Virtual_World_Developer_MindArk_Granted_Real_World_Banking_License.pdfQ. Accessed 31 April 2013.
MONEYVAL Research Report. 2012. Criminal money flows on the internet: Methods, trends and multi-stakeholder counteraction. <http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/moneyval/Typologies/MONEYVAL%282013%296_Reptyp_flows_en.pdf>. Accessed 8 Aug. 2013.
National Drug Intelligence Program. 2010. National drug threat assessment 2010. <http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs38/38661/3866ip.pdf>. Accessed 31 Jan. 2013.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2001. Basic facts about money laundering. <http://www.oecd.org/fatf>. Accessed 12 Feb. 2013.
Payment News. 2010. MasterCard releases prepaid market sizing report. 12 July 2010. <http://www.paymentsnews.com/2010/07/mastercard-releases-prepaid-market-sizing-report.html>. Accessed 30 Aug. 2013.
Payments Council. 2010. Payments council: The way we pay 2010, The UK’s payment revolution. <http://www.paymentscouncil.org.uk//files/payments_council/the_way_we_pay_2010_final.pdf>. Accessed 30 Aug. 2013.
Schott, P. A. 2006. Reference guide to anti-money laundering and the combating of the financing of terrorism: Second edition and supplement on recommendation IX report by the world bank and the international monetary fund. <http://zunia.org/uploads/media/knowledge/Reference_Guide_AMLCFT_2ndSupplement1.pdf>. Accessed 21 March 2013.
South African Reserve Bank. 2008. Guidance note 6/2008, Issued in terms of section 6(5) of the banks act, 1990: Cell-phone banking, Pretoria, South Africa. <http://www.reservebank.co.za/internet/Publication.nsf/LADV/18B4D18670F4E8EC422574520032B728/$File/G6+of+2008.pdf>. Accessed 21 July 2013.
United Nations of Office on Drugs and Crime/The World Bank. 2007. Stolen Assets Recovery (StAR) initiative: Challenges, opportunities and action plan. <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NEWS/Resources/Star-rep-full.pdf>. Accessed 7 June 2013.
United States General Accounting Office. 2001. Report to the chairman, permanent subcommittee on investigations, committee on governmental affairs—Anti-Money laundering: Efforts in the securities industry. <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02111.pdf>. Accessed 21 May 2013.
United States Government Accounting Office. 2009. Internet gambling, an overview of the issues: GAO-03-89. <http://www.gao.gov/new.item/do389.pdf>. Accessed 21 July 2013.
Wolfsberg Group. 2002. The Wolfsberg anti-money laundering principles for correspondent banking. <http://www.wolfsberg-principles.com/pdf/Wolfsberg_Notification_Correspondent_Bank_Customers(2007).pdf>. Accessed 25 July 2013.
Wolfsberg Group. 2002. The Wolfsberg global anti-money laundering guidelines for private banking. <http://www.wolfsberg-principles.com/pdf/Wolfsberg_AML_Guidelines_for_PB_(2002).pdf>. Accessed 25 July 2013.
Wolfsberg Group. 2003. Wolfsberg statement on monitoring screening and searching. <http://www.wolfsberg-principles.com/pdf/Wolfsberg_Monitoring_Screening_Searching_Paper_(2003).pdf>. Accessed 25 July 2013.
Wolfsberg Group. 2006. Wolfsberg statement: Guidance on risk based approach for managing money laundering risks. <http://www.wolfsberg-rinciples.com/pdf/Wolfsberg_RBA_Guidance_(2006).pdf>. Accessed 25 July 2013.
Wolfsberg Group. 2006. Wolfsberg statement—Anti-Money laundering guidance for mutual funds and other pooled investment vehicles. <http://www.wolfsberg-principles.com/pdf/Wolfsberg_PV_Guidance_(2006).pdf>. Accessed 25 July 2013.
Wolfsberg Group. 2007. Wolfsberg group, clearing house statement on payment message standards. <http://www.wolfsberg-principles.com/pdf/Wolfsberg_NYCH_Statement_on_Payment_Message_Standards_(2007).pdf>. Accessed 25 July 2013.
Wolfsberg Group. 2011. Wolfsberg guidance on prepaid and stored value cards. <http://www.wolfsberg-principles.com/pdf/Wolfsberg_Guidance_on_Prepaid_and_Stored_Value_Cards_Oct_14,_2011.pdf>. Accessed 25 July 2013.
World Bank. 2008. Integrity in mobile phone financial services. Working paper Nr. 146, Washington, 2008. <http://www.siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAML/Resources/WP146_Web.pdf>. Accessed 12 Aug. 2013.
World Summit on the Information Society. 2003. Declaration of principles. (WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/4-E). <http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/Geneva/official/dop.html>. Accessed 25 July 2013.
Domestic laws Australia
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act of 2006.
Belgium
Belgian Criminal Code (Wet houdende de voorafgaande title van het Wetboek van Strafvordering) 2012.
Canada
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (S.C. 2000, c. 17).
Germany
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Act of 2008 (Gesetz zur Ergänzung der Bekämpfung der Geldwäsche und der Terrorismusfinanzierung—GwBekErgG).
Banking Act of 1998 (Kreditwesengesetz in der Fassung der Bekannt mach ung vom 9. September 1998—BGBl. I S. 2776; Gesetz über das Kreditwesen Kreditwesengesetz—KWG).
Federal Data Protection Act of 2001 (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz—BDSG).
Freedom of Information Act of 2005 (Informationsfreiheitsgesetz).
German Criminal Code of 1998 (Strafgesetzbuch—StGB).
Suppression of Illegal Drug Trafficking and other Manifestations of Organized Crime Act of 1992.
Telecommunications Act of 2004 (Telekommunikationsgesetz—TKG).
Malaysia
Computer Crimes Act of 1997.
Netherlands
Dutch Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht) of 1994.
Nigeria
Nigerian Criminal Code Act 21 of 1972.
Singapore
Singapore Computer Misuse Act of 1993.
South Africa
Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 22 of 2002.
National Gambling Act 7 of 2004.
Regulation of the Interception of Communication and the Provision of Related-Information Act 70 of 2002.
Tasmania
Tasmanian Criminal Code Act of 1924.
United Kingdom
Computer Misuse Act of 1990, Chapter 18.
United States of America Federal Laws
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.
Annuzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act of 1992.
Banking Act of 1933 (Public Law Number: 73-66).
Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, 31 United States Code 1051 (Public law number 99-570).
Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.].
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 1984, 18 United States Code 1030.
Crimes and Criminal Procedure Act of 1948, 18 United States Code 645; 683.
Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002, 18 United States Code 5710.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, 17 United States Code 2860 (Public Law 105-304).
District of Colombia Code [D.C. Code].
Electronic Communications Privacy Act 1986, 18 United States Code 2510.
Federal Rules of Evidence Act of 1975, Title 28, United States Code.
Federal Wire Act 87 of 1961.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, Title15 United States Code, Public Law 95-213.
Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers Act 1986, 18 United States Code 1030.
Intelligence Reform & Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
National Infrastructure Protection Act 1996, 2 United States Code 3488.
NV Senate Bill 82-75th (BDR 14-266), adopted on 1 July 2009 by the House of Senate, Nevada, United States.
Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1998.
Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, 18 United States Code 1956; 1957 (Public law number 99-570).
Money Laundering Suppression Act of 1994.
Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1982, Title 12, United States Code.
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing By Providing the Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001(Public law number 107-56).
United States Code [U.S.C].
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act 115, Stat. 272 of 2001.
State laws
Arkansas Criminal Code (Annex) of 2003.
Connecticut General Statute (Annex) of 2004.
North Carolina General Statute of 2002.
Michigan Compiled Laws, Act of 2004.
SB-82 (NV Senate Bill 82-75th, BDR 14-266) of Nevada, which came into effect on 1 July 2009.
Court cases International Court of Justice
Belgium v Spain (Second Phase) ICJ Rep 1970 3.
Nigeria
The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Joshua Chibi Dariye [2007] EWHC 708 (Ch).
United Kingdom
Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of Victoria, (1987) 164 CLR 180.
Julian Paul Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority [2013] UKSC 22.
United States of America
Aguimatang v. California State Lottery (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 769 [286 Cal.Rptr. 57]
California Bankers Association v. Schultz 39 L ed 2d 812 (1974) n5.
Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Circuit) (2007).
International Shoe Co. v. Washington 326 US 310 (1945).
Perfect 10, INC v. Megaupload, Kim Schmitz 11cv0191—IEG (BLM) (2011).
United States of America v. Briscoe, 896 F.2d 1476, 1494 (7th Circuit) (1990).
United States of America v. E-Gold Ltd, Douglas Jackson, Barry K. Downey, and Reid A. Jackson, 521 F.3d 411, 417 (D.C. Circuit) (2008).
United States of America v. Foster, 986 F.2d 541 (D.C. Circuit) (1993).
United States of America v. Fujii, 301 F.3d 535, 539 (7th Circuit) (2002).
United States of America v. Hamilton, 413 F.3d 1138, 1142-43 (10th Circuit) (2005).
United States of America v. Khorozian, 333 F.3d 498, 506 (3rd Circuit) (2003).
United States of America v. Nippon Paper Industries Co. Ltd 109 F. 3d 1, 7 (1st Circuit) (1997).
United States of America v. Scheinberg et al 336 (10th Circuit) (2011).
United States of America v. Scholle 553 F.2d 1109 (8th Circuit) (1976).
United States of America v. Vela, 673 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Circuit) (1982).
United States of America v. Washington, 498 F.3d 225, 230-31 (4th Circuit) (2007).
United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, 05-3295 (8th Circuit ) (2006).
United States of America v. $ 425,562,539 551 F Supp 314 (1982).
Indictment Orders
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, United States of America v. Kim Dotcom, Megaupload Ltd, Vestor Ltd, Fin Batato, Julius Bencko, Sven Echternach, Mathias Ortmann, Andrus Nomm, and Bram van der Kolk as Defendants (Criminal No. 1:12CR3): Indictment, dated 5 Jan. 2012. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204616504577171180266957116.html>. Accessed 13 Feb. 2013.
The United States District Court for The District of Colombia, Holding a Criminal Term, Grand Jury Sworn in on May 11 2006, United States of America v. E-gold, Ltd Gold and Silver Reserve, INC, Douglas L. Jackson, Barry K. Downey, and Reid A. Jackson as Defendants (Criminal No. 07-109): Indictment page 3. <http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/Press%20Releases/DC%20egold%20indictment.pdf>. Accessed 13 Feb. 2013.
Books
Aas, K. F. 2007. Globalization and crime. Cornwall: TJ International Ltd.
Alghamdi, A. M. 2011. The law of E-Commerce: E-contracts, E-Business. Bloomington: AuthorHouse.
American Law Institute. 1987. Restatement of the law (Third) Foreign relations law of the United States. 2nd vol. Philadelphia: American Law Institute.
Bailey, M. 2011. Complete guide to internet privacy, anonymity and security. New York: Nerrel.
Beare, M. E. 2005. Critical reflections on transnational organized crime, money laundering and corruption. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Beckett, B. 1988. Introduction to cryptography. London: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Bermann, G. 2003. Transnational litigation. Minnesota: Thomson West.
Blunden, B. 2001. The Money launderers, how they do it, and how to catch them at it…. Gloucestershire: Management Books.
Boni, W., and G. L. Kovavcich. 2000. Netspionage: The global threat to information. Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Brenner, S. 2007.Law in an era of smart technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buergenthal, T., and Murphy, S. D. 2002. Public international law in a nutshell. Minnesota : West Group.
Caloyannides, M. A. 2004. Privacy protection and computer forensics. 2nd ed. Massachusetts: Arctech House.
Casey, E. 2004. Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computers and the internet. 2nd ed. London: Academic.
Casey, E. 2011a. Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computers and the internet. 2nd ed. London: Academic.
Cassese, A. 2005. International law. 2nd ed. Hampshire: Oxford University Press.
Cater, B. E., and A. S. Weiner. 2011. International law. 6th ed. New York: Aspen Publishers.
Clough, J. 2010. Principles of cybercrime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, F. 2009. Digital forensic evidence examination. Livermore: Fred Cohen & Associates.
Cornelius, K., and D. Hermann, eds. 2011. Virtual worlds and criminality. Heidelberg: Springer.
Cryer, R., Friman, H., Robinson, D., and E. Wilmshurst. 2010. An introduction to international criminal law and procedure. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curtin, M. 2005. Brute force: Cracking the data encryption standard. New York: Springer.
Curtis, G. 2010. The law of cybercrimes and their investigations. Washington: CRC Press.
Demetis, D. S. 2010. Technology and anti-money laundering: A systems theory and risk-based approach. Cheltenham: Edward Edgar Publishing Ltd.
Fafinski, S. 2009. Computer misuse: Response, regulation and the law. Cullompton: Willan.
Ferguson, N. 2009. The ascent of money: A financial history of the world. London: Penguin Press.
Forget, L., and V. S. Hocevar. 2004. Financial intelligence units: An overview. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund Publication Services.
Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: The social virtues. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Furnell, S. 2002. Cybercrime: Vandalizing the information society. London: Addison-Wesley.
Geva, B. 1992. The law of electronic funds transfers. New York: Matthew Bender & Company.
Gilbert, G. 2010. The law of evidence. By a late learned judge. The third edition, corrected; and many new references added. With a complete table to the whole. London: Gale, ECCO.
Gilmore, W. 1995. Dirty money: The evolution of money laundering counter-measures. Strasburg: Council of Europe Press.
Grabosky, P., and R. Smith. 1998. Crime in the digital age, controlling telecommunications and cyberspace illegalities. Sydney: The Federation Press.
Gragido, W., and K. Pirc. 2011. Cybercrime and espionage: An analysis of subversive multi-vector threats. Burlington: Elsevier, Inc.
Grama, J. L. 2010. Legal issues in information security. Sudbury: Jones and Berlett Learning, LLC.
Greenberg, T. S., Samuel, L. M., Grant, W., and L. Grey. 2009. Stolen assets recovery: A good prasctice guide for non-conviction-based asset forfeiture. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank.
Hallam-Baker, P. 2008. The dotcrime manifesto: How to stop internet crime. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Henkin, L., Damrosch, L. F., Murphy, S. D., and H. Smit. 2009. International Law: Case and Material. 6th ed. New York: West.
Higgins, G. E. 2010. Cybercrime: An introduction to an emerging phenomenon. Columbus: McGraw-Hill.
Hinterseer, K. 2002. Criminal finance: The political economy of money laundering in a comparative legal context. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Hopton, D. 2009. Money laundering: A concise guide for all businesses. 2nd ed. London: Gower Publications.
Jolicoeur, P. 1999. Introduction to biometry. London: Springer.
Kochan, N. 2005. The washing machine: How money laundering and terrorist financing soil us. London: Centinage.
Koh, J. 2006. Suppressing terrorist financing and money laundering. New York: Springer.
Koops, B., and S. W. Brenner. 2006. Cybercrime and jurisdiction: A global survey (Information technology and law series). The Hague: T.M.C Asser Press.
Kshetri, N. 2010. The global cybercrime industry: Economic, institutional and strategic perspectives. Heidelberg: Springer.
Lankhorst, F., and H. Nelen. 2003. Dilemmas facing lega proffessional and notaries in their professional relationship with criminal clients, falcone project. Amsterdam: Vrije University Press.
Lassila, D., et al. 2011. Electronic funds transfer. New York: Matthew Bender & Company.
Lilley, P. 2006. Dirty dealing: The untold truth about global money laundering, international crime and terrorism. 3rd ed. London: Kogan Page.
Madinger, J. 2012. Money laundering: A guide for criminal investigators. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Madinger, J., and S. A. Zalopany. 1999. Money laundering: A guide for criminal investigators. 1st ed. Florida: CRS Press.
Marcella, A. J., and R. S. Greenfields. 2002. Cyber forensics: A field manual for collecting examining and preserving evidence of computer crimes. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
McKemmish, R. 1999. What is forensic computing? Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice. vol. 118. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
McQuade, S. C. 2006. Understanding and managing cybercrime. Boston: Person Education.
Molander, R. C., Mussington, D. A., and P. A. Wilson. 1998. Cyberpayments and money laundering: Problems and promise. Santa Monica : RAND.
Molly, D., and C. S. Parker. 2010. Understanding computers: Today and tomorrow. Boston: Cengage Learning Inc.
Moore, R. 2011. Cybercrime, second edition: Investigating high-technology computer crime. Oxford: Elsevier Inc.
Murphy, S. D. 2006. Principles of international law. Minnesota: Thomas West.
Mussington, D. A., Wilson, P. A., and R. C. Molander. 1998. Exploring money laundering vulnerabilities through emerging cyberspace technologies: A Carribean-based exercise. Santa Monica: RAND.
Naím, M. 2005. Illicit: How smugglers, traffickers, and copycats are Hijacking the global economy. New York: Anchor books.
Nelson, B., and Philips, A., and C. Stuart. 2010. Guide to computer forensics and investigations. 3rd ed. Boston: Course Technology, Cengage Learning.
Newman, G. R., and R. V. Clarke. 2003. Superhighway robbery: Preventing e-commerce crime. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Nissenbaum, H. 2009. Privacy in context: Technology, policy and the integrity of social life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Paar, C., and J. Pelzl. 2010. Understanding cryptography: A textbook for students and practitioners. Heidelberg: Springer.
Parker, D. 1976. Crime by computer. New York: Charles Scribner’s Suns.
Pieth, M., ed. 2002. Financing of terrorism: Following the money. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Pieth, M., and G. Aiolfi, eds. 2004. A comparative guide to anti-money laundering, a critical analysis of systems in Singapore, Switzerland, the UK and the USA. Northhampton: Edward Elgar Publishers.
Pillai, K., and A. Julian. 2008. Prevention of money laundering legal and financial issues. New Delhi: The Indian Law Institute.
Reichel, P., ed. 2005. Handbook of transnational crime and justice. Los Angeles: Sage.
Reuter, P., and E. M. Truman. 2004. Chasing dirty money: The fight against money laundering. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Reyes, A., Brittson, A., O’Shea, K., and J. Steele. 2007. Cyber crime investigations: Bridging the gaps between security professionals, law enforcement, and prosecutors. Syngress: Massachusetts.
Richards, J. R. 1999. Transnational criminal organisations, cybercrime, and money laundering: A handbook for law enforcement officers, auditors, and financial investigators. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Rider, B. 1999. The price of laundering dirty money. Cambridge: Jesus College, University of Cambridge.
Robinson, J. 1998. The laundry men: Inside the world’s third largest business. London: London Pocket Books.
Rohrbach, S. 2011. Virtual chaos: Our vulnerability to cyber-crime and how to prevent it. Wilbraham: AuthorMike Ink.
Ryan, J. 2010. A history of the internet and the digital future. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.
Savona, E. 2000. Responding to money laundering: International perspectives. Amsterdam: Taylor and Francis.
Schell, B. H., and C. Martin. 2004. Cyber crime: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara: Contemporary World Issues Series.
Schott, P. A. 2006. Reference guide to anti-money laundering and the combating of the financing of terrorism. Washington DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ World Bank/International Money Fund.
Shakespeare, W. 1994. Julius Caesar. Auckland: Heinemann.
Shams, H. 2004. Legal globalization: Money laundering law & order cases. Surrey: British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
Shaw, M. N. 2003. International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shelly, G. B., and M. E. Vermaat. 2010. Discovering computers 2011: Living in a digital world, Brief. Boston: Cengage Learning Inc.
Siegel, D. D., and P. J. Borchers. 2005. Conflicts: In a nutshell. 3rd ed. Minnesota: Thomson West.
Slade, R. M. 2004. Software forensics: Collecting evidence from the scene of a digital crime. New York: McGraw Hill.
Snyman, C. R. 2002. Criminal law. 4th ed. Durban: Butterworths.
Solove, D. J. 2007. The future of reputation, gossip, rumor on the internet. New Hampshire: Vail-Ballou Press.
Solove, D. J. 2011. Nothing to hide: The false tradeoff between privacy and security. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Stessens, G. 2000. Money laundering: A new international law enforcement model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, R. W., Caeti, T. J., Loper, K., Fritsch, E. J., and J. Liederbach. 2006. Digital crime and digital terrorism. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Thanki, B., ed. 2011. The law of privilege. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Theleskaf, D., and P. G. Pereira, eds. 2011. Non-state actors in assets recovery. Bern: Peter Lang.
Turner, J. E. 2011. Money laundering prevention: Deterring, detecting and resolving financial fraud. New Jersey: Wiley.
Von Hayek, F. 1978. Denationalisation of money—The argument refined. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
Walden, I. 2007. Computer crimes and digital investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wall, D. S. 2007. Cybercrime: The transformation of crime in the information age. (PCSS-Polity Crime and Society). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Werle, G. 2009. Principles of international criminal law. 2nd ed. The Hague: T.M.C Asser Press.
Chapters from Books
Angers, L. 2004. Combatting cyber-crime: National legislation as a pre-requisite to international cooperation. In Crime and technology: New frontiers for regulations, law enforcement and research, ed. E. U. Savona. The Hague: Springer.
Arthur, K. K., and H. S. Venter. 2006. An investigation into computer forensic tools. In Cyber forensics: Tools and practice, eds. R. Kumar and B. Jain. Hyderabad: The ICFAI University Press.
Bassiouni, M. C. 2004. The history of universal jurisdiction and its pace in international law. In Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes under International Law (Pennysylavia Studies in Human Rights), ed. S. Macedo. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylavia Press.
Bassiouni, M. C., and D. S. Gualtieri. 2000. International and national responses to the globalization of money laundering. In Responding to money laundering: International perspectives, ed. E. Savona. Amsterdam: Taylor and Francis.
Busia, G. 2004. Privacy and investigative needs: Progressing from incompatible to complementary positions. In Crime and technology: New frontiers for regulation, law enforcement and research, ed. E. U. Savona. Dordrecht: Springer.
Casey, E. 2011b. Introduction. In Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computer and the internet. 3rd ed., ed. E. Casey. London: Academic.
Casey, E. 2011c. Digital evidence in the courtroom. In Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computer and the internet. 3rd ed., ed. E. Casey. London: Academic.
Casey, E., and G. Palmer. 2004. The investigative process. In Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computers and the internet. 2nd ed., ed. E. Casey. London: Academic.
Casey, E. and B. Schatz 2011. Conducting digital investigations. In Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computer and the internet. 3rd ed., ed. E. Casey. London: Academic.
Claus, K. 2010. Nullum poena nulla poena sine lege. In Max planck encyclopedia for public international law, ed. Rüdiger Wolfrum. Cologne: Oxford University Press.
Cornelius, K. 2011. Responsibility under criminal law in virtual worlds. In Virtual worlds and criminality, eds. K. Cornelius and D. Hermann. Heidelberg: Springer.
Evans, J. L. 2000. Investigating and prosecuting the proceeds of crime: A common law experience. In Responding to money laundering: International perspectives, ed. E. Savona. Amsterdam: Taylor and Francis.
Frost, M. 2007. Anti-Money laundering regulation and trusts. In Anti-Money laundering: International law and practice, eds. W. H. Muller, C. H. Kalin, and J. G. Goldsworth. West Sussex: Wiley.
Jones, M. 1995. Improved auditing practice. In The regulation and prevention of economic crime internationally, ed. J. Reuvid. London: Kogan Page.
Klimmt, C. 2011. Virtual worlds as a regulatory challenge: A user perspective. In Virtual worlds and criminality, eds. K. Cornelius and D. Hermann. Heidelberg: Springer.
Koops, B. J., and T. Robinson. 2011. Cybercrime law: A European perspective. In Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computer and the internet. 3rd ed., ed. E. Casey. London: Academic, Elsevier Inc.
Lamb, S. 2002. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege in international criminal law. In The Rome statute of the international criminal court: A commentary, eds. A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, and J. R. W. D. Jones. London: Oxford University Press.
Laue, C. 2011. Crime potential of metaverses. In Virtual worlds and criminality, eds. K. Cornelius and D. Hermann. Heidelberg: Springer.
Lodder, A. R. 2011. Conflict resolution in virtual worlds: General characteristics and the 2009 Dutch convictions on virtual theft. In Virtual worlds and criminality, eds. K. Cornelius and D. Hermann. Heidelberg: Springer.
Marshall, C. E., Robinson, T. H., and D. Kwak. 2005. Computer crime in brave new world. In Handbook of transnational crime and justice, ed. P. Reichel. Los Angeles: Sage.
Mason, S., and A. Sheldon. 2010. Proof: Investigations, collection and examination of digital evidence. In Electronic evidence: Disclosure, discovery and admissibility. 2nd ed., ed. S. Mason. London: Lexis Nexis Butterworths.
Mason, S., and B Schafer. 2010. The characteristics of digital evidence. In Electronic evidence: Disclosure, discovery and admissibility. 2nd ed., ed. S. Mason. London: Lexis Nexis Butterworths.
Muller, W. H. 2007a. Anti-Money laundering—A short history. In Anti-Money laundering: International law and practice, eds. W. H. Muller, C. H. Kalin, and J. G. Goldsworth. West Sussex: Wiley.
Muller, W. H. 2007b. The egmont group. In Anti-Money laundering: International law and practice, ed. W. H. Muller, C. H. Kalin, and, J. G. Goldsworth. West Sussex: Wiley.
Mulukutlah, H., and M. Ruegg. 2009. The importance of information technology in tracing stolen assets. In Tracing stolen assets: A practitioner’s handbook, ed. Basel Institute of Governance. Basel: Basel Institute of Governance.
Oxman, B. H. 1987. Jurisdiction of states. In Encyclopedia of public international law. 1st ed., ed. R. Berhnardt. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Padfield, N. 2004. Country report: Anti-Money laundering rules in the United Kingdom. In A comparative guide to monmey laundering: A critical analysis of the systems in Singapore, Switzerland, the UK and the USA, ed. M. Pieth and G. Aiolfi. Northampton: E. Elgar Publications.
Pieth, M. 2007. The Wolfsberg process. In Anti-Money laundering: International law and practice, ed. W. H. Muller, C. H. Kalin, and, J. G. Goldsworth. West Sussex: Wiley.
Pieth, M. 2008. Recovering stolen assets—A new issue. In Recovering stolen assets, ed. M. Pieth. Bern: Peter Lang.
Pocar, F. 2004. New challenges for international rules against cybercrime. In Crime and technology: New frontiers for regulation, law enforcement and research, ed. E. Savona. Dordrecht: Springer.
Reuvid, J. 1995a. The focus on money laundering. In The regulation and prevention of economic crime internationally, ed. J. Reuvid. London: Kogan Page.
Reuvid, J. 1995b. Teeth for regulators and international standards of practice. In The regulation and prevention of economic crime internationally, ed. J. Reuvid. London: Kogan Page.
Robertson, P. 1999. Internet payments. In Law of bank payments, eds. M. Brindle and R. Cox. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
Savona, E. U., and M. Migone. 2004. The fox and the hunters: How IC technologies change the crime race. In Crime and technology: New frontiers for regulations, law enforcement and research, ed. E. U. Savona. Dordrecht: Springer.
Tanzi, V. 2005. Macroeconomic implications of money laundering. In Responding to money laundering: International perspectives, ed. E. U. Savona. The Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Unger, B. 2007. The impact of money laundering. In Black finance: The economics of money laundering, eds. D. Masciandaro, E. Takats, and B. Unger. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Walden, I. 2010. Computer forensics and the presentation of evidence in criminal cases. In Handbook of internet crime, eds. Y. Jewkes and M. Yar. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Yar, M. 2010. The private pricing of internet crime. In Handbook of internet crime, eds. M. Yar and Y. Jewkes. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Journal Articles
Abdullah, M. T., R. Mahmod, A. A. Ab. Gani, M. Z. Abdullah, and M. A. B. Sultan. 2008. Advances in computer forensics. International Journal of Computing Science And Networking Security 8 (2): 215.
Alexander, K. 2001. The international anti-money-laundering regime: The role of the financial action task force. Journal of Money Laundering Control 4 (3): 231.
Alford, D. E. 1993. Anti-Money laundering regulations: A burden on financial institutions. North carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation 19:143.
Amedeo, A., M. Bagella, and F. Busato. 2008. Money laundering in a two sector model: Using theory for measurement. CEIS Tor Vergata Research Paper Series 6 (8): 128.
Atta-Asamoah, A. 2009. Understanding the West African cyber crime process. African security review: Organised Crime Trends in Africa 18 (4): 107.
Beebe, N. L., and J. G. Clarke. 2005. A hierarchical, objectives-based framework for the digital investigations process. Digital Investigation 2 (2): 146.
Bell, R. E. 2002. The prosecution of computer crime. Journal of Financial Crime 9 (4): 308.
Bishop, J. 2009. Enhancing the understanding of genres of web-based communities: The role of the ecological cognition framework. International Journal of Web-Based Communities 5 (1): 4.
Brenner, S. 2004. Is there such a thing as virtual crime? California Criminal Law Review 4 (1): 1.
Brenner, S. W., and B. Koops. 2004. Approaches to cybercrime jurisdiction. Journal of High Technology Law 4 (1): 1.
Carrier, B. D., and E. H. Spafford. 2003. Getting physical with the digital investigation process. International Journal of Digital Evidence 2 (2): 1.
Casey, E., M. Ferraro, and L. Nguyen. 2009. Investigation delayed is justice denied: Proposals for expediting forensic examinations of digital evidence. Journal of Forensic Science 54 (6): 1353.
Chaudary, K., et al. 2010. Experiences in developing a micro-payment system for peer-to-peer networks. International Journal of Information Technology and Web Engineering 5 (1) 23.
Chawki, M. 2010. Anonymity in cyberspace: Finding the balance between privacy and security. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation 183.
Chuah, J. 2000. The New EU Directives to regulate electronic money institutions—A critique. Journal of International Banking Law 15 (8): 181.
Cuéller, M. 2003. The tenuous relationship between the fight against money laundering and the disruption of criminal finance. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 93 (2/3): 311.
Dorward, D. J. 1998. Forum non conveniens doctrine and the judicial protection of multinational corporations from forum shopping plaintiffs. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 19 (1): 141.
Fairlie, R. W., and A. Chatterji. 2011. High-Technology entrepreneurship in silicon valley. World Paper Series, Institute of the Study of Labour (IZA Discussion Paper NO. 5726) 1.
Filipkowski, W. 2008. Cyberlaundering: An analysis of typologies and techniques. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences 3 (1): 233.
Frieden, J. D., and L. M. Murray. 2011. The admissibility of electronic evidence under the federal rules of evidence. Richmond Journal of Law and Technology 16 (2): 1.
Garber, L. 2001. Computer forensics: High-Tech law enforcement. IEEE Computer Society’s Computer Magazine 34 (1): 22.
Gill, M., and G. Taylor. 2004. Preventing money laundering or obstructing business? Financial companies perspectives on ‘know your customer’ procedures. British Journal of Criminology 44 (4): 584.
Gottfried, J. 2004. The federal framework for internet Gambling. Richmond Journal for Technology 10 (3): 26.
Haney, C. 2001. Auction sites hit hard by electronic crime InfoWorld 23 (3): 25.
Hinsterseer, K. 1997. An economic analysis of money laundering. Journal of Money Laundering Control 1(6): 154.
Hughes, S. J. 1991. Policing money laundering through funds transfers: A critique of regulation under the bank secrecy act. Indiana Law Journal 67 (2): 283.
Hunt, J. 2011. The new frontier of money laundering: How terrorist organisations use cyberlaundering to fund their activities, and how governments are trying to stop them. Information and Communications Technology Law 20 (2): 133.
Jacobson, M., and M. Levitt. 2010. Tracking nacro-terrorist networks: The money trail. Fletcher Forum for World Affairs 34:117.
Jailani, N., N. F. M. Yatim, Y. Yahya, A. Patel, and M. Othman. 2008. Secure and auditable agent-based e-marketplace framework for mobile users. Computer Standard and Interfaces 1 (30): 237.
Joinson, A. N. 2001.Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology 31:177.
Kirtley, J. E. 2010. Symposium cyberspace & the law: Privacy, property, and crime in the virtual frontier: Mask, sheild, and sword: Should the journalist’s privilege protect the identity of anonymous posters to news media websites? Minnesota Law Review 94:1478.
Koker, L. 2006. Money laundering control and suppression of financing of terrorism: Some thoughts on the impact of customer due diligence measures on financial exclusion. Journal of Financial Crime 13 (1): 26.
Larguier, J. 1965. Civil actions for damages in french criminal procedure Tulane Law Review 1 (39): 687.
Lastoska, G., and D. Hunter. 2004. The laws of the virtual worlds. California Law Review 92 (1): 1.
Leong, A. V. M. 2007. Chasing dirty money: Domestic and international measures against money laundering Journal of Money Laundering Control 10 (2): 140.
Levi, M. 2002. Money laundering and its regulation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 582:181.
Levi, M., and P. Reuter. 2006. Money laundering. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 34 (1): 289.
Lucchi, N. 2011. Access to network services and protection of constitutional rights: Recognizing the essential role of internet access for the freedom of expression. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 19 (3): 647.
Manning, R. B. 2010. A computer-generated catalog of types: By product data processing in museums. Curator: The Museum Journal 12 (2): 134.
Moore, S. 2009. The challenge of internet anonymity: Protecting John Doe on the internet The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law 26:469.
Mueller, M. 1999. ICAAN and internet governance: Sorting through the debris of self-regulation. Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications 1 (6): 497.
Murphy, E. 2009. Manufacturing crime: Process, pretext and criminal justice. Georgetown Law Journal 97:1435.
Nichols, P. M. 1997. Outlawing transnational bribery through the world trade organisation. Law and Policy in International Business 28 (1): 305.
Nkhasi, S. S. 2007. Western unionizing the hawala? The privatization of hawalas and lender liability North-western Journal of International Law and Business 27:475.
Norton, J., and H. Shams. 2002. Money laundering law and terrorist financing: Post-September 11 responses—Let us step back and take a deep breath. International Law Journal 13:103.
Ó Ciardhuáin, S. 2004. An extended model of cybercrime investigations. International Journal of Digital Evidence 3 (1): 1.
Perkel, W. 2004. Money laundering and terrorism: Informal value transfer systems. American Criminal Law Review 41:183.
Philippsohn, S. 2001a. Money laundering on the internet. Computers & Security 20 (6): 485.
Philippson, S. 2001b. The dangers of new technology—Laundering on the internet. Journal of Money Laundering Control Thomason 1 (5): 89.
Pieth, M., and G. Aiolfi. 2003. The private sector become active: The Wolfsberg process. Journal of Financial Crime 10 (4): 1.
Ping, H. 2004. New trends in money laundering—From the real world to cyberspace. Journal of Money Laundering Control 5 (1): 50.
Presley, J. R. 1979. Marcel labordere: A neglected french contribution to the trade cycle theory. Kyklos: International Review for Social Sciences 1 (32): 809.
Reiter, M. K., and A. D. Rubin. 1998. Crowds: Anonymity for web transactions. Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC) 1 (1): 1.
Rider, B. A. K. 2002. The weapons of war: The use of anti-money laundering laws against terrorist and criminal enterprises—Part 1. Journal of Banking Regulation 4 (1): 13.
Scholte, J. 1997. Global capitalism and the state. International Affairs 73 (3) pp. 427–52.
Schopper, M. D. 2002. Internet gambling, electronic cash & (and) money laundering: The unintended consequences of a monetary control scheme. Chapman Law Review 5 (1): 303.
Sherman, J. C. 2008. Power and discourse in policy diffusion: Anti-Money laundering in developing states. International Studies Quarterly 52 (3): 635.
Stein, A. R. 1985. Forum non conveniens and the redundancy of court-access doctrine. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 133 (4): 429.
Strafer, G. R. 1989. Money laundering: The crime of the ‘90’s. American Criminal Law Review 27:149.
Straub, J. P. 2002. The prevention of e-money laundering: Tracking the elusive audit trail. Suffolk Transnational Law Review 25 (1): 515.
Tomuschat, C. 2006. The legacy of Nuremberg. Journal of International Criminal Justice 4 (1): 830.
Twitchell, M. 1988. The myth of general jurisdiction. Harvard Law Review 101 (3): 610.
Vincent, O. R., O. Folorunso, O. Akinwale, and A. D. Akinde. 2010. Transaction flow in card payment systems using mobile agents. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management 5:154.
Welling, S. N. 1989. Smurfs, money laundering and the federal criminal law: The crime of structuring transaction. Florida Law Review 41:287.
Yar, M. 2005. The novelty of cybercrime: An assessment in light of routine activity theory. European Journal of Criminology 2 (4): 407.
Yasinsac, A. E., D. G. Marks, M. M. Pollitt, and P. M. Sommer. 2003. Computer forensics education. Security & Privacy Magazine 1 (4): 1.
Zagaris, B. 2004. The merging of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financial enforcement regimes after September 11, 2011. Law and Policy in International Business 34:45.
Zeldin, M. F., and C. V. Florio. 2007. Strengthening laws and financial institutions to combat emerging trends in money laundering. Journal of Money Laundering Control 2 (4): 412.
Unpublished Works
Jamali, M. S. 2009. Cyberlaundering. A Master thesis submitted to the School of Computing Information Technology and Engineering, University of East London, in May 2009, in partial fulfillment of the requirement of Masters of Science in Information Security and Computer Forensics. <http://www.scribe.com/resources/cyberlaundering09811>. Accessed 2 June 2010.
Leslie, D. A. 2010. Anti-cyberlaundering regulation and control. A Masters thesis submitted to the Faculty of Law, University of the Westen Cape, in October 2010, in partial fulfilment of the requirement of Masters of Laws in Transnational Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention.
Manzoor, A. K. S. 2008. E-commerce technology and management. DBA 1727, III Semester Course Material, Masters for Business Administration Degree, Centre for Distance Education, Anna University, Chennai, India. <http://www.scribd.com/doc/40219342/160/Ethics-Social-and-Political-issues>θ Accessed 2 Aug. 2013.
South African Law Reform Commission. 2012.The review of the law of evidence—Draft discussion paper on the review of the law of evidence. Committee Paper 02/2012 Project 126, 29 September 2012.
Internet Resources Internet Articles
Abelson, R. 2001. By the water cooler in cyberspace, the talk turns ugly. New York Times, 29 April 2001. <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/29/technology/29HARA.html?searchpv=site14>. Accessed 24 July 2013.
American Academy of Forensic Sciences. 2011. Academy news. Vol. 41, Issue 3. <http://www.aafs.org/files/default/pdf/>. Accessed 12 April 2013.
ArcSight. 2010. Report details the economic impact of cybercrime. <http://www.prosecurityzone.com/News/It_security/Anti-virus_and_anti-malware_software/Report_details_economic_impact_of_cyber_crime_14551.asp#axzz1SXb9xLFJ>. Accessed 24 July 2013.
ArcSight. 2011. Second annual cost of cyber crime study: Benchmark study of US companies. <http://www.arcsight.com/collateral/whitepapers/2011_Cost_of_Cyber_Crime_Study_August.pdf>. Accessed 4 April 2013.
Baker, R., B. Dawson, I. Shulman, and C. Brewer. 2003. Dirty money and its global effects. International policy report. <http://www.ciponline.org/documents/pdf/>. Accessed 24 April 2013.
Bank for International Settlements. 2012. Basel committee on banking supervision. <http://www.bis.org/bcbs/>. Accessed 4 July 2013.
Baran, D. 2010. Google embarrasses China because it would not win. <http://www.webguild.org/20100115/google-embarrases-chinese-because-it-could-not-win-here>. Accessed 24 July 2013.
Baran, D. 2011. Will google quit italy like China? <http://www.webguild.org/20110103/will-google-quit-italy-like-china>. Accessed 24 July 2013.
Bartlett, B. L. 2002. The negative effects of money laundering on economic development. Research paper for the Asian Development Bank Regional Technical Assistance Project No. 5967 Countering Money Laundering in The Asian and Pacific Region. <http://www.adb.org/documents/other/ogc-toolkits/>. Accessed 24 April 2013.
Basel Institute on Governance: Assets recovery Knowledge Centre. 2007. Anti-Money laundering. <http://www.assetrecovery.org/kc/node/82bce589-7805-11dd-9c9d-d9fcb408dfee.3>. Accessed 5 Feb. 2013.
Bits. 2013. Daily report: International ATM theft takes $ 45 million. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/daily-report-international-a-t-m-theft-takes-45-million/?_r=0. Accessed 5 Sept. 2013.
Bloomberg Business Week. 2006. Gold rush: Online payment systems like e-gold ltd are becoming the currency of choice for cyber crooks. <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_02/b3966094.htm>. Accessed 1 Aug. 2013.
Bluejay, M. 2012. Is online gambling legal in the US? <http://vegasclick.com/online/legal.html>. Accessed 8 Aug. 2013.
Borck, J. 2001. Leave the cybersleuthing to the experts. <http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/04/09/010409tccounter.html.>. Accessed 2 March 2013.
Bortner, M. 1996. Cyberlaundering: Anonymous digital cash and money laundering. <http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/seminar/papers/bortner.htm>. Accessed 12 April 2013.
Bumeter, B. H. 2001. Cyberlaundering: Low tech meets high tech. Maven Mappers Information. <http://www.softduit.com/mavenmappersinformation/2001/06/07/1cyberlaundering-low-tech-high-tech/>. Accessed 21 July 2013.
Business Dictionary. 2011. Electronic payment system. <http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/electronic-payment-systemn.html>. Accessed 25 July 2013.
Chawki, M. 2003. A critical look at the regulation of cybercrime: A comparative analysis with suggestions for legal policy. <http://www.crime-research.org/articles/Critical/2>. Accessed 21 July 2013.
Cherrayil, N. K. 2011. Pirates still making headway in cybercrime. <http://www.gulfnews.com/mobile/business/technology/pirates>. Accessed 4 April 2013.
Companies and Markets. 2011. The future of online and mobile payments. <http://www.companiesandmarkets.com/Market-Report/the-futu re-of-online-and-mobilepayments-625842.asp>. Accessed 4 Aug. 2013.
DBMS2: A Monasch Research Publication. 2010. Examples of machine-generated data. <http://www.dbms2.com/2010/04/08/machine-generated-data-example/>. Accessed 22 Feb. 2013.
Drug Enforcement Administration. 2007. 2007 National money laundering strategy. <http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/docs/nmls.pdf>. Accessed 29 July 2013.
E-gold. an undated website document. About. <http://www.e-gold.com/unsecure/qanda.html>. Accessed 14 Aug. 2013.
E-gold. an undated website document. Contact. <http://www.e-gold.com/unsecure/qanda.html>. Accessed 14 July 2013.
eHow. an undated website document. How SWIFT wires funds. <http://www.ehow.com/swift/>. Accessed 14 May 2013.
eHow. an undated website document. What is an internet content provider? <http://www.ehow.com/about_6695350_internet-content-provider_.html>. Accessed 2 March 2013.
Ehrenfeld, R., and A. A. Lappen. 2007. Terror criminal links growing. <http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28124>. Accessed 24 July 2013.
Encyclopedia. an undated website document. E-Cheques. <http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O12-electroniccheque.html>. Accessed 4 Aug. 2013.
Evans, S. 2012. UK launches regional cybercrime hub. <http://security.cbronline.com/news/uk-launches-regional-cybercrime-hubs-100212>. Accessed 13 Feb. 2013.
Evron, G. 2008. Cybercrime: An economic problem. CircleID Internet Infrastructures. <http://www.circleid.com/posts/89610_cyber_crime_an_economic_problem/>. Accessed 24 July 2013.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2012. Manhattan US Attorney and FBI Assistant Director in Charge Announce Extradition of Russian Citizen to Face Charges for International Cyber Crimes. <http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2012/manhattan-u.s.-attorney-and-fbi-assistant-director-in-charge-announce-extradition-of-russian-citizen-to-face-charges-for-international-cyber-crimes>. Accessed 11 Feb. 2013.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 2012. Frequently asked questions about the FDIC. <http://www.fdic.gov/about/affaq.html>. Accessed 2 Aug. 2013.
Federal Register. 2010. Proposed collection; comment request; renewal with changes to a currently approved collection; the registration of Money Service Businesses (MSB); FinCen Report 107, To Incorporate Changes to The MSB Definitions and Add Provisions for Prepaid Access. <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/10/06/2011-25607/proposed-collection-comment-request-renewal-with-changes-to-a-currently-approved-collection-the>. Accessed 20 April 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. 2012. Frequently asked questions: Money laundering. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/pages/0,3417,en_32250379_32235720_1_1_1_1_1,00.html>. Accessed 21 March 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. an undated website document. About the FATF. <http://www.fatf-gafi.org/about/>. Accessed 21 Feb. 2013.
Financial Action Task Force. an undated website document. What is money laundering? Basic Facts About Money Laundering. <http://www.oecd.org/fatf.>. Accessed 15 April 2013.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. 2010. Stanley Morris address to Congress Banking Committee. <http://www.fincen.org/resource>. Accessed 17 June 2013.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. 2012. About. <http://www.fincen.org/resource>. Accessed 17 June 2013.
Forester. an undated website document. European Online Retail Forecast, 2010 to 2015. <http://forrester.com/rb/Research/European_online_retail_forecast%2C_2010_to_2015/q/id/58597/t/2>. Accessed 12 Aug. 2013.
Forester. an undated website document. US Online Retail Forecast, 2010 to 2015. <http://www.forrester.com/rb/Research/us_online_retail_forecast,_2010_to_2015/q/id/58596/t/2>. Accessed 12 Aug. 2013.
Fourman, M. 2002. Informatics. <http://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/publications/online/0139.pdf>. Accessed 17 June 2013.
Fowler, G., and J. Qin. 2007. QQ: China’s New Coin of the Realm? <http://www.onlinewsj.com/public/article/SB117519670114653518-FR_svDHxRtxtvNmGwwpouq_hl2q_20080329>. Accessed 20 April 2013.
Global Information Inc. 2004. Consumer e-payment: What does the Future Hold? <http://www.the-infoshop.com/press/iv/>. Accessed 2 Feb. 2013.
Groen, K. 2011. American ISPs take action against online piracy. <http://www.futureofcopyright.com/home/blog-post/2011/08/24/american-isps-take-action-against-online-piracy.html>. Accessed 9 Aug. 2013.
Grow, B., J. Cady, S. Rutledge, and D. Polek. 2006. Gold rush: Online payment systems like e-gold Ltd are becoming the currency of choice for cybercrooks. Business Week. <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_02/b3966094.htm>. Accessed 1 Jan. 2013.
Guadamuz, A. 2003. Electronic money: A viable payment system? <http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/2255/1/electronic money.pdf>. Accessed 4 Aug. 2013.
Hughes, T. 2010. Internet borders: Where the information stops. <http://www.praxmatrix.com.au/digital-diplomacy/internet-borders-where-the-information-stops/>. Accessed 24 July 2013.
ICAAN: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. an undated internet article. About Us. <http://www.icann.org/en/about>. Accessed 2 May 2013.
Ieong, RSC. 2006. FORZA—Digital forensics investigation framework that incorporate legal issues. Proceedings of DFRWS2008. <http://www.dfrws.org/2006/proceedings/4-Ieong.pdf>. Accessed 29 Feb. 2013.
IGNOU. Electronic Payment Systems. <http://webserver.ignou.ac.in/virtualcampus/adit/course/cst304/ecom2.htm>. Accessed 4 July 2013.
Interpol. an undated internet webpage. About Us. <http://www.interpol.int/about/>. Accessed 11 Feb. 2013.
Interpol. an undated website document. Cybercrime. <http://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Financial-crime/Payment-cards>. Accessed 11 Feb. 2013.
Investopedia. an undated internet article. Electronic Money. <http://www. investopedia.com/terms/e/electronic-money.asp>. Accessed 4 Aug. 2013.
Ivory, R. 2008. Criminal assets: A little lateral thinking. Freedom from Fear Magazine. <http://www.freedomfromfearmagazine.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=98:criminal-assets&catid=37:issue-1&Itemid=159>. Accessed 12 June 2013.
Javelin Strategy & Research. 2010. Online retail payments forecast 2010–2014: Alternative payments growth strong but credit card projected for comeback. <https://www.javelinstrategy.com/ research/Brochure-171>. Accessed 4 Aug. 2013.
Keh, D. 1996. Drug money in a changing world: economic reform and criminal finance. UNDCP Technical Series: Vienna, United Nations International Drug Control Programme, No 4. <http://www.unodc.org/pdf/technical_series_1996-01-01_2.pdf>. Accessed 27 July 2013.
King, P. an undated website document. Corruption ruins everything: Gridlock over Suharto’s legacy in Indonesia (Part 1). The Asia-Pacific Focus: Japan Focus. <http://www.japanfocus.org/-Peter-King/2679>. Accessed 12 June 2013.
Kiviat, B. 2010. Driver’s license for the internet. <http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/01/30/drivers-licenses-for-the-internet/>. Accessed 24 July 2013.
Kreß, C. 2010. Nulla poena nullum crimen sine lege. Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. <http://www.uni-koeln.de/jur-fak/kress/NullumCrimen24082010.pdf>. Accessed 17 Feb. 2013.
Lawrence, S. 2008. Money laundering and the insurance industry. AIR insights. <http//:www.asiainsurancereview.com>. Accessed 20 May 2013.
Leslie, W. 2012. Hits, and misses, in a war on bribery. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/business/corporate-bribery-war-has-hits-and-a-few-misses.html?pagewanted=all>. Accessed 4 March 2013.
Lilley, P. 2007. E-money and cyberlaundering: Virtual dirty dealing. <http://proximalreview.squarespace.com/e-money-cyber-launderring/>. Accessed 12 July 2013.
Little, A. D. 2009. Global M-payment report update—2009. <http://www.adl.com/uploads/tx_extthoughtleadership/ADL_Global_M_Payment_Report_Update_2009_Executive_Summary.pdf>. Accessed 12 Aug. 2013.
Living Internet. an undated internetarticle. History of the Internet. <http://www.livinginternet.com>. Accessed 10 Feb. 2013.
LivingInternet. Cryptography. <http://www.livinginternet.org/file_crypt>. Accessed 16 Aug. 2013.
Mandujano, S. 2003. Towards the preservation of a key feature of the internet: Policy and technology for cyberspace anonymity. Center for Intelligent Systems (CSI) of ITESM. In proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation (ICTPI ’03). Monterrey, Mexico. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/similar?doi=10.1.1.61.488&type=cc>. Accessed 27 July 2013.
Maton, J. an undated internet article. Recovery of assets case study: The dariye proceedings in the United Kingdom. <http://www.assetrecovery.org/kc/resources/org.apache.wicket.Application/repo?nid=62ba6a53-c5fb-11dd-b3f1-fd61180437d9>. Accessed 14 June 2013.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. an undated internet article. Jurisdiction. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jurisdiction>. Accessed 22 Feb. 2013.
Messner, E. 2000. Networld: Ebay acts to curtail Internet fraud. <http://www.nwfusion.com>. Accessed 8 April 2013.
Mobile Enquirer. an undated internet article. Mobile Payments to Grow to $ 200 Billion by 2012. <http://www.mobileinquirer.com/2011/mobile-payments-to-grow-to-200-billion-by-2012/>. Accessed 12 Aug. 2013.
Mollenkamp, C., B. Grow, and B. Wolf. 2012. Exclusive: Senate investigating HSBC for money laundering. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/25/us-hsbc-probe-idUSTRE80O1FH20120125>. Accessed 12 Jan. 2013.
Mulig, E. V., and M. Smith. 2004. Understanding and preventing money laundering. <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1091011>. Accessed 6 June 2013.
Nakamoto, S. 2009. Bitcoin: A peer-to peer electronic payment system. <http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf>. Accessed 8 Aug. 2013.
New York Times. 2010. Swiss reject US request to extradite Polanski. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/movies/13polanski.html?src=mv>. Accessed 24 Feb. 2013.
Noblett, M. G., M. Pollitt, and L. A. Presley. 2000. Recovering and examining computer forensic evidence, forensic science communications. <http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/oct2000/computer.htm>. Accessed 19 Feb. 2013.
NUA. an undated website document. Surveys. <http://www.m.nua.org>. Accessed 3 Aug. 2013.
Online Poker News. an undated internet article. Italian Online Gambling worth € 4.8 billion. <http://www.onlinepoker.net/poker-news/poker-law-industry-news/italian-online-gambling-worth-48bn-rising-legislation/9394>. Accessed 3 Aug. 2013.
Oxford English Dictionary. an undated webpage. Activity. <http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/activity>. Accessed 6 June 2013.
Palmer, G. 2001. A road map for digital forensic research. Digital Forensic Research Workshops (DFRW—Utica, New York, August 7–8). <http://www.dfrws.org/2001/dfrws-rm-final.pdf>. Accessed 22 Feb. 2013.
Palmer, J., and M. Bergund. 2002. Anonymity on the Internet. <http://people.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/society/anonymity.html>. Accessed 24 July 2013.
Patzakis, J. 2003. Computer forensics as an integral component of the information security enterprise. <http://www.computer-tutorials.org/ebooks/computerforensics.pdf>. Accessed 19 Feb. 2013.
Pemberton, G. 2000. Money laundering through the securities market. The money laundeing bulletin. <http://bcbqatar.com/English/Articles/LAUNDRY.pdf>. Accessed 14 Aug. 2013.
Philipsohn, S. 2002. Fraud and money laundering. <http://www.pcbsols.com/hssiejwsw>. Accessed 23 May 2013.
Pollitzer, B. 2001. The future of electronic payments. <http://www.bakersonline.com/e-banking/>. Accessed 24 Sept. 2010.
Recording Industry Association of America. an undated website document. Who music theft hurts. <http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_details_online>. Accessed 9 Aug. 2013.
Red Plc. an undated website document. PRISM merchant system. <http://www.redplc.com/about/>. Accessed 16 Feb. 2013.
Robbins, J. 2000. An explanation of computer forensics. <http://www.computerforensics.net/forensics.htm>. Accessed 16 Feb. 2013.
RTHK. 2011. HK seizes $ 330 in Megaupload raids. <http://m.rthk.hk/news/20120121/813246.htm>. Accessed 16 Feb. 2013.
Rundle, G. 2010. Did he or didn’t he? <http://www.theage.com.au/national/did-he-or-didnt-he-the-murky-politics-of-sex-and-consent-20101211-18tie.html>. Accessed 15 July 2013.
Schjolsberg, S. 2011. An International Criminal Court or Tribunal for Cyberspace (ICTC). A paper for the East West Institute (EWI) Cybercrime legal working group. <http://www.cybercrimelaw.net/documents/International_Criminal_Court_or_Tribunal_for_Cyberspace_%28ICTC%29.pdf>. Accessed 24 July 2013.
Schneier, B. 1998. The risks of key recovery, key escrow, and trusted third party encryption. <http://www.schneier.com/paper-key-escrow.html>. Accessed 20 Feb. 2013.
Schneier, B. 2010. Schneier on security: Anonymity and the internet. <http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/anonymity_and_t_3.html>. Accessed 24 July 2013.
Schroeder, S. 2007. Censored: List of countries that banned youtube. <http://mashable.com/2007/05/30/youtube-bans/>. Accessed 10 July 2013.
Scrofina, S. 2011. If one were to make a competitor for Bitcoin, what would it be? <http://www.quora.com>. Accessed 5 Aug. 2013.
Searching Cloud Computing. an undated website document. Cloud computing. <http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/definition/cloud-computing>. Accessed 24 July 2013.
Second Life. an undated website document. About us. <http://www.secondlife.com/corporate/vat.php>. Accessed 23 July 2013.
Second Life. an undated website document. Current user metrics for second life. <http://secondlife.com/xmlhttp/secondlife.php>. Accessed 22 July 2013.
Smith, J., M. Pieth, and G. Jorge. 2007. Recovery of stolen assets: A fundamental principle of the UN convention against corruption. <http://www.u4.no/pdf/?file=/themes/uncac/documents/U4Brief2_2007_asset-recovery.pdf>. Accessed 7 June 2013.
Smith, R. G. 2003. Investigating cybercrime: Barriers and solutions. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Pacific Rim Fraud Conference. <http://www.aic.gov.au/about_aic/research _programs/staff/~/media/conferences/other/smith_russell/2003-09-cybercrime.ashx>. Accessed 19 Feb. 2013.
Spiegel. 2007. Sweden opens virtual embassy in second life. <http://www.speigel.de/international/01518,463073.00html>. Accessed 5 April 2013.
Streak Gambling. an undated website document. Online Gambling worth 2bn in Europe. <http://www.streakgaming.com/forum/online-gambling-worth-2-billion-greece-t22194.html>. Accessed 3 Aug. 2013.
SWIFT. an undated website document. Company information. <http://www.swift.com/about_swift/company_information/index.page? lang=en>. Accessed 15 Aug. 2013.
Techradar. an undated website document. Online fraud worth billions. <http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/online-fraud-trade-worth-billions-says-symantec-488116. Accessed 9 Aug. 2013.
Telephone Tribute. an undated website document. Phone phreaking. <http://www.telephonetribute.com/phone phreaking.html>. Accessed 16 Aug. 2013.
The Daily Attack. 2011. A comprehensive critique of the weaknesses of Bitcoin. <http://thedailyattack.com/2011/07/23/a-comprehensive-critique-of-the-weaknesses-of-bitcoin/>. Accessed 5 Aug. 2013.
The Royal Mint. 2012. Legal tender guidelines. <http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines>. Accessed 22 April 2013.
Times. an undated website document. Online gambling. <http://www.times online.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article 6208 34.ece>. Accessed 21 July 2013.
United States Department of Justice. an undated website document. Computer crime. <http://www.cybercrime.gov/ssmanual/05ssma.html>. Accessed 22 Feb. 2013.
US Legal. an undated internet article. Jurisdiction. <http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/jurisdiction/>. Accessed 22 Feb. 2013.
Van Auken, B. an undated internet article. Baby Doc” Duvalliers arrested. World socilaist website. <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/19january/>. Accessed 24 Jan. 2013.
Virgin Cards. an undated internet article. About us. <http://www.virgin.co.uk/pre-paidcards>. Accessed 15 July 2013.
Visa Corporate Site. 2010. Financial Inclusion—Pakistan eases burden of displaced citizens by delivering financial support through Visa. an undated internet webpage. <http://www.currencyofprogress.com/_media/pdfs/case_studies/VISA_Inclusion-Pakistan.pdf>. Accessed 4 Oct. 2010.
Walker, J. 1998. Modeling global money laundering flows. <http://members.ozemail.com.au/born1820/m/method.htm>. Accessed 23 Jan. 2013.
Wallace, J. D. 1999. Nameless in cyberspace, anonymity on the internet. CATO Institute Briefing Papers, December 8, 1999. <http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-054es.html,http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp54.pdf>. Accessed 22 July 2013.
Web Developers Note. an undated internet article. What is web server—A computer of a program. <http://www.webdevelopersnotes.com/basics/what_is_web_server.php>. Accessed 1 March 2013.
Webcite. 2013. <http://www.webcitation.org/6JJIqfMJn>. Accessed 5 Sept. 2013.
Webopedia. an undated internet article. Digital cash. <http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/digital_cash.html>. Accessed 4 Aug. 2013.
Wise Geek. an undated website document. What is data storage? <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-data-storage.htm>. Accessed 22 Feb. 2013.
Wise Geek. an undated website document. What is online banking?. <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-online-banking92338>. Accessed 9 Feb. 2013.
World Bank. 2003. Money laundering and terrorist financing: Definitions and explanation. <http://www.worldbank.org/finance/assets/I mages/>. Accessed 15 April 2013.
Yahoo Finance. 2010. Revenue of Online Payment set to hit $ 2700 billion by 2015. <http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Revenues-From-Online-Payment-businesswireuk9382019.html?x=0>. Accessed 4 Aug. 2013.
Yoshida, J. 2001. Eurobank notes to embed RFID chips by 2005. <http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011219S0016>. Accessed 22 April 2013.
Websites
Bitcoin. <http://www.bitcoin.org>. Accessed 8 Aug. 2013.
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8548190.stm>. Accessed 24 July 2013.
CyberAngels. <http://www.cyberangels.org/>. Accessed 4 April 2013.
CyberCash. <http://www.cybercash.com>. Accessed 4 Aug. 2013.
Drug Enforcement Administration. <http://www.justice.gov/dea/programs/money.html>. Accessed 30 Jan. 2013.
Ecash. <http://www.ecash.com/online/>. Accessed 4 Aug. 2013.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. <http://www.fincen.gov/about_fincen/wwd/>. Accessed 9 Aug. 2013.
Financial Sector Assessment Program. <http://www.imf.org/about/projects/worldbank>. Accessed 13 Aug. 2010.
Freedom Eagle Card. <http://www.freedom-card.co.uk/>. Accessed 2 Sept. 2010.
Gold and Silver Reserve Inc. <http://www.e-gold.com/unsecure/pgpkey.htm>. Accessed 13 Feb. 2013.
Internet Hotlines Providers. <http://www.inhope.org/gns/home.aspx>. Accessed 4 April 2013.
International Telecommunications Union. <http://www.itu.int/africainternet2000/Documents/doc7_e.htm>. Accessed 13 June 2013.
Internet Watch Foundation. <http://www.iwf.org.uk/>. Accessed 4 April 2013.
Internet World Stats. <http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats/htm>. Accessed 15 July 2013.
Interpol. <http://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Financial-crime/Payment-cards>. Accessed 11 Feb. 2013.
NetCash. <http://www.netbank.com/~netcash>. Accessed 4 Aug. 2013.
Treaties Office of the Council of Europe. <http://conventions.coe.int/>. Accessed 9 Feb. 2013.
United States Department of Justice. <http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/Press%20Releases/DC%20egold%20indictment.pdf>. Accessed 13 Feb. 2013.
Wolfsberg Group of Banks. <http://www.wolfsberg-principles.com/index.html>. Accessed 6 Aug. 2013.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Leslie, D. (2014). Prosecuting Cyberlaundering. In: Legal Principles for Combatting Cyberlaundering. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06416-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06416-1_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06415-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06416-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)