This concluding chapter studies the regulation compelling banks and financial institutions to play an active part in combatting financial crime. Regulation takes two approaches: one is to enforce anti-money laundering law through banks and financial situations; and the other approach is to enforce anti-money laundering law against them if they should be found to be complicit in transferring proceeds of crime. Under the first approach, regulation imposes duties on banks and financial institutions to act as gatekeepers to prevent money laundering from taking place and to identify such incidents so as to help regulators carry out enforcement. Under the second approach, banks and financial institutions may be punished for sometimes inadvertently becoming complicit in money laundering, and this provides a strong incentive for them to treat their gatekeeper roles seriously. The chapter then considers the regulatory duty of due diligence, financial intelligence reporting, and internal control and governance.
Chapter
14. Combatting financial crime
Iris Chiu and Joanna Wilson
Chapter
5. Crimes of strict liability
Offences of strict liability are those crimes that do not require mens rea or even negligence as to one or more elements in the actus reus. Where an offence is interpreted to be one of strict liability, a person will be criminally liable even if they could not have avoided the prescribed harm despite attempting to do so. Where someone is accused of strict liability, it is not necessary for the prosecution to bring evidence of mens rea as to the matter of strict liability. This chapter discusses strict liability and its distinction from ‘absolute’ liability, crimes of strict liability in common law and statutes, strict liability and the presumption of innocence, the presumption of mens rea, the severity of punishment for strict liability, arguments for and against strict liability, the imposition of liability for negligence, and statutory due diligence defences.
Chapter
5. Crimes of strict liability
David Ormerod and Karl Laird
Offences of strict liability are those crimes that do not require mens rea or even negligence as to one or more elements in the actus reus. Where an offence is interpreted to be one of strict liability, the accused will be criminally liable even if he could not have avoided the prescribed harm despite attempting to do so. Where someone is accused of strict liability, it is not necessary for the prosecution to tender evidence of mens rea as to the matter of strict liability. This chapter discusses strict liability and its distinction from ‘absolute’ liability, crimes of strict liability in common law and statutes, strict liability and the presumption of innocence, the presumption of mens rea, the severity of punishment for strict liability, arguments for and against strict liability, the imposition of liability for negligence and statutory due diligence defences.
