Is the UK’s anti-money laundering regime “worth the candle”? A tentative cost-benefit analysis

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to raise, and consider, first-order questions about the United Kingdom’s anti-money laundering (AML) regime.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper contrasts the original rationale for introducing AML and asset recovery to the UK with data on the assets recovered from organised crime and those involved in drug trafficking. It does this by analysing historical and contemporaneous literature – both official and academic.

Findings

When assessed against its original aims of combating drugs and organised crime, the tentative conclusion is that the UK’s AML system does not appear to be worth the candle.

Research limitations/implications

While based upon publicly available information that is far from ideal, the analysis raises credible questions as to whether the UK’s AML regime is worthwhile and whether it could be done differently.

Practical implications

Raises the question of whether the impact of the AML regime could be made worthwhile by investing a great deal more in those law enforcement agencies that use the suspicious activity reporting regime. It also raises the question as to whether the AML regime could be re-purposed to achieve aims that are different from the original.

Social implications

Given the financial costs, which run into billions of pounds, and the fact that the regime has failed to have a significant impact on the level of drug trafficking or the revenue of organised criminals, the paper raises questions as to when the policy can be re-designed or abandoned.

Originality/value

While most other analytical work simply makes suggestions as to how to improve the number of inputs into the AML system, this paper provides a critical analysis of the costs and benefits of the AML regime in the UK.

Citation

Sproat, P.A. (2023), "Is the UK’s anti-money laundering regime “worth the candle”? A tentative cost-benefit analysis", Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1100-1116. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-02-2023-0027