Financial money laundering to all serious offences,

Financial
Action Task Force (FATF) recommendation 3 advised “Countries should apply the crime of money laundering to all serious
offences, with a view to including the widest range of predicate crimes”. The
United Kingdom has gone above and beyond this recommendations by making all
crimes constitute a predicate crime. The Proceeds of Crime act 2002 (POCA) simplified
the conviction of criminals accused of money laundering by removing the need
for prosecuting lawyers to prove that any funds or assets were the proceeds of
a crime and which type of crime these came from.  Prior to this date prosecutors had two acts
available for charging persons, these were Criminal Justice Act 1988 and Drug
trafficking act 1994. Predicate crimes do not need to have resulted in a
successful convictions to try a case for money laundering. It is also
irrelevant if the person being tried for money laundering offence was involved
in the preceding crime. Crimes being classed as predicate also applies to other
jurisdictions as long as the money laundering act was carried out within the
United Kingdom and the act would have constituted a crime under UK law. This is
still true even if the act was perfectly lawful in the country it was carried
out in.  A number of different countries
apply the same approach including Jersey. Case Att Gen v Bhojwani https://www.jerseylaw.je/publications/jglr/Pages/JLR1106_Kelleher.aspx shows that despite
the predicate crime taking place in Nigeria that the case can be prosecuted as
it would have constituted a crime if it had taken place in Jersey itself.  In
Australia like the United Kingdom all crimes are classifiable as predicate
offences in cases of money laundering. FATF key findings http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/mer4/Mutual-Evaluation-Report-Australia-2015.pdf show that Australia should broaden its focus
to increase its detection of money laundering offences. The findings show that
Australia prosecutions for money laundering are categorised into 3 main
threats, these are drugs, fraud and tax evasion.  FATF key findings in the UK http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/mer/MER%20UK%20FULL.pdf were favourable in that the scope of offenses
used to convict under money laundering offenses are wide and regularly used.
Since The Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) came into effect in 2003 the number of
cases being tried and convicted has been increasing considerably year on year
in England and Wales.

ii)
Actus reus is the Latin term for the guilty act. This constitutes the behaviour
of the accused person.  It can be both an
act of doing something which is prohibited by law and an act of not doing
something that the law requires. It must also be a voluntary act. Actus reus
comes down to the simple fact of did they do it. This is much easier to prove
as there is likely to be physical evidence, forensics or witness statements. Handling
the property or assisting in handling the money is the actus reus in a money
laundering crime.