Abstract
Purpose - The paper explores the regulatory environment in LDCs to evaluate their preparedness to harness normative anti-money laundering regimes. The global AML/CFT regimes are evolved at a global level but implemented within sovereign states—different regulatory environments and the possibility of regulatory disparities. The fundamental question this paper seeks to answer is whether the global AML framework can be as carefully designed as to afford a level playing field to all participating countries? Is this a possible prospect and if not what should be the way forward? The paper articulates the regulatory environment in LDCs to evaluate its implications on individual state’s ability to harness normative anti-money laundering regimes. Design/methodology/approach - This paper was partly written by an empirical study based on the author's familiar experience in relation to financial markets regulation and the challenges in LDCs. The paper also partly written drawing on the author's PhD thesis entitled: The Global The thrust of the thesis was to examine the intricacies of the global AML/CFT framework focusing largely on three jurisdictions—United Kingdom, Uganda and South Africa. The paper has been written based on these three jurisdictions. The contention of the paper is that while it is necessary for states or oversight institutions to adopt interstate regulatory initiatives on overlapping challenges such as money laundering, the flipside side is that global prohibition regimes often tend to overlook the practical realities in member countries where they are implemented. Finally, this paper proposes the need for a hybrid approach designed to accomodate both the needs of oversight institutions and respective individual countries where envisaged regimes are introduced.Findings - The research findings of the study are that the global market system is fraught with dualities with the potential to resonate differently in each jurisdiction in harnessing desired AML/CFT regimes. The dynamics of development in DCs and LDCs are different and this has different implications for each country in harnessing the envisaged AML/CFT regimes.Research limitations/implications - The study was based on a small sample of jurisdictions focusing on the challenges of harnessing normative AML/CFT regimes in Africa. I presume it would have been better if undertook the study based on a large sample of Less Developed Countries, preferably also in Asia and South America and internalise their own experiences as well. The foregoing approach would have made the sample to be more representative globally.Practical implications - The global AML/CFT framework as it stands today cannot be effectively implemented globally unless its ethos reflects the varying global market conditions, which cannot be exclusive of local conditions. LDCs as well as DCs should be co-opted on AML/CFT committees to make sure that engendered regimes have an ethos of representativity across countries. short of that the global AML/CFt framework will remain elusive to some countries.Originality/value - The paper was written by internalising the practical experiences of LDCs in harnessing global AML/CFT regimes. While the author has benefited from the scholarly work of others, he has done it in a distinctive way to foster the objectives for writing this paper. This paper is original because it proffers approach that could potentially enhance the study of global prohibition regimes and how they are harnessed in individual jurisdictions.
Purpose - The paper explores the regulatory environment in LDCs to evaluate their preparedness to harness normative anti-money laundering regimes. The global AML/CFT regimes are evolved at a global level but implemented within sovereign states—different regulatory environments and the possibility of regulatory disparities. The fundamental question this paper seeks to answer is whether the global AML framework can be as carefully designed as to afford a level playing field to all participating countries? Is this a possible prospect and if not what should be the way forward? The paper articulates the regulatory environment in LDCs to evaluate its implications on individual state’s ability to harness normative anti-money laundering regimes. Design/methodology/approach - This paper was partly written by an empirical study based on the author's familiar experience in relation to financial markets regulation and the challenges in LDCs. The paper also partly written drawing on the author's PhD thesis entitled: The Global The thrust of the thesis was to examine the intricacies of the global AML/CFT framework focusing largely on three jurisdictions—United Kingdom, Uganda and South Africa. The paper has been written based on these three jurisdictions. The contention of the paper is that while it is necessary for states or oversight institutions to adopt interstate regulatory initiatives on overlapping challenges such as money laundering, the flipside side is that global prohibition regimes often tend to overlook the practical realities in member countries where they are implemented. Finally, this paper proposes the need for a hybrid approach designed to accomodate both the needs of oversight institutions and respective individual countries where envisaged regimes are introduced.Findings - The research findings of the study are that the global market system is fraught with dualities with the potential to resonate differently in each jurisdiction in harnessing desired AML/CFT regimes. The dynamics of development in DCs and LDCs are different and this has different implications for each country in harnessing the envisaged AML/CFT regimes.Research limitations/implications - The study was based on a small sample of jurisdictions focusing on the challenges of harnessing normative AML/CFT regimes in Africa. I presume it would have been better if undertook the study based on a large sample of Less Developed Countries, preferably also in Asia and South America and internalise their own experiences as well. The foregoing approach would have made the sample to be more representative globally.Practical implications - The global AML/CFT framework as it stands today cannot be effectively implemented globally unless its ethos reflects the varying global market conditions, which cannot be exclusive of local conditions. LDCs as well as DCs should be co-opted on AML/CFT committees to make sure that engendered regimes have an ethos of representativity across countries. short of that the global AML/CFt framework will remain elusive to some countries.Originality/value - The paper was written by internalising the practical experiences of LDCs in harnessing global AML/CFT regimes. While the author has benefited from the scholarly work of others, he has done it in a distinctive way to foster the objectives for writing this paper. This paper is original because it proffers approach that could potentially enhance the study of global prohibition regimes and how they are harnessed in individual jurisdictions.