More

AML/CFT

As an international financial centre, Hong Kong attaches significance to safeguarding the integrity of our financial systems by implementing international standards on anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism (“AML/CFT”) to deter and detect inward and outward flows of illicit funds. A number of legislations have been put in place to underpin the implementation of the AML/CFT regime in Hong Kong.

At ONC Lawyers, our litigation and dispute resolution team works closely with our corporate and commercial team to provide the following services:

  • representing and advising clients on AML/CFT related investigations, enquires, interviews, document production and raids brought by the designated relevant authorities including Hong Kong Monetary Authority, Insurance Authority, Securities and Futures Commission and Customs and Excise Department. We also assist clients in dealing with law enforcement agencies on AML related investigations such as the Hong Kong Police and the ICAC;
  • advising clients on potential liability and obligations arising from AML/CFT related legislations, including Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap. 615), Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance (Cap. 405), Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455), United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance (Cap. 575), United Nations Sanctions Ordinance (Cap. 537), Weapons of Mass Destruction (Control of Provision of Services) Ordinance (Cap. 526), Import and Export Ordinance (Cap. 60) and Cross-boundary Movement of Physical Currency and Bearer Negotiable Instruments Ordinance (Cap. 629); and
  • advising clients on the statutory obligations of reporting suspected money laundering activities to the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit.

If you would like to know more about our commercial crime practice or how we can help your business, please contact us at (852) 2810 1212 or at criminal@onc.hk.

Please refer to our articles in ‘Knowledge’

Recommended Posts

Using Anti-Money Laundering Law to Prosecute Telephone Scammers
Anti-money laundering law is used to prosecute telephone scammers in order to overcome jurisdictional and evidential issues pertaining to the charge of conspiracy to defraud.
The Role of Company Secretaries and Directors in Anti-Money Laundering Compliance
Millions of dollars come into and go out of Hong Kong every day, legitimate or not, as Hong Kong is an international financial centre with no exchange controls. In the last few years, huge sums have flown out from countries around Hong Kong to or via Hong Kong for tax, funds control or investment reasons. This creates issues and risks of money laundering. There have also been numerous business email scams, or cases of impersonation of C-suite officers, where companies from overseas were deceived into wiring large sums of money to bank accounts in Hong Kong. Such wire transfers and movement of funds via “money mules” are also money laundering as the funds are the proceeds of crime. As a member of the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”), an independent inter-governmental body that promotes policies against money laundering and terrorist financing, Hong Kong is obliged to implement the anti-money laundering (“AML”) requirements promulgated by the FATF.
How Legal Practitioners Should Handle Client’s Money from an AML Perspective? Some Good News, But More Alerts
On 19 September 2014, W K Wu (“Wu”), a solicitor and partner, was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for money laundering. As we have discussed in our previous article Money-Laundering: Would I Have Believed I Was Dealing with Dirty Money?, the Court of Final Appeal has clarified the law on Section 25(1) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap 455)(“OSCO”) in its judgment in the case of Pang Hung Fai FACC 8 of 2013 on 10 November 2014. Relying on the Pang Hung Fai case, Wu appealed to the Court of Appeal and was ordered a retrial (in CACC 299 of 2014) on 26 May 2016. On 1 September 2017, the District Court handed down its judgement after the retrial. The charge against Wu was based on the “having reasonable grounds to believe” limb of the offence of dealing in property that represents crime proceeds under s25 of OSCO. In the retrial, there is little dispute on facts but much divergence over interpretation of evidence and law. It was the prosecution’s case that Wu had reasonable grounds to believe the money in the respective charge represented the proceeds of an unproved indictable crime. On the other hand, Wu’s argument was that the reasonable grounds he had would not have led him to believe the money he handled represented indictable crime proceeds.
Back to top