This act was upheld first in 1974 against a 4th amendment challenge in California Bankers Association v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21. Then again in 1978 against a 1st amendment challenge in U.S. v. Fitzgibbon, 576 F.2d 279 (10th Cir.), cert. den. 439 U.S. 910 (1978). Finally, a 5th amendment challenge against this act was defeated in 1980 with U.S. v. Dichne, 612 F.2d 632 (2d Cir), cert. den. 445 U.S. 928 (1980). Following the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, the next major piece of legislation was the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986(MLCA). This act officially made money laundering a crime. It created three offenses, which included:
- Knowingly helping launder money from criminal activity.
- Knowingly engaging (including by being willfully blind) in a transaction of more than $10,000 that involves property from criminal activity.
- Structuring transactions to avoid Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) reporting.
In 1990 section 2532 of the Crime Control Act of 1990 set the stage for later calls for cooperation and sharing of information related to tax data and currency transfers. First, this act gave the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) the authority to request assistance of a foreign banking authority in conducting and investigation, examination or enforcement action. Second, this gave the OCC the power to accommodate similar request in the reverse. The purpose of these exchanges is to allow the investigating body the opportunity to determine if a person has, is or will violate any banking or currency transaction laws or regulations.
The Crime Control Act was supplemented a year later by the FDIC Corporation Improvement Act. Section 206 of The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA) allowed the OCC to disclose to foreign bank regulators or supervisory authorities information that the OCC may discover.
Then in 1992, the Housing and Community Development Act, Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act, ave regulators the power to close or seize institutions found guilty of money laundering activities. It also permitted the treasury to require financial institutions and their employees to report suspicious transactions relevant to possible violation of law or regulation. Plus it required financial institutions to adopt anti-money laundering programs. Furthermore, it amended the original BSA to define structuring activities as illegal money laundering activities. Structuring, sometimes referred to as smurfing, occurs when a reportable transaction report is avoided by breaking cash denominations down into fragments that do not exceed the $10,000 threshold.
In what is sometimes viewed as a streamlining initiative and other times considered a loosening of money laundering legislation, the Money Laundering Suppression Act of 1994 aimed to reduce and consolidate Currency Transaction Reports(CTR) to one destination. It further required certain “money transmitting businesses” to register with the Treasury. This act also redefined financial institutions to include tribal casinos, which were previously not covered under the BSA. Canada Money laundering initiatives were not as substantial in Canada as early as the American efforts. However, in 1989 the Proceeds of Crime Act (Bill C-61) made up some ground by criminalizing money laundering activities. This act allowed for the seizure of property or profit resulting from drug or non-drug related crimes. Similar to the BSA act of the US and subsequent amendments this act required the filing of cash transaction reports for amounts of $10,000 or more. Later in 1993, the Seized Property Management Act was instituted to create a mechanism for sharing seized assets amongst the provinces as opposed to the seized items defaulting to the federal government.
Finally, in 2000, the Proceeds of Crime Money Laundering Act (Bill C-22) updated and replaced the earlier C-61 PCMLA from 1989. It created the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Center of Canada (FinTrac) to receive transaction reports and analyze international financial movements through cross border currency reporting requirements. Some of the goals of this new act included the following:
- Provide vital tools for law enforcement
- Strike a balance between privacy rights and law enforcement needs
- Minimize compliance costs for financial intermediaries
- Contribute to international efforts to combat money laundering
Source:
http://softduit.com/mavenmappersinformation/cyberlaundering-low-tech-meets-high-tech/016/
In my mind nowadays, the Internet is a vital and virtual device for exchanging information, but same as a real society, in the virtual society of internet there are people who want to take advantage of it for committing a crimes. However companies and individuals try to prepare more secure area for their selves and others but from my point of view it is more useful to have more powerful law which prevents happening any kind of cyberspace crimes and damage to innocent people of society