Having 20 or more bank accounts can inevitably lead into suspicion of Money Laundering and need for a crime investigation.
Posted on November 11th, 2012

by Neethi Adi kari

According to Wikipedia Money laundering is the process of concealing the source of money obtained by illicit means. The methods by which money may be laundered are varied and can range in sophistication. Many regulatory and governmental authorities quote estimates each year for the amount of money laundered, either worldwide or within their national economy.

Wikipedia further says that Money laundering often occurs in three steps: first, cash is introduced into the financial system by some means (“placement”), the second involves carrying out complex financial transactions in order to camouflage the illegal source (“layering”), and the final step entails acquiring wealth generated from the transactions of the illicit funds (“integration”). Some of these steps may be omitted, depending on the circumstances; for example, non-cash proceeds that are already in the financial system would have no need for placement.[2]

Frequently Asked Questions – What is Money Laundering?

A Jordanian criminal court has recently sentenced a former intelligence chief to 13 years in prison for embezzlement of public funds, money laundering and abuse of office.

In 1996 the International Monetary Fund estimated that two to five percent of the worldwide global economy involved laundered money. However, the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF), an intergovernmental body set up to combat money laundering, stated that “overall it is absolutely impossible to produce a reliable estimate of the amount of money laundered and therefore the FATF does not publish any figures in this regard”.[1] Academic commentators have likewise been unable to estimate the volume of money with any degree of assurance.[2]

Regardless of the difficulty in measurement, the amount of money laundered each year is in the billions (US dollars) and poses a significant policy concern for governments.[2] As a result, governments and international bodies have undertaken efforts to deter, prevent and apprehend money launderers. Financial institutions have likewise undertaken efforts to prevent and detect transactions involving dirty money, both as a result of government requirements and to avoid the reputational risk involved.

Money laundering offences have similar characteristics globally. There are two key elements to a money laundering offence:

  1. The necessary act of laundering itself i.e. the provision of financial services; and
  2. A requisite degree of knowledge or suspicion (either subjective or objective) relating to the source of the funds or the conduct of a client.

Many jurisdictions adopt a list of specific predicate crimes for money laundering prosecutions, while others criminalize the proceeds of any serious crime.

More References

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚© SOCA Serious Organised Crime Agency

How money is launderedƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

To avoid this, criminals take action to prevent this cash from attracting suspicion. For example they may move it to other locations, including abroad. They also use it to buy other assets or try and introduce it into the legitimate economy through businesses with a high cash turnover



To prevent these Illegal uses of money, the Bangladesh government has introduced the Money Laundering Prevention Act. The Act was last amended in the year 2009 and all the financial institutes are following this act. Till today there are 26 circulars issued by Bangladesh Bank under this act. To prevent money laundering, a banker must do the following:

  • While opening a new account, the account opening form should be duly filled up by all the information of the customer.


Financial institutions in Australia are required to track significant cash transactions (greater than A$10,000.00 or equivalent in physical cash value) that can be used to finance terrorist activities in and outside Australia’s borders and report them to AUSTRAC.


Financial institutions in Canada are required to track large cash transactions (daily total greater than CAD$10,000.00 or equivalent value in other currencies) that can be used to finance terrorist activities in and beyond Canada’s borders and report them to FINTRAC.


Bank accountants must record all the transactions whose amount will be more than Rs. 10 Lakhs. Bank accountants must maintain this records for 10 years. Banks will also make cash transaction reports (CTRs) and Suspicious transaction reports whose amounts are more than RS. 10 Lakhs within 7 days of doubt. This report will be submitted to enforcement directorate and income tax department.[29]

United Kingdom

Money laundering and terrorist funding legislation in the UK is governed by four Acts of primary legislation:-

There are more than 200,000 reports of suspected money laundering submitted annually to the authorities in the UK (there were 240,582 reports in the year ended 30 September 2010 ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” an increase from the 228,834 reports submitted in the previous year[47]). Most of these reports are submitted by banks and similar financial institutions (there were 186,897 reports from the banking sector in the year ended 30 September 2010[47]).

United States

In an attempt to prevent dirty money from entering the US financial system in the first place, the United States Congress passed a series of laws, starting in 1970, collectively known as the Bank Secrecy Act. These laws, contained in sections 5311 through 5332 of Title 31 of the United States Code, require financial institutions, which under the current definition include a broad array of entities, including banks, credit card companies, life insurers, money service businesses and broker-dealers in securities, to report certain transactions to the United States Treasury

7 Responses to “Having 20 or more bank accounts can inevitably lead into suspicion of Money Laundering and need for a crime investigation.”

  1. Marco Says:

    I assume there was a Court Order to obtain information relating Bank accounts maintained by the CJ and and her husband.
    Any information obtained in “other” ways is inadmissable in a Court of Law or an Enquiry.
    But then again he have a select band of PSC who are capable of providing a “just” judgement.

  2. Lorenzo Says:

    Get the 13 amendment scrapped while she is away. She might come back!!

    There is no time to lose. She is PRO-13 amendment as we can see from the stupid verdict on a parliamentary bill.

  3. Dham Says:

    This writer has falled from sky , suddenly !

    Internation Monetory Fund is the main money laundering culprit ! It is the biggest thief !
    What rules USA had ? What caused the GFC ?
    Sri lanka has all the rules , more than all the listed above to stop money laundering. There is currency controls in Sir lanka.
    This NeethiAdhikari is a writing nonsence.
    Agree with Susantha’s dream.

  4. Lorenzo Says:

    “The National Freedom Front (NFF) has decided to file a case before the Supreme Court today (12) seeking a ruling for the abolishing of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

    The NFF, led by Minister Wimal Weerawansa, had previously declared that the 13th Amendment should be repealed. Therefore the party has decided to take the issue to the Supreme Court.

    The NFF stated that its unconditionally prepared to make any sacrifice required to abolish the 13th Amendment and protect the country’s unity.

    Meanwhile the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) has also called for the repeal of the 13th Amendment.”

    – adaderana


    I knew he still has his patriotism left in him.

  5. NeelaMahaYoda Says:

    The 14 charges levelled against the Chief Justice, by 117 legislators constitute fair reports of allegations in the public interest not only in Sri Lanka but with substantial adverse impact on Sri Lankan interests in the international arena. Therefore public should be encouraged to make fair observations and comments on those allegations “Without Prejudice”.

  6. Marco Says:

    It remains to be seen if President Rajapakse acts as a true “Statesman” to resolve this issue without compromising and call into question the independence of the Judiciary.
    The Sri Lankan public may have grudgingly stomached the Sarath Fonseka episode, and have yet to come to terms with the “Insufficient evidence to charge KP” episode. (Lets forget about the Duminda & Malaka episodes as well)

    It remains to be seen how far MR is willing to push the boat.

    Would he risk the wrath of the Indians and the Sri Lankan public on a referendum whilst the Impeachment Motion is in play?

  7. Marco Says:

    Don’t suppose anyone had access to the SIS Survey report?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2023 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress