A US Department of Justice investigation into the affair, which saw millions of non-resident money flow from 2007 until 2018, has embroiled real state business and eight banks. A meeting of the executive board noted the high level of suspicious activity reported from Australia but later managers agreed they were “comfortable” with “substantial Australian deposits”. Meanwhile, the share of the Australian branch’s profits coming from foreign money began to increase dramatically.
The mounting external pressure didn’t go unnoticed by the management. James Jeremiah was sacked from Urban Construct as he allegedly forged minutes of meetings. Former AFL Brisbane Lions chairman Graeme Downie said non-resident business needed to be “reviewed and potentially reduced”, in revealed minutes from the meeting. But the authorities referred this instead to “the need for a middle ground”.
Scandal Engulfs Executives
As money laundering becomes harder to hide, JS Taylor is losing his escape valve. Making matters worse, international sanctions and anemic economic growth for the past nine years have meant real incomes are falling and withdrawals of hard currency from Australian banks are up sharply.
In discussing financial crimes such as money laundering, it is absolutely critical to comprehend the predicate offenses behind it. These include drug dealing, other illegal market crimes (e.g.: human trafficking inclusive of forced labor and sexual slavery, gambling, extortion) white-collar crimes (e.g.: embezzlement, fraud, tax evasion), bribery, corruption, and terrorism.
Assessing the Scale of Money Laundering
The traditional methods applied to measure the scale of money laundering vary and range from field and case studies through surveys and interviews or suspicious or unusual transactions to statistical discrepancies. Nevertheless, all of the methods mentioned above have significant flaws that impact the accuracy of measuring the money laundering phenomenon. In the instance of field and case studies, it is challenging to determine the representativeness of the data, and if the analysis of the cases is performed, it often does not take into account “the full range of money laundering practices, networks, and behavioral assumptions.”
The surveys and interviews method poses yet another challenge as it includes miscellaneous prejudices – a lack of adequate sample representativeness or the bias of the respondents. The third method, suspicious or unusual transactions, offers an analysis of suspicious transaction reports or unusual transaction reports delivered to the financial intelligence unit of a given country. However, it is hardly feasible to take into consideration all discrepancies between individual countries and their reporting requirements or thresholds. Additionally, the private sector might apply the so-called “strategic dilution of information” by not providing the full data to protect its business interests.
What Lies Ahead Of Taylor?
He said he had co-operated with the authorities in the US during their investigations. Mr. Taylor was on bail pending the outcome of an extradition hearing heard by Magistrate Duroux in the Southport Magistrate’s Court. The magistrate determined that Mr. Taylor was eligible to be surrendered to the United States, and cancelled bail. While Mr. Taylor had initially requested a review of the magistrate’s decision, attorneys acting for Mr. Taylor filed a cease notice.