DOCSLIB.ORG

Js10102js1010.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Js10102js1010.Pdf Foreword 2003 National Money Laundering Strategy i Table of Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Goal 1: Safeguard the International Financing System from Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing ........................................................................................................... 5 A. Blocking Assets and Cutting off Worldwide Channels of Terrorist Funding ............................................ 6 B. Establishing International Standards ........................................................................................................... 7 C. Ensuring Global Compliance with International Standards ...................................................................... 9 D. Addressing Financing Mechanisms of Particular Concern ...................................................................... 13 E. Facilitating International Information Sharing ......................................................................................... 17 F. Outreach and Cooperation with the Private Sector .................................................................................. 18 Goal 2: Enhance the United States Government’s Ability to Identify, Investigate and Prosecute Major Money Laundering Organizations and Systems ....................................................................... 19 A. Enhancing Interagency Coordination ........................................................................................................ 20 B. Ensuring that Law Enforcement Agencies and Task Forces Use and Share Financial Databases and Analytical Tools .................................................................................................. 21 C. Focusing Law Enforcement Personnel and Other Resources on Highest-Impact Targets and Financial Systems ......................................................................................... 21 D. Utilizing New and Improved Statutory and Regulatory Authorities ....................................................... 22 E. Increasing International Operational Cooperation .................................................................................. 23 F. Improving United States Government Interaction with the Financial Community .............................. 24 G. Helping State and Local Governments Investigate and Prosecute Money Laundering and Financial Crime Cases ..................................................................................................... 25 Goal 3: Ensure Effective Regulation ................................................................................................................................... 26 A. Strengthen and Refine the Anti-Money Laundering Regulatory Regime for All Financial Institutions ......................................................................................................... 26 B. Improve the Effectiveness of Anti-Money Laundering Controls Through Greater Communication, Guidance, and Information ............................................................................. 28 C. Enhance Regulatory Compliance and Enforcement Efforts ..................................................................... 30 List of Appendices.............................................................................................................................................................. 33 Appendix A: Recent Significant Cases in the War Against Terrorist Financing (Goal 1) ......................................... 34 Appendix B: Comprehensive List of Joint Designations of Individuals and Entities as Terrorists or Terrorist Supporters (Goal 1) ............................................................................................ 37 Appendix C: Progress with Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories (NCCTs) (Goal 1) ...................... 38 Appendix D: Trade-Based Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Goal 1) ..................................................... 42 Appendix E: Recent Significant Money Laundering Cases (Goal 2) 45 Appendix F: Financial Crime-Free Communities (C-FIC) Support Program Grants (Goal 2) .............................. 48 Appendix G: Summary of the Anti-Money Laundering Provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Steps Taken to Implement Them (Goal 1)......................................................................... 49 Appendix H: Terrorist Financing Online (Goal 1)....................................................................................................... 53 Appendix I: Money Laundering Defendants Sentenced in FY 2001 – Highlights (Goal 2) .................................... 81 Appendix J: International Asset Forfeiture Sharing (Goal2) ..................................................................................... 83 Treasury Forfeiture Fund .............................................................................................................. 84 Department of Justice forfeiture Fund ........................................................................................ 85 2003 National Money Laundering Strategy iii Executive Summary he 2003 National Money Laundering Strategy reflects the U.S. government’s ongoing commitment to attack Tmoney laundering and terrorist financing on all fronts, including the formal and informal components of both the domestic and international financial systems. Armed with important new authorities provided by the USA PATRIOT Act, we are taking coordinated and aggressive action using all available tools, including law enforce- ment actions, appropriate financial regulation and oversight, and coordination with our private sector and interna- tional partners. While we continue to make significant progress, much remains to be done to confront the ever-changing, global threat of money laundering and terrorist financing. The 2003 Strategy represents a continuation of our past efforts, and a commitment to move forward by identifying, disrupting, and dismantling high value terrorist financing and money laundering organizations and networks. The central tenet of our 2003 Strategy is the ever-increasing need for all relevant U.S. government agencies, our foreign government counterparts, and our partners in the private sector to pool our collective expertise and coordinate our activities to stop the laundering of criminal proceeds and to staunch the flow of funds to terrorists. By attacking the financial infrastructure of complex criminal organizations and terrorist networks, we do long term damage to their ability to perpetuate their operations. To achieve these objectives, the 2003 Strategy focuses on three major goals: (1) to cut off access to the international financial system by money launderers and terrorist financiers more effectively; (2) to enhance the Federal government’s ability to target major money laundering organizations and systems; and (3) strengthen and refine the anti-money laundering regulatory regime for all financial institutions to improve the effectiveness of compliance and enforcement efforts. The 2003 National Money Laundering Strategy includes, among other items, a commitment to accomplish the following: • Block and seize terrorist assets and identify and designate terrorist organizations. To date, over 315 terrorist- related entities have been designated and over $136 million in assets frozen. • Target countries and institutions that facilitate money laundering and terrorist financing, including using the full range of measures provided by Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act. • Take law enforcement action against high value money laundering targets, including those with ties to major narcotics trafficking operations. • Improve the effectiveness of compliance and enforcement efforts to continue to strengthen and refine the anti-money laundering regulatory regime for all financial institutions by identifying new and emerging threats that can be addressed through regulation, improving the effectiveness of anti-money laundering controls through greater communication, guidance, and information-sharing with the private sector, and enhancing regulatory compliance and enforcement efforts. • Encourage foreign countries throughout the world to adopt and adhere to international standards to inhibit the flow of illicit funds, both through the formal and informal financial sectors, and to assist in developing and enhancing anti-money laundering regimes in targeted countries to enable them to thwart terrorist financing. • Improve the Federal government’s partnership with the private financial sector to increase information- sharing and close the gaps in the financial system that allow abuse by money launderers and terrorist financiers. Executive Summary 2003 National Money Laundering Strategy 1 Introduction he 2003 National Money Laundering Strategy both currency shipments; money transmitters; money Ttargets
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CITY of COOS BAY CITY COUNCIL Agenda Staff Report
    CITY OF COOS BAY CITY COUNCIL Agenda Staff Report MEETING DATE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER September 17, 2013 Continued from August 6, 2013 TO: Mayor Shoji and City Councilors FROM: Rodger Craddock, City Manager eJlC ISSUE: Should the City of Coos Bay enact a resolution calling for the repeal of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NOAA), and direct City employees not to enforce or assist in the enforcement of the Act. BACKGROUND On August 6, 2013, several individuals including Tom McKirgan (Coquille) and Rob Taylor (Bandon) made a presentation to the Council regarding their concerns over the constitutionality of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NOAA), and they have requested that the City of Coos Bay pass their proposed resolution which would call for the repeal of the Act as well as prohibit the City through its police force from enforcing the Act or assisting others such as the Federal Government in enforcing the Act within the City. Attached you will find a copy of the August 61h report provided to the Council which includes the following: 1. Agenda staff report prepared by City Attorney Nathan McClintock (attachment one) 2. Letter to the Council from Rob Taylor, Connie Martin, and Tom McKirgen (attachment two) 3. Proposed resolution (attachment three) During the presentation on August 6, 2013, Mr. McKirgan provided the following documents to the Council for their review and consideration: 1. Wikipedia article on Brandon Mayfield and his arrest in 2004. (attachment four) 2. Document titled "Myths and Deceptions about the NOAA FY2012" (attachment five) 3. Unsigned letter presumably to the Council (attachment six) By a majority vote, the Council decided to postpone consideration of the matter to a future meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Virtual Currencies and Terrorist Financing : Assessing the Risks And
    DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT FOR CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS COUNTER-TERRORISM Virtual currencies and terrorist financing: assessing the risks and evaluating responses STUDY Abstract This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the TERR Committee, explores the terrorist financing (TF) risks of virtual currencies (VCs), including cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. It describes the features of VCs that present TF risks, and reviews the open source literature on terrorist use of virtual currencies to understand the current state and likely future manifestation of the risk. It then reviews the regulatory and law enforcement response in the EU and beyond, assessing the effectiveness of measures taken to date. Finally, it provides recommendations for EU policymakers and other relevant stakeholders for ensuring the TF risks of VCs are adequately mitigated. PE 604.970 EN ABOUT THE PUBLICATION This research paper was requested by the European Parliament's Special Committee on Terrorism and was commissioned, overseen and published by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Policy Departments provide independent expertise, both in-house and externally, to support European Parliament committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU external and internal policies. To contact the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: [email protected] RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH ADMINISTRATOR Kristiina MILT Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] AUTHORS Tom KEATINGE, Director of the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies, Royal United Services Institute (coordinator) David CARLISLE, Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies, Royal United Services Institute, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Policy Title Anti-Money Laundering Policy and Anti-Corruption
    Policy Title Anti-Money Laundering Policy and Anti-Corruption Compliance Policy Entity Embassy Office Parks Management Services Private Limited (“Company”), the Embassy Office Parks REIT (“REIT”), its special purpose vehicles (“SPVs”), its holding company (“Holdco”) and Golflinks Software Park Private Limited (“Investment Entity”) Responsibility for Compliance Officer of the Company ensuring Compliance PART A Anti-Money Laundering Policy General Provisions Applicability This Anti-Money Laundering Policy (“AML Policy”) is applicable to the Company (in its capacity as Manager of the REIT), the REIT, its SPVs, its Holdco and the Investment Entity (the Company, the REIT, its SPVs, its Holdco and the Investment Entity, collectively referred to as “REIT Entities”, and individually as a “REIT Entity”) Purpose This AML Policy aims to establish the controls around prevention of money laundering (“AML”) in the REIT Entities and is in accordance with the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). The Anti-Money Laundering regulators in India include: a. the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”); b. the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”); c. the Directorate of Enforcement, Central Bureau of Investigation – Economics Offences Wing; and d. the Income Tax Department, Government of India. The objective of this AML Policy is to: a. To create awareness among REIT Personnel about the legal and regulatory framework for AML requirements; b. To interpret the obligations under the PMLA and the rules notified thereunder, and how they may be implemented in practice; and c. To align the REIT Entities’ operations with best industry practices in AML procedures. Money Money laundering refers to the process of concealing the source of illegally obtained money.
    [Show full text]
  • President, Prime Minister, Or Constitutional Monarch?
    I McN A I R PAPERS NUMBER THREE PRESIDENT, PRIME MINISTER, OR CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH? By EUGENE V. ROSTOW THE INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL S~RATEGIC STUDIES I~j~l~ ~p~ 1~ ~ ~r~J~r~l~j~E~J~p~j~r~lI~1~1~L~J~~~I~I~r~ ~'l ' ~ • ~i~i ~ ,, ~ ~!~ ,,~ i~ ~ ~~ ~~ • ~ I~ ~ ~ ~i! ~H~I~II ~ ~i~ ,~ ~II~b ~ii~!i ~k~ili~Ii• i~i~II~! I ~I~I I• I~ii kl .i-I k~l ~I~ ~iI~~f ~ ~ i~I II ~ ~I ~ii~I~II ~!~•b ~ I~ ~i' iI kri ~! I ~ • r rl If r • ~I • ILL~ ~ r I ~ ~ ~Iirr~11 ¸I~' I • I i I ~ ~ ~,i~i~I•~ ~r~!i~il ~Ip ~! ~ili!~Ii!~ ~i ~I ~iI•• ~ ~ ~i ~I ~•i~,~I~I Ill~EI~ ~ • ~I ~I~ I¸ ~p ~~ ~I~i~ PRESIDENT, PRIME MINISTER, OR CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH.'? PRESIDENT, PRIME MINISTER, OR CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH? By EUGENE V. ROSTOW I Introduction N THE MAKING and conduct of foreign policy, ~ Congress and the President have been rivalrous part- ners for two hundred years. It is not hyperbole to call the current round of that relationship a crisis--the most serious constitutional crisis since President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937. Roosevelt's court-packing initiative was highly visible and the reaction to it violent and widespread. It came to an abrupt and dramatic end, some said as the result of Divine intervention, when Senator Joseph T. Robinson, the Senate Majority leader, dropped dead on the floor of the Senate while defending the President's bill.
    [Show full text]
  • ALBERTA SECURITIES COMMISSION DECISION Citation
    ALBERTA SECURITIES COMMISSION DECISION Citation: Re Global 8 Environmental Technologies, Inc., 2015 ABASC 734 Date: 20150605 Global 8 Environmental Technologies, Inc., Halo Property Services Inc., Canadian Alternative Resources Inc., Milverton Capital Corporation, Rene Joseph Branconnier and Chad Delbert Burback Panel: Kenneth Potter, QC Fred Snell, FCA Appearing: Robert Stack, Liam Oddie and Heather Currie for Commission Staff H. Roderick Anderson for René Joseph Branconnier Patricia Taylor for Chad Delbert Burback Daniel Wolf for Global 8 Environmental Technologies, Inc. Submissions Completed: 26 November 2014 Decision: 5 June 2015 5176439.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 1 A. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1. G8 .................................................................................................................1 2. Halo and CAR ..............................................................................................2 B. History of the Proceedings ...................................................................................... 2 C. Certain Prior Orders ................................................................................................ 3 D. Summary of Conclusion ......................................................................................... 3 II. PROCEDURAL AND EVIDENTIARY MATTERS
    [Show full text]
  • Armed Groups: a Tier-One Security Priority
    Armed Groups: A Tier-One Security Priority Richard H. Shultz Douglas Farah Itamara V. Lochard INSS Occasional Paper 57 September 2004 USAF Institute for National Security Studies USAF Academy, Colorado ii The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the US Government. The paper is approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The Consortium for the Study of Intelligence holds copyright to this paper; it is published here with their permission. ******* ABOUT THE AUTHORS: Richard H. Shultz, Jr. is director of the International Security Studies Program at the The Fletcher School and Professor of International Politics. At the Consortium for the Study of Intelligence he serves as research director. He has served as a consultant to US government agencies concerned with national security affairs. He has also written extensively on intelligence and security. He recently published “SHOWSTOPPERS: Nine Reasons Why We Never Sent Our Special Operations Forces after Al Qaeda Before 9/11,” Weekly Standard 9:19 (26 January 2004). His forthcoming book is Tribal Warfare: How Non-State Armed Groups Fight (Columbia University Press, 2005). Douglas Farah is senior fellow at the Consortium for the Study of Intelligence. For 19 years worked as a foreign correspondent and investigative reporter for the Washington Post, covering armed conflicts, insurgencies, and organized crime in Latin America and West Africa. He has also written on Middle Eastern terror finance, including Blood From Stones: The Secret Financial Network of Terror (2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Trade-Based Money Laundering: Trends and Developments
    Trade-Based Money Laundering Trends and Developments December 2020 The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an independent inter-governmental body that develops and promotes policies to protect the global financial system against money laundering, terrorist financing and the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The FATF Recommendations are recognised as the global anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CFT) standard. For more information about the FATF, please visit www.fatf-gafi.org This document and/or any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. The goal of the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units (Egmont Group) is to provide a forum for financial intelligence unites (FIUs) around the world to improve co-operation in the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism and to foster the implementation of domestic programs in this field. For more information about the Egmont Group, please visit the website: www.egmontgroup.org Citing reference: FATF – Egmont Group (2020), Trade-based Money Laundering: Trends and Developments, FATF, Paris, France, www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/methodandtrends/documents/trade-based-money-laundering-trends-and- developments.html © 2020 FATF/OECD and Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units. All rights reserved. No reproduction or translation of this publication may be made without prior written permission. Applications for such permission, for all or part of this publication, should be made to the FATF Secretariat, 2 rue André Pascal 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France (fax: +33 1 44 30 61 37 or e-mail: [email protected]) Photo credits cover photo ©Getty Images TRADE-BASED MONEY LAUNDERING: TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS | 1 Table of Contents Acronyms 2 Executive summary 3 Key findings 3 Conclusion 5 Introduction 7 Background 7 Purpose and report structure 8 Methodology 10 Section 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Crackdown on Money Laundering: a Comparative Analysis of the Feasibility and Effectiveness of Domestic and Multilateral Policy Reforms Kathleen A
    Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business Volume 23 Issue 2 Winter Winter 2003 Crackdown on Money Laundering: A Comparative Analysis of the Feasibility and Effectiveness of Domestic and Multilateral Policy Reforms Kathleen A. Lacey Barbara Crutchfield George Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb Part of the Banking and Finance Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Kathleen A. Lacey, Barbara Crutchfield George, Crackdown on Money Laundering: A Comparative Analysis of the Feasibility and Effectiveness of Domestic and Multilateral Policy Reforms, 23 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 263 (2002-2003) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. ARTICLES Crackdown on Money Laundering: A Comparative Analysis of the Feasibility and Effectiveness of Domestic and Multilateral Policy Reforms Kathleen A. Lacey* Barbara Crutchfield George** TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRO DUCTIO N ................................................................................... 265 II. B ACKG RO UN D .................................................................................... 267 A. Definition of Money Laundering ................................................. 267 B. Negative Consequences of Money Laundering
    [Show full text]
  • Second Circuit Affirms SEC's Bank Secrecy Act Powers
    Latham & Watkins Securities Litigation & Professional Liability January 11, 2021 | Number 2847 and White Collar Defense & Investigations Practices Second Circuit Affirms SEC’s Bank Secrecy Act Powers The Second Circuit’s recent decision gives the SEC the green light to continue enforcing broker-dealer compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act. Key Points: In US Securities and Exchange Commission v. Alpine Securities Corp., the Second Circuit affirmed the SEC’s authority to require SEC-registered broker-dealers to comply with the BSA’s reporting and recordkeeping requirements, under Section 17(a) and Rule 17a-8 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). The Alpine decision validates the SEC’s focus on broker-dealer AML programs. In anticipation of such scrutiny, broker-dealers and Chief Compliance Officers should evaluate whether their compliance programs satisfy existing anti-money laundering obligations, and particularly BSA reporting obligations. On December 4, 2020, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York in US Securities and Exchange Commission v. Alpine Securities Corp.1 The case primarily dealt with the issue of whether the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) possesses the authority to enforce broker-dealer compliance with Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) reporting as required by the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), but under Section 17(a) and Rule 17a-8 of the Exchange Act.2 Alpine, the defendant, was an SEC-registered broker-dealer specializing in clearing and settlement services for penny stocks and micro-cap securities. Alpine had previously been the subject of an examination conducted by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Australia's Political System
    Australia’s Political System Australia's Political System Australia's system of government is based on the liberal democratic tradition, which includes religious tolerance and freedom of speech and association. It's institutions and practices reflect British and North American models but are uniquely Australian. The Commonwealth of Australia was created on January 1, 1901 - Federation Day - when six former British colonies - now the six States of Australia - agreed to form a union. The Australian Constitution, which took effect on January 1, 1901, lays down the framework for the Australian system of government. The Constitution The Australian Constitution sets out the rules and responsibilities of government and outlines the powers of its three branches - legislative, executive and judicial. The legislative branch of government contains the parliament - the body with the legislative power to make laws. The executive branch of government administers the laws made by the legislative branch, and the judicial branch of government allows for the establishment of the country's courts of law and the appointment and removal of it judges. The purpose of the courts is to interpret all laws, including the Constitution, making the rule of law supreme. The Constitution can only be changed by referendum. Australia's Constitutional Monarchy Australia is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means it is a country that has a queen or king as its head of state whose powers are limited by a Constitution. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II. Although she is also Queen of the United Kingdom, the two positions now are quite separate, both in law and constitutional practice.
    [Show full text]
  • TERRORIST TRIALS: a Report Card
    A P U B L I C A T I O N O F T H E C E N T E R O N L A W A N D S E C U R I T Y A T N Y U S C H O O L O F L A W | F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 5 110 W E S T T H I R D S T R E E T , N E W Y O R K , N Y 10 0 12 | W W W . L A W . N Y U . E D U / C E N T E R S / L A W S E C U R I T Y TERRORIST TRIALS: A Report Card hen he announced his resignation in November 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft declared, “The objective of securing the safety of Americans W from crime and terror has been achieved.” He was referring to that part of the war for which he was largely respo n s i b l e : the legal and judicial record. Ei g h t e e n months prior to that, in testimony before Congress, Ashcroft summed up the pretrial, interim results of his war on terror. Ashcroft cited 18,000 subpoenas, 211 criminal charges, 47 8 [As a preliminary note to the findings, it is important to point deportations and $124 million in frozen assets. Looking to out that accurate and comprehensive information was almost document the results of these efforts, represented in the prose- impossible to obtain.
    [Show full text]
  • 595 an Empirical Study of Terrorism Prosecutions in Canada
    EMPIRICAL STUDY OF TERRORISM PROSECUTIONS IN CANADA 595 AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF TERRORISM PROSECUTIONS IN CANADA: ELUCIDATING THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCES MICHAEL NESBITT* AND DANA HAGG** It has now been over 15 years since Canada enacted the Anti-Terrorism Act, codifying what we think of today as Canada’s anti-terrorism criminal laws. The authors set out to canvass how these provisions have been judicially interpreted since their inception through an empirical analysis of court decisions. After exploring how courts have settled initial concerns about these provisions with respect to religious and expressive freedoms, the authors suggest that courts’ interpretations of Canada’s terrorism offences still leave us with many questions, particularly with respect to the facilitation and financing offences. The authors explore these questions and speculate about future challenges that may or may not be successful with the hopes of providing guidance to prosecutors and defence lawyers working in this area. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 595 II. TERRORISM PROSECUTIONS TO DATE ............................ 599 III. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ELEMENTS OF TERRORISM OFFENCES .................................... 608 A. DEFINITIONS (SECTION 83.01)............................. 608 B. OFFENCES ............................................ 620 IV. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS ....................... 647 I. INTRODUCTION It has now been over 15 years since Canada expeditiously enacted the Anti-Terrorism
    [Show full text]