DOCSLIB.ORG

International Narcotics Control Strategy Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
International Narcotics Control Strategy Report United States Department of State Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs International Narcotics Control Strategy Report Volume II Money Laundering and Financial Crimes March 2014 INCSR 2014 Volume II Common Abbreviations Table of Contents Volume II Common Abbreviations .................................................................................................... iii Legislative Basis for the INCSR ................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 Bilateral Activities ......................................................................................................... 4 Training and Technical Assistance ........................................................................................................... 4 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ................................................. 5 Department of Homeland Security .............................................................................. 6 Customs and Border Protection ................................................................................................................ 6 Homeland Security Investigations ............................................................................................................ 6 Department of Justice .................................................................................................. 8 Drug Enforcement Administration ............................................................................................................ 8 Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training; the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section; and the Counterterrorism Section ............................................................ 8 Department of State .................................................................................................... 11 International Law Enforcement Academies ................................................................................................ 13 Department of the Treasury ....................................................................................... 15 Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ................................................................................................. 15 Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigative Division ................................................................... 15 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency .............................................................................................. 17 Office of Technical Assistance ................................................................................................................ 17 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation .................................................................... 20 Treaties, Agreements, and Asset Sharing ................................................................ 21 Multilateral Organizations and Programs ................................................................. 23 The Financial Action Task Force and FATF-Style Regional Bodies .................................................... 23 The Organization of American States Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission Group of Experts to Control Money Laundering .................................................................................................... 25 United Nations Global Programme against Money Laundering, Proceeds of Crime, and the Financing of Terrorism ............................................................................................................................. 26 Major Money Laundering Countries .......................................................................... 32 Countries and Jurisdictions Table .................................................................................................. 36 Comparative Table Key ............................................................................................................................ 37 Comparative Table ............................................................................................................................... 40 INCSR Volume II Template Key ............................................................................................................... 51 Countries/Jurisdictions of Primary Concern ............................................................ 55 Afghanistan ............................................................................................................................................... 55 Antigua and Barbuda ................................................................................................................................ 57 Argentina.................................................................................................................................................... 60 Australia ..................................................................................................................................................... 62 Austria ........................................................................................................................................................ 65 Bahamas .................................................................................................................................................... 67 Belize .......................................................................................................................................................... 69 Bolivia ......................................................................................................................................................... 71 Brazil ........................................................................................................................................................... 73 i INCSR 2014 Volume II Common Abbreviations British Virgin Islands ................................................................................................................................ 75 Burma ......................................................................................................................................................... 77 Cambodia ................................................................................................................................................... 80 Canada ....................................................................................................................................................... 82 Cayman Islands ......................................................................................................................................... 84 China .......................................................................................................................................................... 86 Colombia .................................................................................................................................................... 89 Costa Rica .................................................................................................................................................. 92 Curacao ...................................................................................................................................................... 94 Cyprus ........................................................................................................................................................ 97 Dominican Republic ................................................................................................................................ 102 France ....................................................................................................................................................... 104 Germany ................................................................................................................................................... 106 Greece ...................................................................................................................................................... 109 Guatemala ................................................................................................................................................ 111 Guernsey .................................................................................................................................................. 114 Guinea-Bissau ......................................................................................................................................... 116 Haiti ........................................................................................................................................................... 118 Hong Kong ............................................................................................................................................... 121 India .......................................................................................................................................................... 123 Indonesia.................................................................................................................................................. 125 Iran ............................................................................................................................................................ 127 Iraq ...........................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regulating Sports Gaming Data
    REGULATING SPORTS GAMING DATA Ryan M. Rodenberg* I. INTRODUCTION “Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own,” concluded the U.S. Supreme Court in Gov. Murphy v. NCAA.1 In the two years since the Supreme Court declared the partial federal sports betting ban in the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”)2 unconstitutional and, in turn, opened up the legalization of sports betting nationwide, there has been one topic that has garnered considerable attention—sports gaming data. ‘Data’—a generic word that includes news and information about sports gaming—has become one of the most-discussed contemporary topics in sports gaming regulation globally.3 Indeed, since the Supreme Court case, the regulatory treatment of sports betting news, information, and data has taken a prominent role in dozens of legislative bodies, at numerous industry conferences, and in a prominent lawsuit recently filed in the United Kingdom. Industry * Associate Professor, Florida State University. This paper was completed in conjunction with a non-resident research fellowship granted by the International Center for Gaming Regulation (“ICGR”) at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The ICGR is an academic institute dedicated to the study of gaming regulation and policy development. The author would like to thank the ICGR for its research support and Christopher Perrigan for excellent research assistance. 1 Murphy v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1484–85 (2018). As of June 20, 2020, there remains a spin-off legal proceeding in the court system that is unrelated to the foci here.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal Public Health Law Resource Table
    TRIBAL HEALTH Table Tribal Public Health Law Resource Table The Tribal Public Health Law Resource Table lists organizations with experience in tribal and public health law classified under I. Epidemiology Centers, II. Academic, III. Non-profit and Public, and IV. Legal Services. Contact information and relevant areas of practice or foci are also provided (to the extent available). I. Epidemiology Centers Tribal Epidemiological Practice: Broad policy-based disease prevention and control. 12 centers Contact info for individual centers: Centers nationally https://tribalepicenters.org/ Example: Development of immunization program to track state and Indian Health Service (Federal Indian Health Service) immunization registry overlap (https://tribalepicenters.org/). Alaska Native Epidemiology (907) 729-4569 Anchorage, AK Practice: Monitoring and reporting health data, providing technical assistance and Center [email protected] supporting initiatives to promote health. Serves American Indians and Alaska Natives. (Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium) Albuquerque Area (505) 764-0036 Albuquerque, Practice: Providing health-related research, surveillance and training to improve the Southwest Tribal NM [email protected] quality of life. Serves American Indians and Alaska Natives in Colorado, New Mexico, Epidemiology Center Texas, and Utah. (Albuquerque Area Indian Health Board) California Tribal (916) 929-9761 Sacramento, Practice: Broad policy-based disease prevention and control. Serves American Epidemiology Center CA Request Technical
    [Show full text]
  • Law Journals: Submissions and Ranking Feedback to Stephanie Miller Explanation Ranking Methodology Combined Score Impact- Factor Currency-Factor
    Law Journals: Submissions and Ranking Feedback to Stephanie Miller Explanation Ranking methodology Combined score Impact- factor Currency-factor All Subjects For Editorial R Co CaC Information I Jn C an mb se os A Select left, then All Countries F ls F English non- k . s t English 20 Multi Sep B 11 Jnl-name words arate then General Specialized older surveys C Check create Student-edited Peer-edited Refereed spreadsheet To submit Print Online-only articles to law journals Ranked Non-ranked Submit clear Submit via Rank (e.g. 15,17-25) LexOpus 0.33 ImpF-Weight (0..1) Combi Rank Journal ned 04- 11 1 Harvard Law Review 100 2 Columbia Law Review 85.8 3 The Yale Law Journal 80.3 4 Stanford Law Review 79.3 5 Michigan Law Review 69.5 6 California Law Review 67.2 7 University of Pennsylvania Law 66.6 Review 8 Texas Law Review 66.2 9 Virginia Law Review 65.6 10 Minnesota Law Review 63.9 11 UCLA Law Review 63.4 12 The Georgetown Law Journal 62.8 13 New York University Law 62.7 Review 14 Cornell Law Review 59.8 15 Northwestern University Law 59.7 Review 16 Fordham Law Review 59.5 17 Notre Dame Law Review 56.1 18 Vanderbilt Law Review 51.6 18 William and Mary Law Review 51.6 20 The University of Chicago Law 48.9 Review 21 Iowa Law Review 48.4 22 Boston University Law Review 47.2 23 Duke Law Journal 46.3 24 North Carolina Law Review 41 25 Emory Law Journal 40.7 26 Southern California Law 40.2 Review 27 Cardozo Law Review 39.6 28 Boston College Law Review 38.1 28 The George Washington Law 38.1 Review 30 UC Davis Law Review 36.9 31 Hastings Law Journal
    [Show full text]
  • The World's Only Gaming Law Degree
    THE WORLD’S ONLY GAMING LAW DEGREE. In the gaming capital of the world. William S. Boyd School of Law MASTER OF LAWS (LL.M.) IN GAMING LAW AND REGULATION s gaming continues to expand throughout the world, we see an increased need for talented and knowledgeable gaming lawyers. AWith our location in an international gaming destination, you will gain access to globally renowned gaming professionals and regulators, observe and learn from cutting-edge debates and decision making, and make lasting professional connections that will serve you well at the beginning of and throughout your law career. “I loved every minute of my experience as an LL.M. gaming law student. I have grown professionally and was the beneficiary of this exceptional program. In addition to the excellent legal education I received, the LL.M. program provides flexibility for students to craft unique learning experiences whether they be academic or industry specific. Some of my learning opportunities included collaborating with faculty on a book, creating a casino game, and getting an inside look at casino operations through the externship program.” Becky Harris, Former State Senator and current Chairwoman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board (LL.M., 2016) law.unlv.edu Why should I pursue an LL.M. in Gaming Law? • Technology Innovation. The online gaming infrastructure and its related applications are developing at a rapid pace. Lawyers and industry professionals CURRICULUM* must anticipate technology advancements and their impacts on regulators and 24 units on the industry. REQUIRED COURSES: • Global Gaming. Gaming is a booming multi-billion dollar industry within the 12 units United States, and it continues to flourish worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Responsible Gaming Regulations & Statutes
    RESPONSIBLE GAMING REGULATIONS & STATUTES AUGUST 2016 Introduction 3 The States 6 Colorado 7 Delaware 9 Florida 11 Illinois 15 Indiana 23 Iowa 30 Kansas 32 Louisiana 37 Maine 51 Maryland 59 Massachusetts 66 Michigan 86 Mississippi 91 Missouri 97 Nevada 105 New Jersey 110 New Mexico 118 New York 125 Ohio 136 Oklahoma 138 Pennsylvania 141 Rhode Island 161 South Dakota 163 West Virginia 164 American Gaming Association 2 INTRODUCTION Responsible gaming programs are a critical The compilation and release of this publication part of everyday business practices in the U.S. is reflective of the industry’s ongoing casino industry. The central goal of these commitment to responsible gaming. programs is universal - to ensure that patrons safely and responsibly enjoy casino games as Viewed holistically, across the many a form of entertainment. jurisdictions in which commercial casinos now operate in the U.S., this compendium The industry has in place numerous policies underscores the degree to which common and initiatives to achieve this goal including approaches to responsible gaming have support for best practices research, the emerged across the various states. Whether development and distribution of educational driven by improved information sharing or materials for customers and other stakeholders, increased knowledge based on research and and extensive and ongoing employee training, real world experience, consensus is forming among other things. with respect to which policies, programs and initiatives are most effective in the area of Responsible gaming programs operate in responsible gaming. compliance and in parallel with state laws and regulations on responsible gaming, including State requirements throughout this document the funding and provision of problem gambling are organized by subject – such as self- services.
    [Show full text]
  • Partners Honored As Lawyer of the Year by Best Lawyers
    PARTNERS HONORED AS LAWYER OF THE YEAR BY BEST LAWYERS Press Release Professionals 85 LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE ATTORNEYS IN THE BEST ■ Anne Aikman-Scalese LAWYERS IN AMERICA 2018 ■ Amy E. Altshuler 08/15/2017 ■ Bryant D. Barber ■ Edwin A. Barkel PHOENIX – Lewis Roca announces that 12 partners are named Lawyer of the Year ■ Frederick J. Baumann in The Best Lawyers in America® 2018. A total of 85 the firm’s lawyers are included ■ Stephen M. Bressler in the new edition of Best Lawyers. ■ John Carson ■ Rob Charles Best Lawyers lists are compiled annually by conducting peer-review surveys in which ■ Howard E. Cole leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers. Lawyer of the Year ■ Carla A. Consoli awards are presented to a single outstanding lawyer in each practice area and ■ Ross L. Crown designated metropolitan area. ■ Dale A. Danneman ■ Scott D. DeWald Lewis Roca lawyers named Lawyer of the Year in their respective cities and practice ■ Thomas J. Dougherty areas include: ■ Susan M. Freeman Albuquerque ■ Michael T. Hallam ■ Gregory Y. Harris ■ Jeffrey H. Albright - Environmental Law ■ Stephen M. Hart ■ Frances J. Haynes Denver ■ Joel D. Henriod ■ Steven J. Hulsman ■ Fred Baumann – Bet-the-Company Litigation ■ William P. Johnson ■ Lawrence A. Kasten Las Vegas ■ Kevin M. Kelly ■ ■ Anthony Cabot – Gaming Law Peter A. Larson ■ James M. Lyons Phoenix ■ Scott Y. MacTaggart ■ H. William Mahaffey ■ Bruce Samuels - Copyright Law and Trademark Law ■ Michael J. McCue ■ Bryant Barber – Municipal Law ■ Robert H. McKirgan ■ Linda M. Mitchell ■ Stephen Bressler – Mass Tort Litigation/Class Action-Defendants ■ Franklin D. O'Loughlin ■ Thomas Campbell – Energy Law ■ Ben M.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 1 February 2021
    United Nations A/HRC/46/37/Add.2 General Assembly Distr.: General 1 February 2021 Original: English Human Rights Council Forty-sixth session 22 February–19 March 2021 Agenda item 3 Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development Visit to France Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, Joseph A. Cannataci*, ** Summary The Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, Joseph A. Cannataci, carried out an official visit to France from 13 to 17 November 2017. In the present report, he highlights concerns about the emergency laws and recommends that French law be reformed further to entrench the oversight powers of the National Commission for the Control of Intelligence Techniques and to bring the safeguards and remedies applicable to foreign intelligence in line with those required for domestic intelligence. * The summary of the report is being circulated in all official languages. The report itself, which is annexed to the summary, is being circulated in the language of submission and French only. ** The present report was submitted after the deadline in order to reflect the most recent information. GE.21-01269(E) A/HRC/46/37/Add.2 Annex Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, Joseph A. Cannataci, on his visit to France I. Introduction 1. The present report was finalized towards the end of 2020, after an evaluation of the preliminary results of the meetings held during the visit to France from 13 to 17 November 2017 and after having cross-checked those preliminary results against follow-up research and developments to date.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Recourse for Victims of Gaming Fraud
    SMITH FORMATTED 5.22.17.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 5/30/17 2:23 PM CHEATER’S JUSTICE: JUDICIAL RECOURSE FOR VICTIMS OF GAMING FRAUD Jordan T. Smith* I. INTRODUCTION Legends of extrajudicial “cheater’s justice” dealt upon gaming con-artists and swindlers have deep historical roots. In the Old West, a card shark may have been shot on sight.1 Later, when the mob (allegedly) ran Las Vegas, a hustler might have been given the choice of “hav[ing] the money and the hammer or [walking] out of here,” but not both.2 Gradually, as gambling became more socially acceptable and government regulation of it increased, disputants transitioned from wielding brutish self-help remedies to pursuing legal retribution.3 Today, courts largely accept that a party cheated in a gambling game can recover any losses in a civil action without necessarily being limited to administrative remedies through a state’s gaming regulators.4 * Mr. Smith is an attorney in Nevada. The views expressed in this Article belong solely to the Author and do not reflect the views of any employer or client. 1 See People v. Grimes, 64 P. 101, 103 (Cal. 1901) (“The deceased may have treated the appellant unfairly and unjustly in the matter of the game of cards, but that treatment gave appellant no legal excuse or justification for taking his life.”); see also State v. Vansant, 80 Mo. 67, 73–74, 1883 WL 9952, *5 (1883); Johnson v. State, 10 S.W. 235, 236 (Tex. App. 1888); State v. Shadwell, 57 P. 281 (Mont. 1899).
    [Show full text]
  • Surveillance by Intelligence Services: Services: Intelligence by Surveillance
    FREEDOMS FRA Surveillance by intelligence services – Volume II: field perspectives and legal update II: field perspectives – Volume services intelligence by Surveillance Surveillance by intelligence services: fundamental rights safeguards and remedies in the EU Volume II: field perspectives and legal update This report addresses matters related to the respect for private and family life (Article 7), the protection of personal data (Article 8) and the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial (Article 47) falling under Titles II ‘Freedoms’ and VI ‘Justice’ of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). Photo (cover & inside): © Shutterstock More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 FRA – print: ISBN 978-92-9491-766-9 doi:10.2811/15232 TK-04-17-696-EN-C FRA – web: ISBN 978-92-9491-765-2 doi:10.2811/792946 TK-04-17-696-EN-N © European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. Printed by Imprimerie Centrale in Luxembourg Neither the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights nor any person acting on behalf of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights is responsible for the use that might be made of the following information.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to the Law of Internet Gambling
    Gambling and the Law®: An Introduction to the Law of Internet Gambling I. Nelson Rose Abstract This article brings to gaming researchers, with or without a legal education, a roundup of major issues and problems in the unsettled field of Internet gaming. By citing laws, cases, articles and treatises this annotated essay leads the reader through the maze of confusion and contradiction that now clutters the legal scene. Topics touched on include: elements of gambling, Federal, state and local gambling regulation, organized crime implications, extraterritorial jurisdiction, police power and advertising. Conclusions are addressed to businesses considering the risks of operating Internet gambling web sites. Key Words: Internet gaming law, Wire Act, betting, pay-for-play, police power, advertising, organized crime Basic Question The question, "Is gambling on the Internet legal?" is by no means simple (Rose & Owens, 2005). Some state and federal law enforcement officials declare flatly, "Yes, it's all illegal." Yet with thousands of websites taking billions of dollars in wagers each year, fewer than 25 people have ever been prosecuted in the United States for online gambling. Most were bookies who were also taking sports bets by telephone. Only one was a regular player: Jeffrey Trauman, a car salesman and online sports bettor, pleaded guilty to "placing a wager over $500," a misdemeanor in North Dakota, was fined $500 and given a one-year deferred sentence (Rose, 2003); North Dakota Century Code). The day seems to have passed when advocates of the Internet would assert that it was something so new and different that there were no laws surrounding online activities, that the Internet is like the Wild West.
    [Show full text]
  • National Programmes for Mass Surveillance of Personal Data in Eu Member States and Their Compatibility with Eu Law
    DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR MASS SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONAL DATA IN EU MEMBER STATES AND THEIR COMPATIBILITY WITH EU LAW STUDY Abstract In the wake of the disclosures surrounding PRISM and other US surveillance programmes, this study makes an assessment of the large-scale surveillance practices by a selection of EU member states: the UK, Sweden, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Given the large-scale nature of surveillance practices at stake, which represent a reconfiguration of traditional intelligence gathering, the study contends that an analysis of European surveillance programmes cannot be reduced to a question of balance between data protection versus national security, but has to be framed in terms of collective freedoms and democracy. It finds that four of the five EU member states selected for in-depth examination are engaging in some form of large-scale interception and surveillance of communication data, and identifies parallels and discrepancies between these programmes and the NSA-run operations. The study argues that these surveillance programmes do not stand outside the realm of EU intervention but can be engaged from an EU law perspective via (i) an understanding of national security in a democratic rule of law framework where fundamental human rights standards and judicial oversight constitute key standards; (ii) the risks presented to the internal security of the Union as a whole as well as the privacy of EU citizens as data owners, and (iii) the potential spillover into the activities and responsibilities of EU agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Nationale Programme Zur Massenüberwachung Personenbezogener Daten in Den Eu-Mitgliedstaaten Und Ihre Vereinbarkeit Mit Dem Eu-Recht
    GENERALDIREKTION INTERNE POLITIKBEREICHE FACHABTEILUNG C: BÜRGERRECHTE UND KONSTITUTIONELLE ANGELEGENHEITEN BÜRGERLICHE FREIHEITEN, JUSTIZ UND INNERES NATIONALE PROGRAMME ZUR MASSENÜBERWACHUNG PERSONENBEZOGENER DATEN IN DEN EU-MITGLIEDSTAATEN UND IHRE VEREINBARKEIT MIT DEM EU-RECHT STUDIE Abriss Nach den Enthüllungen rund um PRISM und andere US-Überwachungsprogramme erfolgt mit der vorliegenden Studie eine Bewertung der Praxis der Überwachung in großem Ausmaß seitens einer Auswahl von EU-Mitgliedstaaten: Vereinigtes Königreich, Schweden, Frankreich, Deutschland und die Niederlande. Angesichts des großen Ausmaßes der untersuchten Überwachungspraxis muss man davon ausgehen, dass es sich im Vergleich zum traditionellen Sammeln geheimdienstlicher Daten um eine grundlegende Neuordnung der Überwachungspraxis handelt. Deshalb wird in der Studie die Ansicht vertreten, dass eine Analyse der europäischen Überwachungsprogramme nicht auf die Frage der Balance zwischen Datenschutz und nationaler Sicherheit beschränkt bleiben darf, sondern in den größeren Zusammenhang der kollektiven Freiheitsrechte und der Demokratie gestellt werden muss. Zu den Ergebnissen der Studie gehört, dass in vier von fünf der EU-Mitgliedstaaten, die für eine nähere Untersuchung ausgewählt worden sind, in irgendeiner Form ein Abfangen und Überwachen von Kommunikationsdaten in großem Ausmaß erfolgt. Ferner werden in der Studie Parallelen und Unterschiede zwischen diesen Programmen und den seitens der NSA durchgeführten Operationen ermittelt. Die Verfasser der Studie gelangen
    [Show full text]