Research On The Difficult Issues In The Application Of “Self-Laundering” Type Of Money Laundering Crime

The Amendment to the Criminal Law(XI)has made several amendments to the crime of money laundering,and the legislative framework for the crime of money laundering has been constructed,and the act of “self-laundering” has been criminalized.On this basis,the analysis of the difficult judicial application of “self-laundering” type of money laundering crime is not only related to the conviction and sentencing of the crime of money laundering,but also a proper move to promote the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity.The criminalization of “self-laundering” has both practical reasons and the support of criminal law theory.Based on the realistic background,on the one hand,the overall application rate of money laundering crime in China is low,which is related to the decriminalization of “self-money laundering” and the long-term “emphasis on predicate crimes,but not money laundering crimes” of the judicial authorities.On the other hand,China is also under pressure from the international environment.As a member of the FATF,China has the international obligation to cooperate with the FATF to complete the relevant rectification after the completion of the relevant assessment work.In terms of criminal law theories,the “self-laundering” crime of the predicate offense has long been based on the traditional theories of “the afterwards act of impunity” and “anticipated possibility” of the crime of stolen goods.However,in the current context,these theories may not continue to be used.The crime of money laundering and the crime of stolen goods are not exactly the same,and the crime of money laundering is more socially harmful,and its infringement of legal interests cannot be covered by the predicate crime,so the act of “self-laundering” should be a separate crime.However,after the criminalization of “self-money laundering”,there are certain difficulties for the judicial authorities to apply it without the guidance of corresponding interpretative provisions,focusing on three aspects.First,there are doubts about the application of the act of “providing capital accounts” under the “self-laundering” model.To begin with,the ambiguous interpretation of the legal provisions themselves;and then maybe there are flaws in the legislative technique;and finally the different ways of “providing financial accounts” restrict the application of “self-laundering” type of money laundering crime.Second,the application of “self-money laundering” is not clear from the application of competing predicate crimes.Third,the issue of joint criminality of “self-money laundering” is complicated.These issues are reflected in cases related to money laundering and have been discussed in criminal law circles.In view of the outstanding problems in the application of “self-laundering” type of money laundering crime that have been identified,a suitable solution can provide a way for the judicial authorities to break the barrier.First of all,to address the problem of doubtful application of the act of “providing a capital account” under the “selflaundering” model,the judicial authorities can exclude the application of this act under“self-laundering”.Firstly,the design of the conduct pattern is such that it is doubtful that it is applicable under the “self-laundering” model.To begin with,the purpose of the conduct is not related to the crime of “self-laundering”;and then the conduct cannot be evaluated as a separate harmful behavior under “self-laundering”;and finally the conduct violates the principle of repeated evaluation.Secondly,to address the problem of competing crimes,combined punishment for several crimes may be appropriate.Because of the difference in the legal interests of the two crimes,it is difficult to satisfy the legislative purpose of criminalizing “self-laundering” without combining them.At the same time,the predicate offense and the “self-laundering” offense do not meet the characteristics of imaginative joiner of offenses,statutes’ joinder of offenses,implicated offender and absorbable offense,so the principle of “one heavy punishment” should not be applied.Finally,with regard to the issue of complicity in “self-money laundering”,the “prior conspiracy” can be used to identify joint crimes more accurately.In this regard,the judicial authorities should first clarify the nature of “prior conspiracy” and understand the essence of the problems related to the determination of joint criminality based on this criterion in the past,so as to distinguish different situations and specifically identify different forms of complicity.