On 3 November, Ganado Advocates in Malta published an article about a recent judgment handed down in Malta, the gist of which was a clear distinction between those cases where the accused is allegedly involved in the underlying crime that has generated the proceeds (and where the proceeds are likely to still be in the accused’s possession) and those crimes where, although the accused may still be charged with the actual crime of money laundering on the basis of complicity, the nature of the involvement could be the result of a breach of professional duty, perhaps, but not actual knowing participation in the underlying revenue generating crime.  In this latter case, it is unlikely that any proceeds of the crime would be in the accused’s possession and, therefore the main aim of the Freezing Order (being that of ensuring that the proceeds of crime are frozen for possible confiscation in the event of a finding of guilt) would not be met.

Any modest contributions for my time and ongoing expenses are welcomed!  I have a page where you can do so, and where one-off contributions start as low as $3, at

Author: raytodd2017

Chartered Legal Executive and former senior manager with Isle of Man Customs and Excise, where I was (amongst other things) Sanctions Officer (for UN/EU sanctions), Export Licensing Officer and Manager of the Legal-Library & Collectorate Support Section

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: