Payback time? To what extent has the new policing of assets provided new assets for policing?

Peter A. Sproat

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the extent to which the “new policing of assets” has produced new assets for policing in the UK.

Design/methodology/approach – This is achieved by producing an estimate of both the financial benefits and costs to the public purse based upon official documentation where possible.

Findings – Asset recovery and anti‐money laundering work has produced some assets to be used for policing, but even using a conservative methodology it is unlikely to have produced a financial benefit which is much more than its costs, indeed the costs are likely to have been greater.

Research limitations/implications – Many parts of the cost are estimates; therefore, researchers are encouraged to ascertain the exact costs.Practical implications – Of interest to those interested in the costs of government policies and regulations, especially the regulated sector burdened by the costs of complying with the money laundering legislation.

Originality/value – The paper attempts to fulfill the government's desire to improve the quality of the cost‐benefit analyses of the money laundering regime.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)392-405
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Money Laundering Control
Volume12
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Payback
Assets
Costs
Legislation
Documentation
Government
Methodology
Government policy and regulation
Costs and benefits
Design methodology
Cost-benefit
Laundering

Cite this

@article{3f15815f77264d77b2e78e2c1fe3d85f,
title = "Payback time?: To what extent has the new policing of assets provided new assets for policing?",
abstract = "Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the extent to which the “new policing of assets” has produced new assets for policing in the UK.Design/methodology/approach – This is achieved by producing an estimate of both the financial benefits and costs to the public purse based upon official documentation where possible.Findings – Asset recovery and anti‐money laundering work has produced some assets to be used for policing, but even using a conservative methodology it is unlikely to have produced a financial benefit which is much more than its costs, indeed the costs are likely to have been greater.Research limitations/implications – Many parts of the cost are estimates; therefore, researchers are encouraged to ascertain the exact costs.Practical implications – Of interest to those interested in the costs of government policies and regulations, especially the regulated sector burdened by the costs of complying with the money laundering legislation.Originality/value – The paper attempts to fulfill the government's desire to improve the quality of the cost‐benefit analyses of the money laundering regime.",
author = "Sproat, {Peter A.}",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1108/13685200910996074",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "392--405",
journal = "Journal of Money Laundering Control",
issn = "1368-5201",
publisher = "Emerald Publishing Limited",
number = "4",

}

Payback time? To what extent has the new policing of assets provided new assets for policing? / Sproat, Peter A.

In: Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2009, p. 392-405.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Payback time?

T2 - To what extent has the new policing of assets provided new assets for policing?

AU - Sproat, Peter A.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the extent to which the “new policing of assets” has produced new assets for policing in the UK.Design/methodology/approach – This is achieved by producing an estimate of both the financial benefits and costs to the public purse based upon official documentation where possible.Findings – Asset recovery and anti‐money laundering work has produced some assets to be used for policing, but even using a conservative methodology it is unlikely to have produced a financial benefit which is much more than its costs, indeed the costs are likely to have been greater.Research limitations/implications – Many parts of the cost are estimates; therefore, researchers are encouraged to ascertain the exact costs.Practical implications – Of interest to those interested in the costs of government policies and regulations, especially the regulated sector burdened by the costs of complying with the money laundering legislation.Originality/value – The paper attempts to fulfill the government's desire to improve the quality of the cost‐benefit analyses of the money laundering regime.

AB - Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the extent to which the “new policing of assets” has produced new assets for policing in the UK.Design/methodology/approach – This is achieved by producing an estimate of both the financial benefits and costs to the public purse based upon official documentation where possible.Findings – Asset recovery and anti‐money laundering work has produced some assets to be used for policing, but even using a conservative methodology it is unlikely to have produced a financial benefit which is much more than its costs, indeed the costs are likely to have been greater.Research limitations/implications – Many parts of the cost are estimates; therefore, researchers are encouraged to ascertain the exact costs.Practical implications – Of interest to those interested in the costs of government policies and regulations, especially the regulated sector burdened by the costs of complying with the money laundering legislation.Originality/value – The paper attempts to fulfill the government's desire to improve the quality of the cost‐benefit analyses of the money laundering regime.

U2 - 10.1108/13685200910996074

DO - 10.1108/13685200910996074

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 392

EP - 405

JO - Journal of Money Laundering Control

JF - Journal of Money Laundering Control

SN - 1368-5201

IS - 4

ER -