首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Money Laundering Control >The financial institution as a racketeering enterprise: RICO and beyond
【24h】

The financial institution as a racketeering enterprise: RICO and beyond

机译:作为球拍企业的金融机构:RICO及以后

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce the reader to Section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, which deals with “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations” and is popularly known as the “RICO” statute. Design/methodology/approach – RICO was designed to protect legitimate enterprises from infiltration by organized crime. The paper discusses one case in which a bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), was found to have violated RICO by engaging in prohibited racketeering activities and a second case in which another bank, UBS AG, engaged in activities criminal under US law. The paper then details some of the activities of the two banks and explores the remedies available under RICO. Findings – Following the failure of BCCI, the US filed a criminal information against the bank that included a forfeiture allegation under Section 1963 of RICO. In February of 2009, UBS AG, Switzerland's largest bank, entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the US Department of Justice, under the terms of which the bank agreed to waive indictment and consented to the filing of an information charging the bank with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the USA and its agency, the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of 18 USC 371. Originality/value – BCCI may be something of an extreme case in terms of the breadth and scope of the illegal activities in which it engaged. But, it is not the only example of a bank gone wrong. Unfortunately, abuses can and do continue, although not every case may end with RICO forfeiture. Indeed, in a recent case with faint echoes of BCCI, RICO did not come into play at all.
机译:目的–本文的目的是向读者介绍1970年《有组织犯罪控制法》第901(a)节,该节涉及“受Ra子手影响和腐败的组织”,并被称为“ RICO”法规。设计/方法/方法– RICO旨在保护合法企业免受有组织犯罪的渗透。该文件讨论了一个案件,即一家银行,即信用与商业国际银行(BCCI),通过从事被禁止的球拍活动而违反了RICO;第二案件,是另一家银行,即UBS AG,从事了根据美国法律。然后,本文详细介绍了两家银行的一些活动,并探讨了RICO下可用的补救措施。调查结果–在BCCI破产后,美国向该银行提起了刑事诉讼,其中包括根据RICO第1963条进行的没收指控。 2009年2月,瑞士最大的银行瑞银(UBS AG)与美国司法部签订了延期起诉协议,根据该条款,该银行同意放弃起诉并同意提交信息,指控该银行参与企图欺骗美国及其代理机构美国国税局(Internal Revenue Service),违反18 USC371。原创性/价值–就其从事的非法活动的广度和范围而言,BCCI可能是一个极端案例。但是,这并不是银行出现问题的唯一例子。不幸的是,虐待可能而且确实会继续,尽管并非所有案件都可能以没收RICO而告终。的确,在最近的一起BCCI回声微弱的案例中,RICO根本没有发挥作用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号