Search results

This paper aims to determine whether tax evasion savings qualify as unlawful proceeds for money laundering purposes. Litigators, regulators and academics have debated the question for decades. A common argument is that tax evasion allows a bad actor to save money that the perpetrator already has on hand. It does not produce a new inflow of wealth that could properly be classified as proceeds. This paper addresses the validity of this argument by using a substance-based approach.

This paper applies the substance-over-form principle and two specialized judicial doctrines to the matter: the economic-substance and step-transaction doctrines.

This paper finds that in substance, tax evasion savings qualify as unlawful proceeds. The opposing argument may be valid on the surface, but it does not withstand the scrutiny of the substance-based principle and insights from the doctrines.

The finding of this paper implies that any courts which value substance can embrace tax evasion savings as unlawful proceeds. Government prosecutors can adopt the position with confidence that substance backs them up. National regulators can push the point. The United Nations’ Financial Action Task Force can consider the option to more explicitly recommend treating tax evasion savings as unlawful proceeds for money laundering.

Using a unique substance-based approach, this paper demonstrates that a dollar of tax evasion savings is substantively equivalent to a dollar of unlawful tax refund proceeds for money laundering purposes. Focusing on an unlawful tax refund overcomes many of the common concerns raised against the treatment of tax evasion savings as unlawful proceeds.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether income tax evasion also constitutes money laundering if Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations are strictly applied, including cases where an offender evades tax on lawful income.

Apply FATF conditions for money laundering to the tax evasion facts in United States v. Walter Anderson. In this case, the USA alleges that Anderson attempted to evade $200m of taxes on lawful income.

Anderson’s tax evasion actions met all the FATF’s conditions for money laundering. FATF Recommendations imply that tax evasion, even on lawful income, is a form of money laundering. Tax evasion produces criminal tax savings and simultaneously launders those criminal proceeds.

The FATF effectively classified all tax evasion as money laundering when it designated tax evasion among predicate offenses thereto. The FATF stopped short of explicitly stating this result. The FATF should seriously consider taking the next step: formally recognize tax evasion as one form of money laundering, and thus codify a single crime that covers both offenses. A single-crime approach may be unfamiliar to prosecutors, but it could enable a more effective multiagency approach to fighting financial crime. It could simplify prosecution, eliminate overlapping statutes and reduce concerns over double jeopardy.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first tax case analysis to indicate that tax evasion completely incorporates money laundering within the FATF framework.

This paper aims to define the fundamental nexus between income tax evasion and money laundering. The G7 Financial Action Task Force (FATF) designates tax evasion as a predicate offense for money laundering. We determine whether this designation is complete from a conceptual standpoint, or whether there is a stronger connection between tax evasion and money laundering.

This paper applies the FATF definition for money laundering – as well as generally accepted definitions for tax evasion and for a standard predicate offense – to identify the necessary conditions for each crime. This paper then uses these conditions to test opposing hypotheses regarding the nexus between tax evasion and money laundering.

This paper demonstrates that tax evasion does not meet the conditions for a standard predicate offense, and treating it as if it were a standard predicate could be problematic in practice. Instead, it is concluded that the FATF’s predicate label for tax evasion, together with tax evasion methods and objectives, imply that all tax evasion constitutes money laundering. In a single process, tax evasion generates both criminal tax savings and launders those criminal proceeds by concealing or disguising their unlawful origin.

The FATF could strengthen its framework by explicitly defining all tax evasion as money laundering. This would enable regulatory agencies to draw upon the full combined resources dedicated to either offense.

The analysis demonstrates that tax evasion completely incorporates money laundering as currently defined by the FATF.