CHAIR’S SUMMARY
Thirteenth Regional Seminar on Good Governancefor Southeast Asian Countries
Tokyo, Japan
17 – 19 December 2019

OPENING CEREMONY
1. MR. SETO TAKESHI, Director of United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Preventionof Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI), served as the Chair of the ThirteenthRegional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries. Officials from thefollowing jurisdictions attended the seminar: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia,Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste and Viet Nam. Visiting Experts’lectures were delivered by practitioners from Hong Kong, Japan and the United States.
2. Director Seto welcomed the participants to the Thirteenth Good Governance Seminar on thetheme of Effective Financial Investigation and Anti-Money-Laundering Measures forConfiscation and Asset Recovery to Counter New and Emerging Corruption Threats, notingthat corruption and the laundering of criminal proceeds has become increasingly transnationaland complex. Therefore, it is important to continuously review and share advancements in anticorruption practices among law enforcement agencies in the Southeast Asian region andbeyond. Finally, Director Seto extended a special welcome to the delegation from Timor-Leste,
which participated in the Good Governance Seminar for the first time.

VISITING EXPERTS’ LECTURES
3. MS. KATE CHEUK, Principal Investigator, Operations Department, Independent Commission
Against Corruption (ICAC), Hong Kong, delivered her lecture on the experiences of Hong
Kong in conducting financial investigations and anti-money-laundering measures. Noting that
corruption and money-laundering are inextricably linked, money-laundering is connected withother predicate offences, such as drug trafficking and other forms of organized crime. Hong
Kong’s robust anti-corruption regime is based on legislation, law enforcement and international
cooperation. “Significant controllers registers”, recently adopted legislation, require companies
to maintain a list of beneficial ownership interests that is open to law-enforcement inspection.
Hong Kong’s Joint Financial Intelligence Unit (JFIU) receives, analyzes and disseminatessuspicious transaction reports (STRs), engages in international cooperation to identify moneylaundering, and shares information with other law enforcement agencies. “No consent letters”
can be issued by the FIU to freeze assets prior to the entry of a restraint order. To strengthen
its investigation techniques, the ICAC has developed a forensic accounting group composed ofcertified financial professionals to provide assistance to ICAC investigators in tracing illicit
assets, conducting in-depth financial analysis, giving expert evidence at court and providing
training to officers. The Proceeds of Crime Team was established in 2010 for the purpose ofconducting asset recovery by restraining and confiscating crime proceeds. With the adoptionof UNCAC and UNTOC, international cooperation and asset recovery are fundamental
principles and internationally accepted objectives of law enforcement agencies. ICAC engages
in international training programmes to reduce the risk of corruption in neighboring regions
1

so as to minimize money-laundering risk in Hong Kong. Additionally, ICAC conducts sectorbased money-laundering risk assessments, provides training and issuance of guidelines to all
officers on anti-money-laundering work, and the compilation of statistics so as to objectively
display our efforts and outcomes of AML work. Three cases were introduced to provide
practical examples of financial investigation and asset recovery in Hong Kong through the useof restraint and confiscation orders, as well as obtaining intelligence, evidence and assistancefrom domestic and overseas counterparts. One of the cases also demonstrated the involvementof legal and financial professionals in fraudulent scams; however, such professionals can also
be useful sources of evidence. Overall, the cases demonstrated the importance of professional
and thorough financial investigations, the importance of charging suspects with moneylaundering in cases where there is insufficient evidence to establish bribery, and the importanceof asset recovery as a strong deterrent against corruption and international collaboration incombating corruption and related money-laundering, which has no geographical limitation.
4. MS. LOUISA K. MARION, Senior Counsel, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section,
United States Department of Justice, delivered her lecture on the topic of The Future ofFinancial Investigations: Bitcoin and Beyond. Money is a primary motivator in many forms ofcrime, including cybercrime, darknet crime, violent crime, terrorist financing and publiccorruption. Financial investigations are therefore essential both when investigating crimes andtheir perpetrators, and when seizing the proceeds of crimes that otherwise unjustly enrichcriminal actors. In the United States, financial institutions are regulated under the Bank Secrecy
Act and related regulations, which require financial institutions and money services businesses
to register with the US financial intelligence unit (FinCEN), to develop and maintain effective
AML programmes, and to comply with record-keeping and reporting obligations (e.g., offoreign bank accounts, suspicious activities, and large cash payments). Records maintained bythese institutions are critical for financial investigations, so investigators should be familiar
with what records exist and any limitations on their use in investigations and prosecutions. A
number of new financial tools are emerging, which provide greater convenience for consumers,
but also create opportunities for misuse by criminals, including gift cards and general purpose
reloadable prepaid cards, peer-to-peer mobile payment platforms, digital wallets, and virtual
currencies. These tools have legitimate uses but can present challenges for investigators. These
financial tools can increase the speed of money movements, which can make lawful seizures
difficult for governments. They can also result in financial records fragmented across countries
and/or platforms. Financial investigations can nevertheless produce critical evidence of crime
and/or opportunities for seizure, so investigators should endeavor to familiarize themselveswith these tools and the records concerning their use, as well as they ways which they are being
used by criminals. Another emerging trend in financially-motivated crime is the use of “moneymule organizations,” which offer money laundering services to criminals, for a fee. Forexample, the US criminal case of United States v. Chostak et al., No 3:15cr59 (W.D.N.C. Mar.
18, 2015), charged a group of individuals with offering a money-mule service for a fee, which
relied on tricking over 15,000 US citizens into sending international wire transfers as a part ofa scheme that appeared (to these “money mules”) to be legitimate employment. Finally, a
successful US forfeiture case was introduced, illustrating how thorough financial investigation,
relying on open source research, financial intelligence unit reporting, net-worth analysis(identifying extensive unexplained income) and other red flags, aided both to identify acriminal suspect and ultimately to forfeit extensive assets. International cooperation and MLA
played a key role in serving relevant seizure and forfeiture orders. The US government pursues
seizure and forfeiture of assets to deter criminals and compensate victims.
5. MR. WATANABE NAOKI, Public Prosecutor, Special Investigation Department, Tokyo District2

Public Prosecutors’ Office delivered his lecture on the Exclusive Investigation on Corruption
Cases Involving High-Ranking Politicians/Officials and International Cooperation. Under
Japanese law, public prosecutors are empowered to investigate cases on their own, without
receiving referrals of cases from the police etc. Mr. Watanabe described how such investigative
authority has been successfully exercised by Japanese public prosecutors, especially incorruption cases and complicated economic crime cases, while facing issues and challenges.
Mr. Watanabe also explained the importance of financial investigation in which the Special
Investigation Department has extensive expertise.

COUNTRY PRESENTATIONS
6. BRUNEI: The delegation provided information on the framework for incoming and outgoing
MLA requests and introduced cases addressing Brunei’s first successful money-launderingconviction and first recovery of criminal proceeds via MLA. The criminal-proceeds casedemonstrated how joint investigations arising from informal cooperation can be a powerfultool for freezing and seizing criminal proceeds that have been removed to a foreign jurisdiction.
Based on this success, the Attorney General’s Chambers has adopted an “open door policy”
for international cooperation in the field of MLA.
7. CAMBODIA: While Cambodia’s Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU) has the sole investigative
authority for corruption cases, numerous law enforcement agencies are involved in AML
measures for confiscation and asset recovery. Financial disclosures were raised as an effective
measure to investigate corruption cases by introducing a case in which inconsistencies between
the corrupt official’s disclosures and his actual assets were sufficient to obtain a conviction for
unexplained wealth. Because some persons in positions of power will use their influence tohide their corruption, investigators must work closely with all stakeholders, including theprotection of informants.
8.

INDONESIA: Money-laundering involves placement of criminal proceeds in the financial system,
layering the proceeds by disguising their illicit source, and integration of the proceeds for
legitimate uses. STRs are important to immediately identify, trace, freeze and confiscate illicit
assets, and typical money-laundering modi operandi, such as transferring money to family
members, the use of joint accounts, disguising money through money changers and the use offalse identities, should be investigated. Analysis of financial disclosures was identified as
useful for identifying corruption based on unexplained wealth. Indonesia prioritizes
investigation of high-profile corruption cases as a form of deterrence, and several such cases,
including one involving a former member of parliament, were introduced.

9. LAOS: The State Inspection Anti-Corruption Authority (SIAA) performs a governmental
oversight role by inspecting ministries to ensure compliance with relevant laws and rooting out
corruption. Laos has introduced reporting requirements for financial and other institutions(including know your customer measures and STRs), border control measures that require thedeclaration of currency, asset disclosures and administrative seizure, including non-convictionbased confiscation, to counter money-laundering. While unexplained wealth is not criminalizedin Laos, the asset declarations and public complaints can be used to initiate investigations whena government official’s wealth is disproportionate to income.
10. MALAYSIA: The MACC’s Operation Target Center (OTC) conducts pre-investigation work tofacilitate effective financial investigations. The OTC collates and analyzes information,
conducts strategic and operational planning, identifies and traces assets, etc. New legislation3

has imposed strict liability on corporations that fail to prevent bribery and burden shifting toestablish adequate measures to prevent corruption, and a proposed law seeks to criminalize thefailure to disclose beneficial ownership of corporations involved in public procurement. A
corruption and money-laundering case in which money was siphoned from a governmentowned company The case demonstrated the complexity of corruption schemes at the highest
levels of government and legal challenges involving access to and admissibility of key
documents.
11. MYANMAR: The delegation explained that confiscation- and non-conviction-based confiscation
are authorized under the laws of Myanmar, and efforts are being made to develop the capacityof law enforcement officials to confiscate criminal proceeds. Myanmar engages in international
cooperation to provide MLA and facilitate asset recovery; however, there have been no
extradition cases. Several case studies were introduced, demonstrating the forms of corruption
and enforcement mechanisms in Myanmar. Myanmar also promotes corruption prevention
education in schools and training for public officials.
12. PHILIPPINES: Money-laundering, terrorist financing and corruption are national security issues
in the Philippines. The delegation introduced the anti-corruption and AML regime in thePhilippines from the perspectives of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department ofJustice. Case studies presented involved aspects of high-profile corruption, money-laundering,MLA, asset recovery, unexplained wealth and the filing of false financial disclosures. Casinos
are now covered by reporting requirements to facilitate money-laundering investigations.
Guidelines on virtual currency have been adopted, which address due diligence requirements
for financial institutions, corruption prevention and education, etc.
13. SINGAPORE: Seizure and confiscation are pursued vigorously in Singapore through the use ofnon-conviction-based restraint of property and conviction-based orders for benefits derived
from criminal conducts By law disproportionate assets may be presumed to be benefits derived
from criminal conduct, shifting the burden of proving the legitimacy of the assets to thedefendant. A case study demonstrated how Singaporean law enables the confiscation of assets
from an absconded suspect. STRs are important to effective investigations into domestic andforeign predicate money-laundering: 66% of domestic and 82% of foreign predicate money
laundering investigations are supported by STRs. The delegation also addressed Singapore’sinvestigation and confiscation of virtual currencies.
14. THAILAND: The delegation explained the importance of financial investigation, informalcooperation and the key steps in the confiscation process. Thailand’s five competent authorities
were introduced, including the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which
conducts corruption investigations, and the Anti-Money-Laundering Office (AMLO), which
conducts financial intelligence. A case study introduced a high-profile bribery case in which aThai public officer demanded and received bribes paid into foreign accounts.
15. TIMOR-LESTE: The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) was established in 2010 as anindependent specialized criminal policy body to investigate corruption and undertakepreventive action. The ACC is authorized to investigate specified predicate offences, andmoney-laundering can be investigated as an independent crime. In Timor-Leste, criminal
proceeds, property of equivalent value, the instrumentalities of crime, and property
commingled with criminal property can all be confiscated. Case studies were introduced
involving domestic money-laundering of embezzled funds and the diversion oil taxes to foreign
accounts.
416. VIET NAM: The Anti-Corruption Law of 2018 authorizes inspections of public sector entities
to ensure compliance. Public officials are required to submit annual asset declarations, but
illicit enrichment has not been criminalized. In order to confiscate the proceeds of crime
identified through asset declarations, predicate offences must be investigated, identified andestablished before money-laundering can be prosecuted. The delegation reported that popularmethodologies include the use of structured transactions, non-bank financial services, tradebased money-laundering, gatekeepers (e.g. accountants and lawyers), third parties and casinos,and case study was introduced in which a casino was used to launder money. The presentation
also addressed international cooperation in asset recovery, providing an update on MLA
requests and Viet Nam’s participation in international agreements.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
17. Corruption and money-laundering undermine economic development and often facilitatetransnational organized crime and terrorist financing, posing serious threats to national security,
human rights and the sustainable development of domestic and regional economies. While legal
and investigatory frameworks have been established to counter these threats, corrupt officials
and money-launderers create elaborate schemes to exploit jurisdictional boundaries and newtechnologies. These technologies, such as virtual currencies, facilitate fast and difficult-to-tracemoney transfers. Innovative measures are required to respond to corrupt officials, moneylaunderers and their elaborate schemes.
18. We believe the following measures are good practices for financial investigation and asset
recovery: (i) holistic investigation to unveil all relevant transactions; (ii) specialized
investigators and prosecutors with access to professional and technical expertise (i.e., digitalforensics, accounting, etc.); (iii) utilization of STRs to immediately identify, freeze and preventthe dissipation of illicit assets; (iv) non-conviction-based forfeiture as a measure to deprive
criminals of ill-gotten gains or, alternatively, confiscation based on conviction in absentia inlimited cases where a suspect has died or absconded; (v) asset declarations for public officials
for use in investigating or establishing unexplained wealth; (vi) regulation of Virtual Asset
Service Providers by requiring due diligence, record-keeping and reporting; (vii) measures tofacilitate investigation and the collection of admissible evidence, such as cooperationagreements and protection of informants; (viii) maximize the potential of international
cooperation, joint investigations, formal MLA and informal cooperation through face-to-facemeetings with counterparts and commitment to networking among counterpart agencies; (ix)capacity-building to respond to new and emerging corruption and money-laundering threats.

19 DECEMBER 2019TOKYO, JAPAN5