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 the 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 the themeof Effective Financial Investigation and Anti-Money-Laundering Measures for Confiscation andAsset Recovery to Counter New and Emerging Corruption Threats, noting that corruption and thelaundering of criminal proceeds has become increasingly transnational and complex. Therefore, it
is important to continuously review and share advancements in anti-corruption practices amonglaw enforcement agencies in the Southeast Asian region and beyond. 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 Kongin conducting financial investigations and anti-money-laundering measures. Noting that corruption
and money-laundering are inextricably linked, money-laundering is connected with other predicate
offences, such as drug trafficking and other forms of organized crime. Hong Kong’s robust anticorruption regime is based on legislation, law enforcement and international cooperation.
Established by recently adopted legislation, “significant controllers registers” 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, analyses and disseminatessuspicious transaction reports (STRs), engages in international cooperation to identify moneylaundering and shares information with other law enforcement agencies. “No consent letters” canbe 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 toofficers. The Proceeds of Crime Team was established in 2010 for the purpose of conducting asset
recovery by restraining and confiscating crime proceeds. With the adoption of UNCAC and- 11 -

UNTOC, international cooperation and asset recovery are fundamental principles andinternationally accepted objectives of law enforcement agencies. ICAC engages in international
training programmes to reduce the risk of corruption in neighbouring regions so as to minimize
money-laundering risk in Hong Kong. Additionally, ICAC conducts sector-based moneylaundering risk assessments, provides training and issues guidelines to all officers on anti-moneylaundering work, and compiles statistics so as to objectively display the efforts and outcomes of
the ICAC’s AML work. Three cases were introduced to provide practical examples of financial
investigation and asset recovery in Hong Kong through the use of restraint and confiscation orders,
as well as obtaining intelligence, evidence and assistance from domestic and overseas counterparts.
One of the cases also demonstrated the involvement of legal and financial professionals infraudulent scams; however, such professionals can also be useful sources of evidence. Overall, thecases demonstrated the importance of professional and thorough financial investigations, theimportance of charging suspects with money-laundering in cases where there is insufficientevidence to establish bribery, and the importance of asset recovery as a strong deterrent against
corruption and international collaboration in combating 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 of Financial
Investigations: Bitcoin and Beyond. Money is a primary motivator in many forms of crime,
including cybercrime, darknet crime, violent crime, terrorist financing and public corruption.
Financial investigations are therefore essential both when investigating crimes and theirperpetrators, and when seizing the proceeds of crimes that otherwise unjustly enrich criminalactors. In the United States, financial institutions are regulated under the Bank Secrecy Act andrelated regulations, which require financial institutions and money services businesses to registerwith the US financial intelligence unit (FinCEN), to develop and maintain effective AML
programmes and to comply with record-keeping and reporting obligations (e.g. of foreign bankaccounts, suspicious activities, and large cash payments). Records maintained by these 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 they 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 cryptoassets. These tools havelegitimate uses but can present challenges for investigators. These financial tools can increase thespeed of money movements, which can make lawful seizures difficult for governments. They canalso result in financial records becoming fragmented across countries and/or platforms. Financial
investigations can nevertheless produce critical evidence of crime and/or opportunities for seizure,so investigators should endeavour to familiarize themselves with these tools and the records
concerning their use, as well as the ways which they are being used by criminals. Another emerging
trend in financially motivated crime is the use of “money mule organizations,” which offer moneylaundering services to criminals, for a fee. For example, in the US criminal case United States v.
Chostak et al., No 3:15cr59 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 18, 2015), a group of individuals was changed withoffering a money-mule service for a fee, which relied on tricking over 15,000 US citizens into
sending international wire transfers as a part of a 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

- 12 -

reporting, net-worth analysis (identifying extensive unexplained income) and other red flags, aided
both to identify a criminal 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 District
Public Prosecutors’ Office, delivered his lecture on the Exclusive Investigation of 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 in corruption
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 DARUSSALAM: The delegation provided information on the framework for incoming andoutgoing MLA requests and introduced cases addressing Brunei’s first successful moneylaundering conviction and first recovery of criminal proceeds via MLA. The criminal-proceeds
case demonstrated 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” forinternational 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 forconfiscation and asset recovery. Financial disclosures were raised as an effective measure toinvestigate 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 to hide their corruption,
investigators must work closely with all stakeholders, including by protecting 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 of false
identities, should be investigated. Analysis of financial disclosures was identified as useful for
identifying corruption based on unexplained wealth. Indonesia prioritizes investigation of highprofile corruption cases as a form of deterrence, and several such cases, including one involving aformer member of parliament, were introduced.
9. LAO PDR: 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- 13 -(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 criminalized inLaos, the asset declarations and public complaints can be used to initiate investigations when agovernment 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 analyses information, conducts
strategic and operational planning, identifies and traces assets, etc. New legislation has imposed
strict liability on corporations that fail to prevent bribery and burden shifting to establish adequate
measures to prevent corruption, and a proposed law seeks to criminalize the failure to disclose
beneficial ownership of corporations involved in public procurement. A corruption and moneylaundering case was introduced in which money was siphoned from a government-owned
company. The case demonstrated the complexity of corruption schemes at the highest levels ofgovernment and the legal challenges involving access to and admissibility of key documents.
11. MYANMAR: The delegation explained that both confiscation and non-conviction-based
confiscation are authorized under the laws of Myanmar, and efforts are being made to develop thecapacity of law enforcement officials to confiscate criminal proceeds. Myanmar engages ininternational cooperation to provide MLA and facilitate asset recovery; however, there have beenno 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 the Philippinesfrom the perspectives of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice. 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 byreporting requirements to facilitate money-laundering investigations. Guidelines on cryptoassets
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 of nonconviction-based restraint of property and conviction-based orders for benefits derived from
criminal conduct. 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 the defendant. A
case study demonstrated how Singaporean law enables the confiscation of assets from anabsconded suspect. STRs are important to effective investigations into domestic and foreign
predicate money-laundering: 66% of domestic and 82% of foreign predicate money-laundering
investigations are supported by STRs. The delegation also addressed Singapore’s investigationand confiscation of cryptoassets.
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- 14 -financial intelligence. A case study introduced a high-profile bribery case in which a Thai public
officer demanded and received bribes paid into foreign accounts.
15. TIMOR-LESTE: The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) was established in 2010 as an independent
specialized criminal policy body to investigate corruption and undertake preventive action. The ACC isauthorized to investigate specified predicate offences, and money-laundering can be investigated as anindependent crime. In Timor-Leste, criminal proceeds, property of equivalent value, the instrumentalitiesof crime, and property commingled with criminal property can all be confiscated. Case studies wereintroduced involving domestic money-laundering of embezzled funds and the diversion oil taxes to foreign
accounts.
16. VIET NAM: The Anti-Corruption Law of 2018 authorizes inspections of public sector entities to ensurecompliance. Public officials are required to submit annual asset declarations, but illicit enrichment has notbeen criminalized. In order to confiscate the proceeds of crime identified through asset declarations,predicate offences must be investigated, identified and established before money-laundering can beprosecuted. The delegation reported that popular methodologies include the use of structured transactions,non-bank financial services, trade-based money-laundering, gatekeepers (e.g. accountants and lawyers),
third parties and casinos, and a 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 facilitate transnationalorganized crime and terrorist financing, posing serious threats to national security, human rights and thesustainable 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 new technologies. These technologies, such as
cryptoassets, facilitate fast and difficult-to-trace money transfers. Innovative measures are required torespond to corrupt officials, money-launderers 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 withaccess to professional and technical expertise (i.e. digital forensics, accounting, etc.); (iii) utilization of
STRs to immediately identify, freeze and prevent the dissipation of illicit assets; (iv) non-conviction-based
forfeiture as a measure to deprive criminals of ill-gotten gains or, alternatively, confiscation based onconviction in absentia in limited 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 to facilitate
investigation and the collection of admissible evidence, such as cooperation agreements and protection ofinformants; (viii) maximize the potential of international cooperation, joint investigations, formal MLA andinformal cooperation through face-to-face meetings with counterparts and commitment to networking
among counterpart agencies; (ix) capacity-building to respond to new and emerging corruption and moneylaundering threats.
19 DECEMBER 2019TOKYO, JAPAN- 15 -