การปรับปรุงกฎหมายเกี่ยวกับการฟอกเงินของไทย

Abstract

PURPOSES: To study problems of the enforcement of the Anti-Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 and to propose amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering Law of Thailand. METHODS: Documentary research, electronic information on various websites and in-depth interview on money laundering laws. RESULTS: In the Anti-Money Laundering Act, the commission of an offense is the burden of the accused. Retroactive foreclosures are not clearly stipulated by the law. Government officials use their power arbitrarily by seizing assets in excess of what is provided by law unfairly. CONCLUSIONS: The Anti-Money Laundering Act of B.E. 2542 should be explicit on how much of the seizure of assets can be retroactively seized. The burden of proof could be on the attorney. Fundamental offences related to money laundering should be explicitly specified.