As an individual somewhat interested in legal philosophy, I often find myself thinking about the fascinating intersections of law and morality. For the past two or three years —probably when I started working in banking compliance back at Wise—, I’ve been reflecting on the moral complexities that arise from the enforcement of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws. In this piece, I want to share my thoughts on the philosophical limitations of AML laws based on the inner contradictions between legality and morality, and the importance of engaging with these complexities in our understanding of the issue.
AML laws, while crucial in the fight against financial crime, sometimes inadvertently affect morally justifiable actions. This contradiction between legality and morality reminds me of H.L.A. Hart’s ‘The Concept of Law’, where the legal philosopher argues that laws are just rules made by humans, and that there is actually no inherent connection between law and morality. This way, the law does not necessarily always promote morally right actions.💡
A stark example of this distinction can be found in the actions of Nazi Germany. While the atrocities committed under that regime were legally sanctioned, they were morally reprehensible. This abhorrent chapter in human history serves as a potent reminder that the existence of laws, even those issued by a government or supported by a majority, does not automatically equate to moral righteousness.
In examining the enforcement of AML laws, I often find myself confronted with similar moral dilemmas and contradictions. Take, for example, a hypothetical driving school in Afghanistan 🇦🇫 that teaches women to drive, despite it being illegal under the current regime 🚗🧕. The funds generated by this driving school would technically be classified as proceeds of crime and thus subject to local AML laws. Nevertheless, many would contend that empowering women with the ability to drive is a morally praiseworthy endeavour, as it fosters independence and resilience in the face of oppressive regulations. Moreover, this perspective aligns with international human rights standards, promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women.
Similarly, consider the ongoing struggle for LGBTQ+ 🏳️🌈 rights in countries where these communities face discrimination, criminalisation, or even persecution. An organisation that covertly collects funds to support these marginalised individuals may very well be operating outside local laws. However, the organisation’s ultimate aim is to advocate for equality and human rights, which resonates with universally recognised moral principles and international human rights instruments. As such, rigid enforcement of AML laws would impede the quest for justice and equality, thereby undermining the very principles that underpin global human rights norms.
Now, these contradictions are not solely limited to distant oppressive regimes; they may also arise closer to home, even within the context of the EU 🇪🇺. Imagine an organisation in an EU country that raises funds to provide aid to refugees from a neighbouring country. If the government of that country deems the act of helping refugees illegal, the funds raised would technically fall under AML laws. However, many would argue that providing aid to those in need is a morally commendable action, also aligning with international human rights standards. In this situation, the rigid application of AML laws would not align with the moral implications of helping others, or the spirit of human rights principles that emphasise the importance of upholding the rights of refugees and those seeking asylum.
The tensions between legality and morality, as illustrated by the aforementioned examples, are not exclusive to the realm of AML laws. These complex ethical scenarios are present across various aspects of our society, and if we delve deeper into the study of legal philosophy, we will continuously find examples of the intricate relationship between law and morality.
AML laws should not be regarded as an absolute. AML laws serve as a tool, and like any tool, they can be employed for both just and unjust purposes.
In conclusion, it is important to recognise AML laws as an essential element in preventing financial crime. However, AML laws should not be regarded as an absolute 🚫⚖️. AML laws serve as a tool, and like any tool, they can be employed for both just and unjust purposes. We should be mindful not to blindly promote enforcement of these laws, but instead also consider their moral implications and alignment with fundamental human rights principles.
Javier Vergara 