{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02012072434607646, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0053655264922870555, 'mean_word_length': 5.089795918367347, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mapping the contours and limits of “irresistible inference”


Purpose
In R v Anwoir [2008] EWCA Crim 1354, the English Court of Appeal held that, in money laundering prosecutions, the criminal provenance of property can be proved by showing that the circumstances in which the property was handled give rise to the irresistible inference that it can only have been derived from crime. The purpose of this paper is to analyse subsequent developments that have revealed the contours, and some of the limits, of proof by “irresistible inference”.


Design/methodology/approach
This paper reviews the reported cases in which an “irresistible inference” was drawn and identifies the features common to most of them. It then explores the limits of proof by “irresistible inference” by reference to the continuing relevance of predicate offences and the use of money laundering tools and techniques for non-laundering purposes.


Findings
Most of the cases in which an “irresistible inference” was drawn fall within a narrow compass of five categories. The breadth of the principle is constrained by the characteristics of the predicate offence, and its usefulness is limited in cases where the typologies of the predicate offence and the money laundering offence overlap significantly.


Originality/value
This paper may be useful to those involved in prosecuting or defending money laundering cases, as well as regulated persons assessing their money laundering risks and disclosure obligations.
