+更多
专家名录
唐朱昌
唐朱昌
教授,博士生导师。复旦大学中国反洗钱研究中心首任主任,复旦大学俄...
严立新
严立新
复旦大学国际金融学院教授,中国反洗钱研究中心执行主任,陆家嘴金...
陈浩然
陈浩然
复旦大学法学院教授、博士生导师;复旦大学国际刑法研究中心主任。...
何 萍
何 萍
华东政法大学刑法学教授,复旦大学中国反洗钱研究中心特聘研究员,荷...
李小杰
李小杰
安永金融服务风险管理、咨询总监,曾任蚂蚁金服反洗钱总监,复旦大学...
周锦贤
周锦贤
周锦贤先生,香港人,广州暨南大学法律学士,复旦大学中国反洗钱研究中...
童文俊
童文俊
高级经济师,复旦大学金融学博士,复旦大学经济学博士后。现供职于中...
汤 俊
汤 俊
武汉中南财经政法大学信息安全学院教授。长期专注于反洗钱/反恐...
李 刚
李 刚
生辰:1977.7.26 籍贯:辽宁抚顺 民族:汉 党派:九三学社 职称:教授 研究...
祝亚雄
祝亚雄
祝亚雄,1974年生,浙江衢州人。浙江师范大学经济与管理学院副教授,博...
顾卿华
顾卿华
复旦大学中国反洗钱研究中心特聘研究员;现任安永管理咨询服务合伙...
张平
张平
工作履历:曾在国家审计署从事审计工作,是国家第一批政府审计师;曾在...
转发
上传时间: 2023-05-19      浏览次数:606次
UAE court jails 13 over $139m money-laundering offences

 

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/culture-society/uae-court-jails-13-over-139m-money-laundering-offences

 

A court in the UAE has convicted 13 Indians and seven companies of money-laundering offences.

 

The guilty parties were found to have laundered AED510m ($139m) in point-of-sale crimes in the UAE.

 

The Abu Dhabi Criminal Court, which has jurisdiction over money laundering and tax evasion offences, convicted 13 Indian nationals and companies owned by them, for money laundering.

 

They were found guilty of engaging in an economic activity using the provision of credit facilities through points of sale (POS) without obtaining a licence from the competent authorities.

 

The court sentenced four accused, who were present during the trial and others at large in absentia to prison sentences ranging from five to 10 years and fines ranging from AED5m to AED10m.

 

The UAE court also ordered confiscation of the seized funds and deportation of the convicted persons from the country once their sentences have been served.

 

The companies involved in these crimes were fined AED10m each.

 

The convicts had set up a criminal organisation to conduct an economic activity without a licence from the competent authorities, to provide credit facilities, using the points of sale (POS) of several companies, at the headquarters of a travel agency that was used as the venue for this criminal activity.

 

They made false purchases through the POS of the companies created for this purpose, or by misuse by some of the defendants of the powers granted to them to deal with the bank accounts of companies owned by third parties without the knowledge of their owners, in exchange for the deduction of a percentage in favour of the company that owns and uses the POS device for each withdrawal operation.

 

Also, the bank transaction reports and the financial analysis issued by the Financial Information Unit (FIU) also indicated significant financial flows into and out of the bank accounts of the defendants and their companies in a short period of time that would be impossible within the legal framework of their respective economic activities, in addition to a multitude of financial operations on these accounts through deposits, withdrawals and transfers with the intention of concealing their source.