2024

DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.31178/AUBD/2024.18

Abstract: Theautonomous natureof the crime of money laundering has been extensively debated, both when international instruments did not provide a concrete answer in this regard and after such clarification emerged, requiring the intervention of the High Court of Cassation and Justice at the national level to resolve the issue (§1). This further paved the way for interpreting what constitutes “proceeds of crime,” with an emphasis on the meaning of the term “crimes” and, implicitly, on the evidentiary requirements for this premise when there is no prior or concurrent conviction for a predicate offense. Three schools of thought have thus emerged on this matter: one holding that the term “offense” is as described in Art. 15, para. (1) of the Criminal Code regarding the essential characteristics of the offense; one holding that it must be understood in light of the constituent elements of the predicate offense; and another holding that the term is, in this case, sui generis—an opinion with which we agree (§2) and which we will outline in light of the criteria that may be considered when determining the existence of the illicit origin of the property, as established both through case law and by reference to the Spanish legal system (§3).

Keywords:money laundering, crime, predicate offense, evidence, illicit origin, criminal source