عنوان مقاله [English]
Penal deterrence against e-money laundering has two major disadvantages compared to the prevention deterrence: First, it causes inflation in criminal cases, and inevitably, in the case of any financial predicate crimes or any crime related to property, a money laundering case is also raised, which itself leads to inaccurate investigation and consequently inadequate determination of penalties for the predicate crime and Money laundering. Second, money laundering is a subsidiary of the predicate crime and is dependent on it, and the determination of penal sanctions for money laundering is generally subject to the determination of the criminal obligation in relation to the crime of origin. In contrast, the prevention of e-money laundering (preventive deterrence) does not harm the two; On the contrary, in guaranteeing preventive enforcement, the predicate crimes are not central, and money laundering itself is the focus of measures. Preventive measures, both situational and social, have the ability and flexibility to be used directly in connection with money laundering in cyberspace and eliminate the grounds for the formation of criminal cases in the field of money laundering.
The present article, using library and Internet resources and by the method of description and analysis, has come to the conclusion that confronting the phenomenon of electronic money laundering through criminal and judicial measures has an outcome other than inflation, inefficiency of bail guarantees and opportunities for perpetrators. Does not have the legal responsibilities to escape, and the proposal of this article is to replace criminal and judicial measures with preventive measures or security measures that make electronic money laundering impossible by using various electronic methods and measures. Hence, e-money laundering, like other crimes, is not so much based on punitive or utilitarian analyzes of punishment, but is a phenomenon that can be controlled by a priori measures rather than a posteriori measures.