Indirect method of proof
Dutch money laundering cases of the last decade have shown that it is possible to fairly convict suspects of money laundering without proving a predicate offence. It is sufficient that proof is provided which points out the object does not originate from a legal source. In the following report you can read how, in a Dutch criminal investigation and prosecution, sufficient evidence can be produced in a stand-alone money laundering case. Secondly, and most importantly, it aims to claim that other countries can do the same in their fight against money laundering. With the adoption of European directive 2018/1673 on further harmonization of the criminalization of money laundering, this will be a must for all European countries.
For a conviction for money laundering without an evident predicate offence the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam summed up the assessment framework for money laundering without a known predicate offence. Click to read about the so called 'step-by-step plan'. The step-by-step plan is European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) proof. Read more about the ECHR ruling Zschüschen v. Belgium.