Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), which represent a country’s official authority for receiving financial information disclosures, are regularly at the forefront of tackling money laundering and terrorist financing. Not surprisingly, they also play a critical role in the asset recovery process. An increasing number of investigations leading to the tracing, identification, seizing/freezing and confiscation of illegal assets are triggered by FIU reports to law enforcement agencies.

Financial interviews are a critical component of a financial investigation. Properly conducted, they enable investigators to extract relevant financial information from informants, witnesses or suspects. This provides not only additional leads to further the investigation but also key evidence that could be used in a court of law.

To ensure positive outcomes for financial crimes and asset tracing investigations by law enforcement agencies, it is vital to help investigators gain the necessary interviewing skills.

It is a fact that states with a high corruption rate (or a high corruption perception) are at the same time those with a bad human rights situation. Beyond this coincidence, the paper seeks to identify a concrete legal relationship between corruption and deficient human rights protection. This seems relevant and practical terms, because the extant international norms against corruption have so far yielded only modest success; their implementation could be improved with the help of human rights arguments and instruments.

This paper therefore discusses a dual question:

Financial crimes such as corruption, fraud, and embezzlement generate significant profits, often at the expense of the public budget. These proceeds of crime are usually hidden outside of the country where the crime was originally committed, and laundered through complex financial and commercial transactions, often spanning across numerous jurisdictions.

Anti-money laundering systems have the potential to curb the use of proceeds of corruption and other crimes by the perpetrators. An effectively implemented anti-money laundering framework limits the channels through which illicit funds can be laundered, making crime riskier and reducing the incentives for corrupt activities.