Legal problems related to self-laundering in Vietnam

Money laundering, a global problem that concerns about nations,consists of self-laundering and third-party laundering. Self-laundering (SL) refers tothe situation where a person who has committed a crime tries to hide the illicitorigins of the proceeds from that crime. Criminalization of self-laundering iscontroversial and depends on fundamental principles of domestic law. Article 324 ofthe Vietnam Criminal Code 2015 regulates self-laundering crimes, explained in moredetail in Judicial Council Resolution 03/2019/NQ-HDTP. Although criminalization isexpanded to self-laundering and cases with high risk of money laundering, thenumber of successfully prosecuted remains low, paradoxically. Therefore, obstaclesto criminalizing self-laundering are studied to ensure that its regulation functionsefficiently.This thesis explores legal problems related to self-laundering inVietnam in comparison with fundamental principles of Vietnamese legal system andother related international conventions. The regulation of SL consists of three kindsand protects three legal interests, namely the legal interests protected by thepredicate crime, the administration of justice and the economic order.Understanding theories of criminalization and general criminal justicein the Vietnamese legal system, my thesis explores the application of principles tothree forms of self-laundering and legal interests protected. The fundamentalRef. code: 25656301040181WJP(2)doctrines are mentioned are ne bis in idem, the privilege of self-concealment andthe right of self-incrimination. The theories of criminalization consist of the harmprinciple, the morality principle, legal interest principle, and the proportionalityprinciple.To sum up, self-laundering regulation remains controversial andviolates some fundamental doctrines of the Vietnamese legal system. To be moreprecise, the first and the second types of self-laundering does not violate theprivilege of self-concealment and the right of self-incrimination but the third onedoes. Moreover, the criminalization of SL does not violate Ne bis in idem.Regarding to Rechtsgut doctrine, Article 324 protects the legal interestprotected by predicate crime, the administration of justice and the economic order,so there is no violation. Three legal interests are protected by the provision ofself-laundering crime based on the concept of fairness and “crime should not pay”in the morality principle so the provision does not break this doctrine, but theconcealment activity breaks “mala prohibita” rule. Three kinds of self-launderingviolate the harm principle (harm to others), but under the scope of harm to otherinterests, the regulation of self-laundering prevents the harm to the economic orderand the administration of justice so there is no violation. In case of less serious harmin the predicate crime, there is a lack of independent harm to the self-launderingactivities that lead to the violation of the harm principle. In terms of theproportionality principle, the regulation of self-laundering protects the legal interestprotected by predicate crime and the economic order but does not protect theadministration of justice because the number of successful convicted cases is stilllimited even if there is a high risk of money laundering crime.Results show that criminalizing self-laundering is necessary becausemoney laundering is a global issue and its regulation must be unified. Therefore, thelaw should apply to self-laundering along with predicate crime.