A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal
Justification of supranational criminal law – Analysis of collective securitization in the EU-level harmonization of money laundering provisions
Authors: Tatu Hyttinen, Saila Heinikoski
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Publishing place: London
Publication year: 2019
Journal: Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
Volume: 26
Issue: 6
First page : 815
Last page: 832
eISSN: 2399-5548
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X19879048
Abstract
Tackling terrorism was the prime justification in the European Commission’s proposal for the recently adopted anti-money laundering Directive 2018/1673, the first directive on money laundering focused on criminal law rather than administrative measures. We utilize the theory of collective securitization to illustrate how the EU seeks to connect the criminalization of money laundering to the fight against terrorism, requiring, for example, the extension of the criminalization of self-laundering. As an example of how the securitizing rhetoric has not convinced the Member States, we discuss the case of Finland, which is willing to extend its criminalization of self-laundering, even though the legal economy rather than protection from terrorism is considered to constitute the object of legal protection. We demonstrate that the use of terrorism-focused securitization is problematic especially in the context of criminal law, because it challenges the traditional understanding of the objects of legal protection as the basis of criminalization.
Tackling terrorism was the prime justification in the European Commission’s proposal for the recently adopted anti-money laundering Directive 2018/1673, the first directive on money laundering focused on criminal law rather than administrative measures. We utilize the theory of collective securitization to illustrate how the EU seeks to connect the criminalization of money laundering to the fight against terrorism, requiring, for example, the extension of the criminalization of self-laundering. As an example of how the securitizing rhetoric has not convinced the Member States, we discuss the case of Finland, which is willing to extend its criminalization of self-laundering, even though the legal economy rather than protection from terrorism is considered to constitute the object of legal protection. We demonstrate that the use of terrorism-focused securitization is problematic especially in the context of criminal law, because it challenges the traditional understanding of the objects of legal protection as the basis of criminalization.
UTU Research Portal