Legal Problems in the Application of Anti-Money Laundering Measures: A Case Study of Match-Fixing Offences

Abstract

                   The exchange of benefits for the purpose of fixing the results of professional sports competitions was enacted as a specific criminal offense with corresponding penalties under the Professional Sports Promotion Act, B.E. 2556 (2013). This delegated authority to the state to prosecute and enforce legal sanctions against those involved in corruption within the sports industry.

                   However, the study found legal limitations. Following the successful completion of a match-fixing act, the management of assets or benefits derived from the commission of the offense was often followed by processes of displacement, transfer, or conversion of assets with the intent to conceal the source or illicit acquisition of unlawful benefits. Nevertheless, the laws of the Kingdom of Thailand provided for the control of offenders' behavior, as appeared in the Anti-Money Laundering Act, B.E. 2542 (1999). Yet, this Act did not possess comprehensive measures for controlling illicit assets or benefits because the offense of match-fixing, under the Professional Sports Promotion Act, B.E. 2556 (2013), was not designated as a "Predicate Offense." A predicate offense is a criminal offense that serves as the basis for the acquisition of assets or benefits from criminal acts. Consequently, the measures under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, B.E. 2542 (1999), could not be applied to the unlawfully acquired assets or benefits.

                   Therefore, the fact that the offense of match-fixing was not designated as a "Predicate Offense" under the list of predicate offenses stipulated in the Anti-Money Laundering Act, B.E. 2542 (1999), created a legal gap. This gap significantly hindered the government from using effective legal mechanisms to track, examine, seize, or freeze assets that were displaced, transferred, or converted to conceal their source directly.