HUNG OUT TO DRY? ATTORNEY-CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY AND THE REPORTING DUTIES IMPOSED BY THE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE CENTRE ACT 38 OF 2001
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
According to the South African Law Reform Commission, money laundering is the manipulation of illegally acquired wealth in order to obscure its true source or nature. This is achieved by performing a series of transactions with the proceeds of criminal activities that, if successful, will leave the illegally derived proceeds appearing as a product of legitimate transactions or investments. Professional money laundering assists and strengthens organised crime and may contribute to the undermining of the civil society and the financial system of a country. Attorneys as professionals are no doubt in a precarious position. On the one hand there is the duty to keep in confidence private information pertaining to clients’ affairs which is no doubt essential to the attorney-client relationship and on the other hand there is the duty to the community to uphold the ethics of the profession. Attorneys may find that they are caught between these seemingly conflicting duties and the question is which duty is more important. This article weighs the newly-imposed duties on the legal profession pertaining to money laundering against the equally important principle of attorney-client privilege and asks whether it is possible to reconcile anti-money laundering obligations with legal professional privilege. The article considers the latter duty in light of the ethics of the legal profession in South Africa and the foundation of legal professional conduct. In addition, the position in the United Kingdom and in Canada is also considered. Against this background it is argued that there is no need to regulate the South African professional legal industry any further. Until FICA’s reporting provisions are formally challenged in the Constitutional Court, attorneys will continue to remain uncertain as totheir position, notwithstanding the fact that guidance notes have been issued to aid attorneys in this regard. In order to comply with FICA and simultaneously preserve the attorney-client relationship, attorneys need to educate clients on the provisions of FICA. Furthermore, legal practitioners should have a sound legal knowledge of FICA in order help the State combat organised crime and laundering activities. Finally, it is advisable to keep up to date with the latest guidelines which regarding the independence of the profession; possible infringements of the fundamental right to privacy and potential threats to the confidential attorney-client relationship. It is the awareness of this precarious balance that will ensure compliance with the FICA without causing the attorneys’ profession to lose its credibility.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,025 | 0,074 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,015 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».