MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212943928 · doi:10.1108/jmlc-12-2021-0143

Combating the crimes of money laundering and terrorism financing in Nigeria: a legal approach for combating the menace

2022· article· en· W4212943928 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Money Laundering Control · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoney launderingConfiscationTerrorismLegislationPatriot ActGovernment (linguistics)Language changeBusinessLawFinancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This study aims to investigate the Federal Government’s failure to combat money laundering and terrorism financing and the various hurdles to enforce the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2012 (as amended), effectively, which prohibits illegal earnings criminally induced investments in and out of Nigeria. This has had an impact on the country’s economic potential and its image in the international community. Despite many anti-corruption laws criminalising money laundering and terrorism financing, it is rated among the nations with the highest poverty index despite its immense natural resources. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a conceptual legal method to help a doctrinal library-based investigation by using existing material. This study also makes use of main and secondary legislation, such as the Constitution, the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amended) Act 2012 and the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2013 (as amended), as well as case law, international conventions, textbooks and peer-reviewed publications. A comparison of anti-money laundering legislation in Canada, the UK, Hong Kong, China and Nigeria was conducted, with lessons learned for Nigeria’s anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing laws. According to the findings, the Act is silent on the criminal use of legitimate earnings to fund terrorism and cultism. Findings There is no well-defined legal framework for asset recovery and confiscation. In Nigeria’s legal system, this evident void must be addressed immediately. To supplement existing efforts to prevent money laundering, the research develops a hybrid model that incorporates the inputs of government representatives and civil society organisations. This study suggests a complete revision of the Act to eliminate ambiguity and focus on the goals of global anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist funding restrictions. Research limitations/implications One of the limitations of this study is the paucity of literature and data on money laundering and terrorist financing in Nigeria due to the secrecy around the crimes, which do not give room for the collection of statistical data and due to the transactional nature of the crimes. This is not to submit that no attempts have been made in the past or recent times to quantify the global value of money laundering and its effects on Nigeria’s economy. Such attempts have been inconclusive and inaccurate. Practical implications The dearth of records on the magnitude of money laundering in Nigeria has limited generalising the research findings due to the limited access to some required information. However, this study is suitable for adoption in other sectors of the economy in dealing with clandestineness in money laundering and terrorism financing. Future researchers are commended to use the quantitative assessment method to appraise the effects of money laundering and terrorist financing laws and policies in Africa to supplement the current literature in the field. Originality/value The research develops a hybrid model that incorporates the inputs of government representatives and civil society organisations. This study suggests a complete revision of the Act to eliminate ambiguity and focus on the goals of global anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist funding restrictions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it