3/5 – 2010 – Bank account manager, his superior and a Luxembourg lawyer were convicted of aiding and abetting in the handling of stolen goods

1. In a decision of 2 June 2010, a bank account manager, his superior and a Luxembourg lawyer were convicted of aiding and abetting in the handling of stolen goods (complicité de recel).
2. An encrypted account had been opened to transfer company assets on account to another Luxembourg bank.
3. The client, the wife of the account holder, had requested the account closure, stating that her husband had disappeared and that the money had to be put in a safe place by hiding the assets.
4. An account in the name of an offshore company was thus opened and the funds were transferred by means of a fictitious withdrawal/transfer. The transaction was fictitious because there were not really sufficient funds in the amount of the USD 1.5 million for the transfer, and the transfer instruction was reversed in the bank’s accounting.
5. The assets were then transferred to an offshore company’s account at another Luxembourg bank. It turned out that the account holder was arrested abroad for a subsidy scam affecting the foreign country.
6. The court held that the documents for the fictitious withdrawal/transfer constituted forgery in the bank’s accounting books. Thus, pursuant to the decision, it is not necessary for the person committing a crime to have specific knowledge of the crime or misdemeanour at the origin of the assets for there to be aiding and abetting in the handling of stolen goods.
7. The element of intent on the part of the lawyer was upheld based on the following factors:
   1. setting up of a sophisticated structure of offshore shell companies (BVI);
   2. opening of accounts at various Luxembourg banks, the beneficial owners of which were on an alternating basis three different people;
   3. assistance given to those handling the stolen goods, in his capacity as lawyer, in the fictitious withdrawal/transfer transaction and when the bank account opening formalities with the bank to which the assets would be fictitiously transferred and withdrawn; and
   4. the abnormal and secret nature of the transactions.
8. All three individuals were convicted of aiding and abetting in the handling of stolen goods, and the bankers were also convicted for forgery and use of forged documents and fined. (Reference: FIU 2010 Annual Report – September  2011)

Example 1: http://bit.ly/2pSnX2a

Example 2: http://bit.ly/2q3b6pb

Example 4: http://bit.ly/2ryrlMF

Example 5: http://bit.ly/2ryupbD