Skip to main content
FinCrime Institute
Category: Enforcement and Penalties

Criminal Prosecution

Also known as: Criminal Proceeding, Criminal Case
Simply put

Criminal prosecution is the formal legal process in which a government authority accuses a person or entity of committing a criminal offense and brings the case before a court. The party responsible for presenting the case against the accused is called the prosecution, and the accused is called the defendant. The court then determines whether the accused is guilty of the alleged offense.

Formal definition

Criminal prosecution is the formal process, initiated when a prosecutor files criminal charges against an individual or entity, through which the state pursues a criminal case (also termed a criminal proceeding) against a defendant accused of breaking the law. In the United States, it operates within an adversarial framework in which the prosecution presents the case against the defendant, provides discovery, and bears the burden of proof at trial. In the US federal context, career prosecutors within bodies such as the Department of Justice Criminal Division act as the enforcing party. The specific structure, actors, and procedural rules of criminal prosecution vary by jurisdiction; the descriptions here reflect US and general common-law practice as set out in the evidence and should not be assumed to apply identically in other regimes. Note that the initiation of a prosecution or the filing of charges is an accusation and does not itself establish guilt, which is a matter for the court to determine.

Why it matters

Criminal prosecution represents the point at which suspected financial crime moves from investigation and regulatory scrutiny into the formal machinery of the courts. For AML and financial crime compliance professionals, it is significant because the outputs of a compliance program, suspicious activity reports, transaction monitoring alerts, and investigative case files, may ultimately support, or become evidence in, a prosecution brought by a government authority. Understanding the distinction between a compliance action and a criminal prosecution is essential: the filing of a SAR or the escalation of an internal alert is a risk-management and reporting step, not an accusation of guilt, whereas a criminal prosecution is a formal accusation brought before a court.

The stakes are heightened by the principle that the initiation of a prosecution, or the filing of charges, is an accusation only and does not itself establish guilt; guilt is a matter for the court to determine. In an adversarial framework such as that used in the United States, the prosecution bears the burden of proof at trial and is required to provide discovery to the defendant. For compliance teams, this underscores why the quality, accuracy, and defensibility of documentation matters, records generated during customer due diligence and investigations may later be examined within a legal process where standards of evidence are rigorous.

Because the structure, actors, and procedural rules of criminal prosecution vary by jurisdiction, professionals operating across borders should not assume that the US or general common-law model described here applies identically elsewhere. Recognizing which authority prosecutes, under what framework, and against whom (an individual or an entity) is important for assessing enforcement risk and for calibrating how a program supports lawful outcomes without overstating what any single compliance output proves.

Who it's relevant to

Compliance Officers and MLROs
Compliance officers should understand that the records, reports, and investigative files generated by an AML program may support or feed into a criminal prosecution brought by a government authority. This reinforces the importance of accurate, well-documented, and defensible outputs, while remembering that filing a report or escalating an alert is a risk-management step and not an accusation of guilt.
Financial Intelligence and Investigations Analysts
Analysts who build investigative case files and analyze transactions should be aware that their work product may later be examined within a formal legal process where the prosecution bears the burden of proof and provides discovery. Precision in analysis and clear separation between suspicion and established fact are therefore important.
Legal and Enforcement Professionals
Lawyers and enforcement specialists work directly with the mechanics of prosecution, including the adversarial framework, discovery obligations, and the burden of proof. They should also recognize that procedural rules and the identity of the enforcing authority, such as career prosecutors within a body like the DOJ Criminal Division in the US, vary by jurisdiction.
Risk Professionals
Risk professionals assessing enforcement exposure should factor in that a prosecution can be brought against an individual or an entity and that the initiation of charges is an accusation, not a determination of guilt. Understanding which authority prosecutes and under what framework helps in calibrating enforcement-risk assessments across jurisdictions.

Inside Criminal Prosecution

Predicate Offence
The underlying criminal conduct that generates proceeds and forms the basis for a money laundering charge. Jurisdictions differ in how they designate predicate offences, with some using a threshold approach and others an enumerated list. Exact scope should be confirmed against applicable law, such as the Proceeds of Crime Act in the UK or the relevant provisions implementing FATF standards elsewhere.
Mens Rea (Mental Element)
The knowledge, suspicion, or intent that a prosecutor generally must establish to secure a money laundering conviction. Standards vary by jurisdiction and offence, ranging from actual knowledge to a lower 'reasonable grounds to suspect' or 'wilful blindness' standard. The applicable mental element depends on the specific statutory provision charged.
Actus Reus (Physical Element)
The prohibited conduct itself, such as concealing, converting, transferring, acquiring, using, or possessing criminal property. The precise defined acts differ across regimes and should be verified against the governing instrument.
Burden and Standard of Proof
Criminal prosecution typically requires the prosecuting authority to prove guilt to the applicable criminal standard, generally a high threshold such as 'beyond reasonable doubt' in common-law jurisdictions. This is distinct from, and higher than, the standards used for regulatory action or civil recovery.
Distinction from Compliance Filings
A criminal prosecution is a separate legal process from AML compliance activity. A filed SAR or STR, a screening alert, or a sanctions or PEP match does not itself establish criminal wrongdoing; it is intelligence or a control output, not a determination of guilt.
Prosecuting Authorities
The bodies that bring criminal charges differ by jurisdiction, for example prosecutorial or law enforcement agencies distinct from the financial supervisors or Financial Intelligence Units that receive compliance reports. Regulatory and criminal enforcement often run on separate tracks.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about Criminal Prosecution.

Does filing a SAR or STR mean a criminal prosecution will follow?
No. A suspicious activity report (SAR) or suspicious transaction report (STR) is a compliance disclosure that flags activity an obliged entity considers suspicious; it does not establish that a crime occurred, nor does it initiate or guarantee a criminal prosecution. Whether any prosecution follows is a separate decision made by competent authorities, typically prosecutors or law enforcement, based on their own investigation and applicable evidential and public-interest standards. Many filings never lead to any charge, and a filing should not be read as a determination of guilt.
Is criminal prosecution the same thing as a regulatory enforcement action against a firm?
No. These are distinct tracks with different actors, standards, and consequences. Criminal prosecution is brought by prosecuting authorities and generally requires proof to a criminal standard, potentially resulting in criminal penalties for individuals or entities. Regulatory or administrative enforcement is typically pursued by supervisors or financial intelligence bodies and may result in fines, remediation requirements, or license actions under a different (often lower) standard of proof. In some jurisdictions the same underlying conduct can give rise to both, but they are not interchangeable and one does not automatically imply the other.
What is the practical role of a compliance function once a matter moves toward criminal prosecution?
The compliance function's role is generally to preserve and produce relevant records, respond to lawful requests such as production orders or subpoenas, and support internal legal counsel, rather than to make determinations of criminal liability. Obliged entities typically continue to meet their reporting, record-keeping, and tipping-off obligations, which may restrict what can be disclosed to a customer under investigation. Firms should confirm the specific obligations and permissible actions against the applicable regime and coordinate with legal counsel.
How should a firm handle 'tipping off' concerns when a customer may be subject to a criminal investigation?
In many jurisdictions, tipping-off provisions restrict disclosing to a customer or third party that a report has been made or that an investigation may be underway, where such disclosure could prejudice an investigation. Firms generally manage this by limiting knowledge to a need-to-know basis, routing external communications through legal counsel or the money laundering reporting function, and documenting decisions. The precise scope of prohibited disclosures and any exemptions varies by regime and should be confirmed against the applicable law.
What records are typically relevant if a matter proceeds to criminal prosecution?
Records commonly relevant include customer due diligence and identification records, transaction records, internal escalation and investigation notes, and copies of any suspicious activity or transaction reports filed, subject to jurisdictional rules on their use and disclosure. Firms generally maintain such records for retention periods set by the applicable regime and should ensure they can locate and produce them in response to lawful requests. Exact retention periods and the handling of report copies vary by jurisdiction and should be verified against the governing regulation.
Can both an individual and the firm face criminal exposure arising from the same conduct?
In some regimes, criminal liability may attach to individuals, to legal entities, or to both, depending on how the offence is framed and the applicable rules on corporate criminal liability. This can include individuals with specific responsibilities as well as the entity itself where the relevant legal conditions are met. Because the availability and scope of corporate versus individual liability differ significantly across jurisdictions, firms should assess exposure with legal counsel by reference to the specific offences and standards in the relevant regime.

Common misconceptions

Filing a SAR or STR, or a sanctions or PEP screening match, means a person has been found guilty of a crime.
A SAR or STR is a report of knowledge or suspicion, and a screening match is a control output requiring further review. Neither establishes wrongdoing. Criminal guilt is determined only through a prosecution meeting the applicable criminal standard of proof, which is a separate process from compliance reporting.
Money laundering offences and the mental element required are defined identically across all jurisdictions.
Predicate offences, prohibited acts, and the required mental element vary significantly between regimes. FATF Recommendations set standards rather than binding law, and each jurisdiction implements them differently, for example through the Proceeds of Crime Act in the UK or Bank Secrecy Act-related provisions in the US. Exact elements must be confirmed against the applicable statute.
A successful money laundering prosecution requires proving a conviction for the underlying predicate offence first.
In many jurisdictions it is possible to prosecute money laundering without a prior conviction for the predicate offence, though what must be proven about the criminal origin of the property varies by regime. The specific requirements should be verified against the governing law.

Best practices

Keep compliance functions and their outputs clearly separated from any determination of criminal liability, and document that filing a SAR or STR reflects suspicion, not a finding of guilt.
Confirm the specific predicate offences, prohibited acts, and mental element under the applicable statute of the relevant jurisdiction rather than assuming a single global standard applies.
Preserve and maintain clear, accurate records and audit trails, since these may be relevant to both defending the institution and supporting law enforcement, while recognising the criminal standard of proof rests with the prosecuting authority.
Coordinate with legal counsel before responding to law enforcement requests or making disclosures, to manage tipping-off risks and privilege considerations under the applicable regime.
Frame AML controls internally as measures to detect, deter, and mitigate risk, not as guarantees against prosecution or proof of innocence or guilt.
Understand the distinction between regulatory or supervisory action and criminal prosecution, and identify which authorities in each relevant jurisdiction handle each track.