Anti-Money Laundering Regimes and Asset Recovery Measures against Transnational Organized Crime in the BRICS-ASEAN Context

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2026.2.273.297

Keywords:

anti-money laundering, ACEAN, asset recovery, BRICS, compliance-effectiveness gap, transnational organized crime

Abstract

The author assesses the degree of efficacy of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regimes and Asset Recovery (AR) measures within BRICS and ASEAN member states, primarily in their capacity to address illicit financial flows and transnational organized crime. The study employs a comparative cross-regional methodology involving legislative review, Financial Action Task Force (FATF) mutual evaluation reports, and case studies as a primary basis for the exploration. The author examines preventive mechanisms in AML and also reactive components in Asset Recovery practice and law; he also investigates emerging risks stemming from the increased use of cryptocurrencies as well as informal value transfer systems. The research illustrates a persistent compliance–effectiveness gap; while laws and regulations generally reflect international legal obligations, the enforcement capacity is relatively weak due to fragmented regulations, lack of cross-border cooperation, corruption, and lack of resources. The author studies involving Brazil’s Operation Car Wash and Singapore’s cryptocurrency seizures signal some potential for success; however, systemic limitations remain extensive. ASSET RECOVERY rates remain globally and regionally close to one percent of illicit proceeds. The assessment concludes that BRICS and ASEAN states must go beyond compliance if there is to be an improvement in enforcement. Entailing measures such as harmonized regulation of virtual assets and improved judicial and law enforcement capacity and more extensive agreement on cross-border cooperation will be crucial to close the enforcement gaps and address permanent increasingly sophisticated criminal networks.

Author Biography

  • Rizaldy Anggriawan, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

    PhD Candidate, Lecturer, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Bantul, Yogyakarta 55183, Indonesia, rizaldyanggriawan@umy.ac.id

References

Arnone G. (2026) Regulating the crypto-laundering chain: a comparative study of scam compounds and money mule mechanisms within criminal networks. Risks, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/risks14040096

Bajpai G.S., Pal G. (2025) Absence of period of limitation in India’s prevention of money laundering act, 2002. Analyzing its impact on legal certainty and fundamental rights. Journal of Illicit Trade, Financial Crime, and Compliance, vol. 1, pp. 27–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.65879/3070-6122.2025.1.04

Bansal C.L., Aggarwal S. (2017) Public policy paradox in enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in BRICS countries. International Journal of Law and Management, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 1279–1291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-09-2016-0079

Belli L. et al. (2024) Data sovereignty and data transfers as fundamental elements of digital transformation: lessons from the BRICS countries. Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 54, p. 106017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106017

Binotto A. (2025) Corporate liability after Car Wash: spillovers to Brazilian corporate law on liability. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 85–94.

Dang D.Q., Wu W., Korkos I. (2024) Stock market and inequality distributions: evidence from the BRICS and G7 countries. International Review of Economics & Finance, vol. 92, pp. 1172–1190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2024.02.067

Diwakar B. (2025) Cryptocurrency regulations and their effect on investor confidence in India. European Economic Letters, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 19–35.

Guimarães C.C. (2025) Combating corruption and money laundering in a multipolar world: institutional aspects of BRICS countries. Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law, vol. 21, no. 4, p. 21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61205/jzsp.2025.4.2

Hariyanti D., Wibisono D.K. (2026) State asset recovery from the proceeds of crime in money laundering in Indonesia: analysis of the effectiveness and urgency of implementing non-conviction based asset forfeiture. Eduvest-Journal of Universal Studies, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 4266–4273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59188/eduvest.v6i4.52670

Lee B., Sims J., Lee Y.-T. (2025) BRICS expansion: threat or opportunity for ASEAN? India Quarterly, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 130–157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09749284251328226

Mahmood H., Ashraf B.N., Tran V. (2026) Political stability and money laundering risk. Economies, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/economies14020068

Marques A.C., Matos R. (2025) The repercussions of corruption on green growth: evidence from BRICS+ countries. Sustainable Futures, vol. 9, p. 100542. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100542

Mavhuru L., Chitimira H. (2025) An analysis of impact of the risk-based approach to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism on financial inclusion in South Africa. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2025/v28i0a21305

Nguyen N.A., Nguyen D.N. (2025) Anti-corruption in Vietnam: an institutional analysis. Cogent Social Sciences, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2025.2460320

Nguyen Q.K., Dang V.C. (2022) The impact of risk governance structure on bank risk management effectiveness: evidence from ASEAN countries. Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 10, p. e11192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11192

Qin S. et al. (2025) Digital development and China–BRICS trade: role of institutional distance. Finance Research Letters, vol. 73, p. 106636. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.106636

Rahman J. et al. (2025) Regulatory landscape of blockchain assets: analyzing the drivers of NFT and cryptocurrency regulation. BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 100214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbench.2025.100214

Rahman S.U. et al. (2023) Do financial technology and financial development lessen shadow economy? Evidence from BRICS economies using heterogeneous bootstrap panel causality. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, vol. 90, pp. 201–210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2023.06.005

Reznik O. et al. (2023) Financial intelligence (monitoring) as an effective way in the field of combating money laundering. Journal of Money Laundering Control, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 94–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-09-2021-0102

Santoso T. (2020) Parties to crime: development and comparison. Indonesian Comparative Law Review, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 67–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18196/iclr.2217

Shahrokhi M. et al. (2017) The evolution and future of the BRICS: unbundling politics from economics. Global Finance Journal, vol. 32, pp. 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2017.03.002

Thiébaut R. (2024) The role of transnational legal process in advancing a sustainable agenda within the BRICS. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, vol. 12, no. 10, p. e3997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v12i10.3997

Wang F. et al. (2024) The role of natural resources, fintech and economic complexity in sustainable development for BRICS nations: a policy insight from advanced panel data techniques. Resources Policy, vol. 97, p. 105280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105280

Weilert A.K. (2016) United Nations Convention against corruption: after ten years of being in force. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 216–240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413-00190008

Zhou H.Y. (2025) Regulating crypto money laundering: an assessment of current regulatory responses and potentials for technology-based solutions. Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy, vol. 8, pp. 142–176.

Downloads

Published

2026-06-16

Issue

Section

Law in the Modern World

How to Cite

Anti-Money Laundering Regimes and Asset Recovery Measures against Transnational Organized Crime in the BRICS-ASEAN Context. (2026). Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 19(2), 273-297. https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2026.2.273.297