Constitutionality of The Anti-Money Laundering Act of B. E. 2542: A Case Study on The Constitutional Court’s Decision

Abstract

Money laundering is considered as a serious crime that is globally concerned. Therefore, the Anti-Money Laundering Act, B.E. 2542, must be enacted. This act is a measure terminating the circles of crimes. It consists of two special measures: the criminal measure stating that money laundering is illegal action that has criminal punishments and the property measure that confiscate criminals’ and stakeholders’ properties.
Although the Anti-Money Laundering Act, B.E. 2542, is enacted in order to prevent money laundering problems, the mentioned act states that the property measure limits the rights and freedoms of individuals under the constitution and creates inappropriate burdens for them. That is, this does not comply with the constitution. Money laundering actually is a crime as can be seen from the 26 fundamental offenses that are all crimes. However, the money laundering law states civil measures with the Sections 50 and 51 that create burdens for properties’ owners or individuals who claim that they own the properties to prove issues. Using civil methods does not comply with the principles of criminal laws. Hence, this does not comply with the legal principles that good laws must protect people’s rights, prides, other basic rights and ownerships of properties and not create burdens or limit the rights or freedoms of the people inappropriately. Moreover, this does not comply with the Section 26 of the constitution of the kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2560. Since actions about the properties are under the civil measures and the properties can be confiscated, these measures have retrospective effects that do not comply with international principle of justice as well as the kingdom of Thailand’s legal principles and constitution, B.E. 2560. The Section 29 also excessively limits the rights and freedom of individuals. It also affects their prides according to the Section 26.