Is money laundering an ethical issue?

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe philosophical positions about money laundering activities, depending on the way one looks at ethics and law. Design/methodology/approach – The paper analyzes four philosophical positions about money laundering activities, given that one accepts/refuses to make connections between ethics and law. It explores the pitfalls of each philosophical position. Findings – The sceptical way (ethical relativism) asserts that there cannot be any intrinsic notion of good/evil. The legally focused way (legal positivism) presupposes that ethics is irrelevant, when lawmakers are doing their job. The distorting way (legal moralism) takes for granted that lawmakers are deciding what is moral/immoral. The ethically focused way (normative ethics) means that ethics say something different than law. Each of the four philosophical positions about money laundering has its own pitfalls. Practical implications – The four philosophical positions could influence the way ethical concerns are institutionalized in the organizational setting. Managers could better distinguish ethical discourse and legal/judicial realm. Ethical training sessions could be used to make organizational members circumscribing their moral duties, as to the detection/prevention of money laundering activities. Qualitative surveys could help to better understand if such philosophical positions are relevant for decision-making processes and philosophical questioning about ethical issues. Originality/value – The paper addresses the issue of money laundering, from both a legal and moral perspectives. It is at the edge of ethics and philosophy of law.