News Details

The Money Laundering offence is considered one of the most prominent while collar crimes that undermines the integrity of the financial system and impacts the reputation of the state and the stability of its economy. Consequently, the United Arab Emirates has given special attention to combating this offence through advanced legislation that keeps pace with international standards.

This commitment is represented through the repeated amendments of the Anti-Money Laundering Law (the “Old Law”), enacted by Federal Decree-Law No. (20) of 2018, and through its complete replacement with the enactment of a new law, namely Federal Decree-Law No. (10) of 2025 concerning Combating Money Laundering, Countering the Financing of Terrorism, and Proliferating Weapons of Mass Destruction (the “New Law”), which came into force on 15 October 2025, following its publication in the Official Gazette.

Despite the numerous developments introduced by the New Law, this article will focus on the criminalization framework of the Money Laundering offence (the “Offence”) by comparing the provisions of both the Old Law and the New Law.

Upon reviewing the text of Article (2) of the New Law, it is observed that it aligns with the corresponding text in the Old Law in terms of its subject matter, which pertains to the various forms of criminal conduct constituting this Offence. However, when comparing the provisions of this Article between the Old and New Laws, we find fundamental points of divergence concerning the criminal model of the Offence and its associated penalty. We highlight the most significant of these provisions below:

First: Concept of Knowledge as an Element of Criminal Intent “Mens Rea”:

The Money Laundering offence presupposes the existence of a prior, predicate offence that generated proceeds. Additionally, the purpose of the Offence – the Money Laundering offence – is to conceal the true nature or origin of these proceeds, with the knowledge of an accused person distinct from the perpetrator of the predicate offence. Otherwise, the activity of disguising the origin of the proceeds would be considered part of the criminal enterprise of the predicate offence itself.

Furthermore, Money Laundering is an intentional offence, underpinned by criminal intent (mens rea) with its two constituent elements: knowledge and will. Consequently, Article (2) of the Old Law stipulated the necessity of “the accused’s knowledge” of the illicit nature of the proceeds.

However, the New Law adopted a different concept of knowledge required for an accused in the Offence. It did not restrict knowledge solely to the “accused’s awareness” of the illicit nature of the proceeds. Instead, it introduced another aspect: the existence of “sufficient indications” of the knowledge necessary to establish the elements of the Offence. It can be inferred from this new text that the legislator intended to grant the competent court broader authority to infer the accused’s knowledge, and to deduce it from the evidence and circumstantial indications presented before it, without relying exclusively on knowledge proven by conclusive evidence contained in the case file.

This interpretation is further reinforced by Paragraph 3 of Article (2) of the New Law, where the legislator stipulated that “knowledge of the specific type or nature of the predicate offence from which the proceeds were derived” is not a necessary condition for the conviction of the accused of the Money Laundering offence.

While the general rule requires knowledge, as one of the elements of the subjective component of the Offence (mens rea), to encompass the essential elements of the offence, including the proceeds and their origin, we find that the legislator, through the new text – which is a special provision – has dispensed with or relinquished the condition or necessity of the accused’s knowledge of the type and nature of the predicate offence, as a prerequisite for their conviction for the offence. Instead, it sufficed with the condition of the accused’s knowledge that the proceeds originate from an illicit source. In other words, the legislator did not stipulate that the accused’s knowledge must be conclusive; rather, it is sufficient for it to be knowledge based on indications and circumstantial evidence that led to the belief that the proceeds are illicit.

Second: The Money Laundering Offence is Exempted from the Provisions on Concurrence:

The general rule in criminal law provides that if multiple offences are committed in execution for a “single purpose” (i.e., a single criminal enterprise), these offences are inseparably linked and are considered a single offence. The penalty for this single offence is the most severe among the penalties prescribed for each individual offence. This is stipulated by Article (89) of the UAE Penal Code[i].

However, the UAE legislator intended to grant the Money Laundering offence special independence, establishing it as an exception to the general rule stipulated in the Penal Code referenced above. This was explicitly provided in the second paragraph of Article (2) of the said Law, which excluded the Offence from “the application of the provisions on concurrence prescribed under Federal Decree-Law No. (31) of 2021”. It can be inferred from this text that the legislator intended to refer to the provisions on concurrence contained in Articles (88) and (89) of the referenced Law, which fall under the chapter “Plurality of Crimes and Penalties”.

The alignment of our interpretation of Article (2), as explained above, with the general principle set forth in the aforementioned Article (89), leads us to the conclusion that, to give effect to the legislator’s intent, the Money Laundering offence must remain independent, with its primary and ancillary penalties, from any related offence. This holds true whether the concurrence is a conceptual one under Article (88), or a material one arising from a single criminal enterprise, as provided in Article (89).

Therefore, it can be concluded that the concurrence of the Money Laundering offence with any other offence leads to the accumulation of both the primary and ancillary penalties prescribed for money laundering with the penalties stipulated for the associated offence, particularly in relation to fines and confiscation.

Third: Penalties Prescribed for the Money Laundering Offence:

In review of the penalties prescribed for the money laundering offence, it is evident that the legislator, in Article (26) of the New Law, adopted the same principal and ancillary penalties as stipulated under the Old Law, with some important modifications that can be summarized as follows:

1. Criminal Property:
   The legislator introduced a new term, “criminal property”, which it defined including (1) Proceeds derived from the commission of a Money Laundering offence or Predicate Offence, (2) Property used or intended to be used in any manner, in the commission of Money Laundering or a Predicate Offence, (3) Funds constituting the subject matter of Money Laundering, (4) Funds used, intended to be used, or allocated for use in the Financing of Terrorism, Terrorist Acts, Terrorist Organizations, or Proliferation Financing, and (5) Proceeds derived from the commission of financing terrorism, Terrorist Acts, Terrorist Organization, or Proliferation Financing.
   When compared with “proceeds”, we find that the scope of “criminal property” is more comprehensive. Additionally, “criminal property” now constitutes the maximum limit for the penalty if their value exceeds the fine specified by law.
   
   
2. Amendment of Penalties within the Offense’s Simple and Aggravated Forms:
   Despite maintaining the legal classification of the offence in its simple form as a misdemeanor, the legislator in the New Law amended the penalty stipulated in Article (26) as follows:
   
   In the Offence’s simple form:
   a- The minimum term of imprisonment was raised to a period of no less than one year, after it was unspecified under the Old Law, while the maximum term of imprisonment was retained at ten (10) years.
   b- The maximum limit for the fine was increased by adding the phrase “or the equivalent value of the criminal property” to the previously stipulated limit of Five (5) Million AED. This means that if the value of the criminal property exceeds Five (5) Million AED, that value shall be applied as the fine.
   c- The obligation to impose both imprisonment and a fine concurrently, without the judge having the discretion to choose between the two penalties, contrary to the provisions of the Old Law.
   
   Whereas in the Offence’s aggravated form, punishable by temporary imprisonment:
   a- The minimum fine was raised to One (1) Million AED.
   b- The maximum fine was increased by adding the phrase “or the equivalent of double the value of the criminal property” to the previously stipulated limit of Ten (10) Million AED. This means that if double the value of the criminal property exceeds Ten (10) Million AED, that higher amount shall be applied as the fine.
   c- New circumstances were added which, if present, cause the Offence to be considered aggravated. For example, if the predicate offence is embezzlement or bribery, the Money Laundering offence shall then be considered to have occurred under aggravating circumstances.
   
   
3. The Court’s Authority to Mitigate or Exempt from Penalty:
   The New Law adopted, in Article (26) paragraph 6, the same mitigating circumstance as the Old Law, granting the court identical authority to mitigate or exempt from punishment in the same cases stipulated in the Old Law. However, it introduced a new condition that the court may rely upon to mitigate or exempt from punishment (as it deems appropriate): when an offender provides information to judicial authorities that aids in uncovering the Offence, identifying or apprehending its perpetrators, or seizing criminal property.
   
   
4. Legal Person’s Liability:
   The New Law retained the legal person’s liability (liability of companies or entities) for the Money Laundering offence, a concept established by the Old Law. However, it introduced a stricter penalty for the legal person in the event of the commission of the offence. The legislator increased the minimum fine to Five (5) Million AED and raised its maximum limit to One Hundred (100) Million AED or the value of the criminal property (whichever is greater).
   In addition, the legislator introduced a new provision under Paragraph (4) of Article 27 of the New Law, which permits the court to issue a judgment for the dissolution of the legal person and the closure of its premises in the event it is convicted of the Money Laundering offence.
   
   
5. Confiscation:
   In the Old Law, the legislator mandated the court’s confiscation of funds linked to or constituting the subject matter of the offence upon proof of it being committed. This provision was retained by the legislator under the New Law. However, the text now mandates the confiscation of “criminal property” (as defined previously), which is broader in scope than mere funds.
   However, in cases where confiscation is impossible due to the existence of bona-fide third party rights, the legislator has mandated the court to impose a fine equivalent to the value of the property at the time the offence was committed.

The Money Laundering offence continues to be one that must be initiated by the Public Prosecutor or their authorized representative. Furthermore, it remains an Offence for which the criminal action arising therefrom does not lapse by prescription (statute of limitations), nor does its penalty lapse by prescription, nor do the civil proceedings arising therefrom lapse by prescription.

Disclaimer: The above analysis constitutes merely an interpretation of the legal provisions and does not represent a legal opinion. The true impact of this interpretation will become evident upon reviewing judicial precedents concerning the application and construction of the provisions reference above. Furthermore, this analysis has been exclusively focused on the constituent elements of the Money Laundering offense and its associated penalty, without addressing other offenses stipulated in the law.

---

[i] Federal Decree-Law No. (31) of 2021, Promulgating the Crimes and Penalties Law