The autonomy of the money laundering offense: between legal reality and doctrinal controversy

Preventing money laundering in the Republic of Moldova is essential to national criminal policy and international commitments to fighting economic and financial crime. Since money laundering often involves indirect evidence, it is difficult to correctly interpret and evaluate such circumstantial evidence in practice, especially in the absence of a proven predicate offense. Courts and prosecutorial authorities often demand definitive proof of the primary offense, reasoning that without it, money laundering cannot be proven. This strict requirement poses challenges in determining the burden of proof and the manner of evidence administration. It often leads to dismissals or acquittals in money laundering cases. This study addresses and analyzes controversies associated with the restrictive interpretation of money laundering offenses. It also formulates hypotheses aimed at clarifying the legal framework and promoting more effective application of these norms.