Samenvatting

A part in Dutch penal law defines money laundering as ‘any person who acquires an object, possesses it, hands it over or sells it or makes use of an object, knowing that the object originates – directly or indirectly – from an offense’. Under object is meant any goods and any property rights. With this in mind, the author argues that whoever knows that money (the object) is derived from crime, but spends the money anyway, is committing a money laundering offense. Taking the argument one step further, it is therefore a reasonable hypothesis that a large number of wives or girlfriends of criminals, have been prosecuted for money laundering. That is, if the women knew that the money they spent was obtained through crime. To test the hypothesis, 62 cases dealing with organized crime were selected and analyzed. These cases largely focus on male perpetrators of drug crimes, money laundering, human smuggling and human trafficking. It turns out that the women often knew their male friends or husbands were involved in crime. The women also profited of these crimes because they used their friends’ expensive cars, lived in large mansions and often went shopping for luxury items. Still, hardly anyone was prosecuted for money laundering offenses. Several explanations were found, ranging from pity of officers, an overload of work, absence of direct proof or simply male chauvinist bias. Only if the women were actively involved in other crimes, would they find themselves prosecuted with (among others) money laundering offenses.