1. Do the ordinance’s social benefits outweigh its social costs.

 
2. While the AMLO has made it more costly for criminals to use the banking system as a
conduit for money laundering, no similar regulatory oversight exists for nonbank money
lenders. Thus, it is conceivable that money launderers would shift their activities from banks
to nonbank money lenders. Would this render the AMLO ineffective in combating money
laundering? 

Question7: the answer is yes, the ordinance’s social benefits outweigh its social costs.
AML is beneficial to the healthy function of economy, in macroscopical level. money laundering can
aggravate the fluctuation of financial market and contort the interest and exchange rate. If the commercial
and financial institutions of a country are believed to be influenced by invented financial crimes, the direct
investment toward this country will decline thus resulting in negative influences on international balance
payment. In microscopical level, Ordinance will help maintain reputation of banks and maintain
customer’s confidence on banks. Another vital significance of AML is to fight crimes. Money laundering is
a downstream crime but also can be the root of crimes. So AML can maintain social stability and
strengthen government’s international image.
But the ordinance do has its shortcomings for society in certain aspects. The wide-spread usage of
enhanced CDD procedures do offer a convenient approach to bank opportunists to find wealthy people as
target customers, thus triggering the worriers of people about the possibility that the low marginal profit
customers will be denied by bank by the reason of AML. And the complicated check process may drag the
bank efficiency and influence the whole society.
Finding wealthy customer is nature of bank. As an AML mechanism, the role ordinance plays is decided
by users. Stringent monitoring will help to solve this problem. So the conclusion is that the social profit of
ordinance outweigh its cost.

Question8: the answer is yes.

Considering current situation, the Ordinance plays an important role and money launders are shifting
more and more from banks to nonbank institutions which will aggravate the difficulty of AMLO’s action.
These sorts of institutions include bureau de change, cheque casher, money transmission services,
securities and commodities brokers, life insurance companies and underground and parallel banking
system. Though monitoring over these institutions is improving, it is not easy for AMLO to be effective.
The money laundering actions through these institutions have a common point that they make money
laundering with more sophisticated and professional operations which make it difficult to monitor.
Therefore AMLO is supposed to transfer part of attention from traditional bank money laundering to
nonbank money laundering. Hence in the beginning stage the ineffectiveness of AMLO is easy to predict

AML is an important part of the mechanisms that protect the healthy and normal function of social economy and finance. It
is more special in Hongkong—the monitor institutions in financial center should pay more efforts to do their work. In
Hongkong form the date when AMLO was established, it has been playing a leading role in anti-money laundering actions.
One impressive result is the violation of four banks. But in the process the AMLO has encountered problems that bring
difficulties and risks. These problems and corresponding analysis are listed in the following part.