Burden of Proof in Jordanian Money Laundering Cases: The Source of Funds Battle Between Prosecution and Defense

1. Introduction: The Cornerstone of the Accusation

Money laundering is considered a complex financial crime aimed at concealing or disguising the illicit origin of funds, intending to make them appear as if derived from legitimate sources. At the heart of this crime lies a pivotal element that represents the cornerstone of both the accusation and the defense: the “source of funds.” Proving the illegitimacy of this source is the primary task falling upon the Public Prosecution in Jordan, while the defense counsel’s efforts often concentrate on demonstrating its legitimacy or, at minimum, raising reasonable doubt about the Prosecution’s claims. This article delves into the dynamics of the burden of proof concerning the source of funds in money laundering cases within the Jordanian legal framework, clarifying the roles of both the Public Prosecution and the defense in this meticulous legal confrontation.
2. The Public Prosecution’s Burden – The Governing Principle in Jordan
According to fundamental principles of criminal law applied in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proving this guilt rests entirely on the Public Prosecution as the accusing authority. The Prosecution must prove the commission of the crime in all its elements, beyond any reasonable doubt in the mind of the court. In the crime of money laundering, this burden extends beyond proving the act of laundering itself (like conducting complex financial transactions) to encompass proving the essential element that the funds in question are indeed proceeds from a “predicate offense” or criminal activity legally defined – that is, proving the “illegitimacy of the source.”
3. Evidentiary Mechanisms Available to the Jordanian Public Prosecution
The Public Prosecution’s task of proving the illicit source is not always straightforward, especially since perpetrators strive to conceal the link between the funds and their criminal activity. The Prosecution relies on a combination of direct and indirect evidence, including:

• Direct Evidence (Rare): Such as an explicit confession from the accused regarding the source of funds, or testimony from a direct witness who observed the receipt of funds from a specific crime (like drug trafficking or bribery).
• Circumstantial Evidence (More Common): This involves a collection of facts and logical inferences strongly indicating the illicit origin. Examples pursued by Jordanian prosecutors might include:
  • Linking the accused to previous investigations or convictions for crimes likely to generate funds (drug trade, corruption, organized fraud).
  • Financial analysis showing wealth or cash flows vastly disproportionate to the accused’s known legitimate income sources (declared employment, registered businesses).
  • Use of complex and unjustifiable financial structures (shell companies, multiple accounts in different countries, rapid sequential transactions – “Layering”) clearly aimed at obscuring the origin.
  • Handling unusually large amounts of cash without logical explanation.
  • Absence of any reasonable explanation or supporting documents provided by the accused for the source of these funds when questioned. The Prosecution must link these funds to a type of predicate offense listed under Jordanian law, such as the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Law No. 46 of 2007 and its amendments.

4. Example of Prosecution’s Inference in a Jordanian Case
Imagine the Public Prosecution investigates an individual with no official job or known registered business in Jordan. They discover this person made large, fragmented cash deposits (potentially “structuring” to avoid reporting thresholds) into their local bank account over a short period, then wired a significant portion overseas to an account under a company registered in a known tax haven. The Prosecution might present circumstantial evidence: investigation reports linking the accused to individuals suspected in smuggling operations, a forensic accounting report highlighting the massive gap between these funds and any possible legitimate income, and an analysis of the transaction patterns indicating attempts at concealment. The Prosecution would argue that this collective evidence strongly infers an illicit source linked to criminal activity.
5. The Standard of “Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” in Jordanian Courts
The Public Prosecution must present its evidence to reach the standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” This standard, as interpreted by Jordanian courts, does not mean absolute certainty, which is unattainable, but rather that the evidence presented (especially circumstantial) must be consistent, strong, and form a coherent logical chain that excludes any other reasonable explanation for the facts of the case besides the funds being illicit. If a reasonable and logical alternative hypothesis for the funds’ legitimacy remains based on the evidence or lack thereof, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

6. The Defense Counsel’s Position: No Legal Burden, But a Practical Necessity in Jordan

From a purely legal standpoint under Jordanian procedural law (governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure), the accused or their counsel does not bear the burden of proving innocence or the legitimacy of their funds. The defense can succeed merely by refuting the Prosecution’s evidence and raising doubts about whether it meets the required standard of proof. However, from a practical and strategic perspective within the Jordanian adversarial system, the most effective defense in money laundering cases often takes a proactive approach, striving to present evidence that affirmatively “proves” the legitimate source of the disputed funds. This approach aims to provide an alternative, logical, and documented narrative that directly undermines the Prosecution’s conclusions.
7. Defense Strategies for Demonstrating Legitimate Source in Jordan
Defense counsel in Jordan employs various means to provide positive proof of the funds’ legitimacy, including:

• Documentary Evidence: This is often the cornerstone of proving legitimacy and can include:
  • Contracts for the sale of property (real estate contracts registered with the Jordanian Department of Lands and Survey, vehicle sale agreements).
  • Official inheritance documents (e.g., “Hujjat Irth” from Sharia courts or relevant religious bodies) or wills.
  • Documented loan agreements (from banks or formalized personal loans).
  • Commercial registers, licenses, and profit/loss statements for existing, licensed businesses registered with the Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Supply.
  • Tax returns filed with the Income and Sales Tax Department showing declared income.
  • Historical bank statements showing normal financial flows consistent with a legitimate activity.
  • Investment documentation (proof of stock sales, investment portfolio earnings).
• Witness Testimony: Witnesses can be called to confirm specific facts, such as business partners testifying about a profitable deal, a buyer confirming the purchase of the accused’s property, or family members attesting to receiving a gift or inheritance.
• Expert Testimony (Forensic Accounting): The defense may hire an independent forensic accountant to analyze financial records and provide a report explaining the legitimate sources of funds, thereby refuting the Prosecution’s financial analysis.

8. Example of Defense Evidence in a Jordanian Scenario
Countering the previous example, the defense counsel might present documents showing the accused owned a small, registered import-export business (commercial register, vocational license). They could demonstrate the large cash deposits resulted from the recent sale of a large shipment of goods (sales invoice, contract with buyer). They might provide company bank statements showing the deposit trail and documentation proving the overseas transfer was a payment to a foreign supplier (proforma invoice, purchase order). Previous tax returns for the company showing its activity would also be submitted. Here, the defense provides a logical, documented explanation for the funds and transactions plausible within the Jordanian economic context.

9. The “Battle of Experts” Before Jordanian Courts

In many complex money laundering trials in Jordan, proceedings can evolve into a “battle of experts” between the forensic accountant appointed by the Prosecution and the one retained by the defense. Each expert presents their financial analysis and interpretation of transactions, sometimes reaching contradictory conclusions based on the same raw data. The Jordanian trial judge then faces the task of evaluating each expert’s methodology, the strength of the evidence supporting their conclusions, the logic of their reasoning, and determining whether the disagreement itself raises sufficient doubt to benefit the accused.
10. Challenges Facing Both Sides in Jordan
The Public Prosecution in Jordan faces challenges in tracing funds across borders (especially within the region and internationally), dealing with cryptocurrencies, and identifying beneficial owners behind shell companies registered in foreign jurisdictions. The defense faces hurdles if their client lacks meticulous financial records (a common issue in smaller businesses or the informal economy in Jordan), if legitimate funds are commingled with unclear sources, or if the client provides inconsistent or unbelievable explanations for their wealth.
11. Conclusion: Burden of Proof and the Balance of Justice in Jordan
In conclusion, the task of proving the illicit source of funds in money laundering cases remains a heavy and critical burden on the Jordanian Public Prosecution, which must provide conclusive proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, although the defense is not legally obligated to prove legitimacy, presenting credible evidence, documents, and logical explanations for the source of funds is often the most effective strategy to undermine the Prosecution’s case and create the reasonable doubt leading to acquittal. This dynamic – the Prosecution’s quest to prove illegitimacy versus the defense’s effort to demonstrate legitimacy – is the essence of a fair trial within the Jordanian justice system for these types of offenses, ultimately determining the fate of the accused based on the rigorous application of the burden of proof.