Article published in:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 3:3 (2014) ► pp. 287–321

Suspicion as an argumentative move

Semantic analysis of a pivotal concept in banks’ anti-money laundering argumentative activities

| University of Lugano
In order to comply with Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws, financial intermediaries are being engaged with unprecedented communicative activities, mainly oriented at detecting suspicious activities which must be reported to the Financial Intelligence Unit. The polysemous notion of ‘suspicion’ is pivotal to these communicative activities and needs to be clarified in order to establish to what extent argumentation is involved in their fulfillment. To this purpose, we apply the method of semantic analysis developed within Congruity Theory bringing to light the different semantic values of the verb ‘to suspect’ and its lexical derivates in a corpus of ordinary English; then we compare these meanings with the actual uses of this verb in the international and national AML laws. Amongst the numerous factors contributing to the polysemy of this word, we focalize on the difference emerged between an argumentative value of ’to suspect’ and another meaning in which suspicion is reduced to a mere hunch. This suggests that there exist different types of suspicion acts which are more or less argumentative. Interestingly, anti-money laundering international standards and some national implementations seem to admit suspicions at different argumentative degrees, entailing different levels of critical assessment expected from the financial intermediary. We also identify important implications for bank’s anti-money laundering activities deriving from the different semantic traits emerged in the analysis. We conclude the paper by eliciting from the outcome of the semantic analysis a number of questions that will guide the next steps of an ongoing research project in which Swiss banks’ AML practices are investigated from an argumentative perspective.
Keywords: (to) suspect, argumentation, mere hunch, money laundering prevention, plausible reasoning, congruity theory, counter-terrorism financing, Swiss banking sector, reasonable suspicions, semantic analysis
Published online: 12 February 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.3.3.03pal
References

References

Barberis, N., and R. Thaler
2003 “A Survey of Behavioral Finance.” In Handbook of the Economics of Finance, ed. by G.M. Constantinides, M. Harris, and R.M. Stulz, 1053–1128. Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chaikin, D.
2009 “How Effective are Suspicious Transaction Reporting Systems?” Journal of Money Laundering Control 12 (3): 238–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cigada, S.
2008 Les émotions dans le discours de la construction européenne. Milano: Diritto allo studio, Università Cattolica.Google Scholar
Cottier, B., and R. Palmieri
2008 “From Trust to Betrayal.” Communication Director 4: 80–83.Google Scholar
de Wit, J.
2007 “A Risk-based Approach to AML&CTF. A Controversy Between Financial Institutions and Regulators.” Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance 15 (2): 156–165 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F.H. van
2010 Strategic Maneuvering In Argumentative Discourse. Extending The Pragma-Dialectical Theory Of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F.H van, and R. Grootendorst
1999 “The Fallacy of Composition and Division.” In J.F.A.K. Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday, 11. Google Scholar
Eemeren, F.H. van, and R. Grootendorst
2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F.H, and B. Garssen
2009 “The Fallacies of Composition and Division Revisited.” Cogency 1 (1): 23–42.Google Scholar
Favarel-Garrigues, G., T. Godefroy, and P. Lascoumes
2009 Les sentinelles de l’argent sale. Les banques aux prises avec l’antiblanchiment. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J.
1976 “Frame Semantics and the Nature of Language.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech 280: 20–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 Forms and Meaning in Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Financial Action Task Force
2009 “Methodology for Assessing Compliance with the FATF 40 Recommendations and the FATF 9 Special Recommendations.” www​.coe​.int​/t​/dghl​/monitoring​/moneyval​/-evaluations​/Key​_documents​_en​_files​/FATFmethodology​_en​.pdf
Geiger, H., and O. Wuensch
2007 “The Fight Against Money Laundering – An Economic Analysis of a Cost-Benefit Paradoxon.” Journal of Money Laundering Control 10 (1): 91–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greco, S.
2003 “When Presupposing Becomes Dangerous. How the Procedure of Presuppositional Accommodation Can be Exploited in Manipulative Discourses.” Studies in Communication Sciences 3 (2): 217–234.Google Scholar
Greco Morasso, S.
2008 “The Ontology of Conflict”. Pragmatics & Cognition 16(3): 540–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Argumentation in Dispute Mediation. A reasonable way to handle with conflict. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, D.A.
1994 “Factors for Reasonable Suspicion: When Black and Poor Means Stopped and Frisked.” Indiana Law Journal 69 (3): 659–688.Google Scholar
Healy, P.M., and K.G. Palepu
2001 “Information Asymmetry, Corporate Disclosure, and the Capital Markets: A Review of the Empirical Disclosure Literature.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 31: 405–440. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Killick, M., and D. Parody
2007 “Implementing AML&CTF/CFT Measures that Address the Risks and Not Tick Boxes.” Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance 15 (2): 210–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, C.S.
2006 “Reasonable Suspicion and Mere Hunches.” Vanderbilt Law Review 59 (2): 407–473.Google Scholar
Miecznikowski, J., and G. Zlatkova
2009 “Italian Sembra/pare vs. Sembrerebbe/parrebbe: Modal, Evidential and Argumentative Aspects.” Paper presented at the ‘Chronos 9’ international conference, Université Paris-Diderot, Paris 7, 2-4 September 2009.
Mel’čuk, I.
2004 “Actants in Semantics and Syntax II: Actants in Syntax.” Linguistics 42 (2): 247–291.Google Scholar
Palmieri, R.
2009 “Regaining Trust Through Argumentation in the Context of the Current Financial-Economic Crisis.” Studies in Communication Sciences 9 (2): 59–78.Google Scholar
2012 Bankers’ Decision-Making in the Reporting of Money Laundering Suspicions.” Paper presented at the Thematic conference on practical reasoning. Argupolis doctoral program, Lugano, USI, 29. XI.2012.
Palmieri, R. & C. Palmieri
2012 “Text Types, Activity Types and the Genre System of Financial Communication.” In Les discoures de la bourse et de la finance, ed. by L. Gautier, 85–105. Forum Für Fachsprachen-Forschung. Berlin: Frank und Timme.Google Scholar
Queloz, N.
2007 “Dispositifs de contrôle du blanchiment d’argent. Eléments d’analyse du dispositif suisse et premiers points de comparaison avec le dispositif canadien.” Revue suisse de criminologie 6 (1): 33–38.Google Scholar
Rees, A.M. van
2009 Dissociation in Argumentative Discussions. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rees, A.M. van, & E. Rigotti
2011 “The Analysis of the Strategic Function of Presentational Techniques.” In Keeping in Touch with Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by E. Feteris, B. Garssen, and F. Snoeck Henkemans. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinle, M.
2007 Die Meldepflicht im Geldwäschereigesetz: die Banken im Spannungsfeld zwischen Geldwäschereibekämpfung und Vertrauensverhältnis zum Bankkunden. Zürich: Dike.Google Scholar
Rigotti, E.
1993 “La sequenza testuale”. L’analisi linguistica e letteraria 1: 43–148.Google Scholar
2003 “La linguistica tra le scienze della comunicazione.” In Linguistica e nuove professioni, ed. by A. Giacalone-Ramat, E. Rigotti, and A. Rocci. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
2005 “Towards a typology of manipulative processes”. In Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twenthieth century: Discourse, Language, Mind, ed. by L. Saussure, and P. Schulz, 61–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Locus a causa finali.” In G. Gobber, S. Cantarini, S. Cigada, M.C. Gatti & S. Gilardoni (eds). Word meaning in argumentative dialogue. Special issue of L’analisi linguistica e letteraria XVI, 2008/2: 559–576.Google Scholar
2009 “Gli agganci *forici nella struttura dei connettivi testuali.” In Tra pragmatica e linguistica testuale, ed. by F. Venier, 421–440. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Rigotti, E. & S. Cicada
2004 La comunicazione verbale. Milano: Apogeo.Google Scholar
Rigotti, E., and A. Rocci
2001 “Sens – Non-sens – Contresens. Tentative d’une Définition Explicative.” Studies in Communication Sciences 1: 45–80.Google Scholar
Rigotti, E. and A. Rocci
2006a “Towards a Definition of Communication Context. Foundations of an Interdisciplinary Approach to Communication.” Studies in Communication Sciences (special issue): 155–180.Google Scholar
Rigotti, A. and A. Rocci
2006b “Tema-Rema e connettivo: la congruità semantico-pragmatica del testo.” In Sýndesmoi. I connettivi nella realtà del testo, ed. by G. Gobber. Milano: Vita e pensiero.Google Scholar
Rigotti, E., and A. Rocci
2006c Le signe linguistique comme structure intermédiaire.” In Nouveaux Regards sur Saussure. Mélanges offerts à René Amacker ed. by Louis de Saussure, 219–247. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Rigotti, E., A. Rocci, and S. Greco
2006 “The Semantic of Reasonableness.” In Considering Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by P. Houtlosser, and A. van Rees, 257–274. Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rigotti, E., A. Rocci, and S. Greco Morasso
2012 “From Semantics to Speech Acts in Context. Introduction to a Semantic Analysis Procedure Supported by Congruity Theory. Argupolis e-Learning Module.” The paper can be requested by writing to argupolis at usi.ch.
Rocci, A.
2005 “Are Manipulative Texts Coherent? Manipulation, Presuppositions, and (in-)Congruity.” In Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twenthieth century: Discourse, Language, Mind, ed. by L. Saussure, and P. Schulz, 85–112 Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S., and M. Hannan
2007 “Money Laundering Regulation and Risk-Based Decision-making.” Journal of Money Laundering Control 10 (1): 106–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, L.
2001 Normiertes Misstrauen. Der Verdacht im Strafverfahren. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann Verlag.Google Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, A.F.
2000 “State-of-the-Art: The Structure of Argumentation.” Argumentation 14: 447–473. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, L.
1959 Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Treddenick, H., and E.S. Forster
1960 Aristotle. Topica. Cambridge (Mass.)/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Verhage, A.
2009a “Between the Hammer and the Anvil? The Anti-money Laundering-complex and its Interactions with the Compliance Industry.” Crime, Law and Social Change 52: 9–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009b “Compliance and AML&CTF in Belgium: A Booming Sector with Growing Pains.” Journal of Money Laundering Control 12 (2): 113–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walton, D.N., and F. Macagno
2009 “Reasoning from Classifications and Definitions.” Argumentation 23: 81–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, J., and C. Lombardini
2007 “L’obligation subsidiarie d’annonce et de denonciation des.” “OAR LBA”. AJP/PJA 9: 1096–1104.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Amicelle, Anthony & Vanessa Iafolla
2018. Suspicion-in-the-making: Surveillance and Denunciation in Financial Policing. The British Journal of Criminology 58:4 ► pp. 845 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 06 december 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.