Financing Terrorism and Why It is Taken Seriously

Financing Terrorism
Name
Institution affiliation
Course
Professor
Date
Financing Terrorism
Terrorism has always been the greatest threat to the security and peace of a nation. The repercussion of terror activities is fatal to any given nation. Terrorism disrupts a nation's economy, causes loss of life, and affects the stability of a nation. Thus, for counterterrorism, nations integrate intelligent measures to avoid the occurrence of terror activities. Terrorism activities require substantial finances to carry out their activities. Thus one of the primary counters to terrorism is by disrupting terrorist financing. This paper seeks to conduct a comparative study of the United Kingdom and the United States of America and explore the most effective strategies to disrupt terrorist financing.
On September 11, 2001, three civilian airliners hijacked by terrorists crashed into the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon near Washington, United States. The horrific terrorist attack shocked the world and became a turning point in the United Nations' fight against terrorist financing. Before 911, the U.N. concentrated on the fight against narcotics and not terrorism financing. 
The United Kingdom (U.K.)
The United Kingdom, unlike other nations, has always had policies in place for counterterrorism. According to the United Kingdom government, the greatest terror threat is the Al Qaida Core, A.Q. Islamic Maghreb, A.Q. Arab Peninsula, Al-Nusrah Front, Islamic State of Iraq and Levant, and other affiliates group of these associations (Ryder et al., 2018. 781). These terrorist groups find multiple ways to access funds under six criteria: amount, legitimacy, security, reliability, control, and simplicity (Freeman, 2011). Mainly, these terror groups find their finances through fraud, self-funding, and other proceeds of crime. Therefore, financial counterterrorism, together with diplomatic, judicial, intelligence, and military counterterrorism, constitutes the current five strategies of the international community to deal with terrorism.
After 911, the United Kingdom adopted effective ways to disrupt terrorism financing and reduce the threat of terror attacks:
1 Regime sanctions on countries that the U.K. suspects to be a potential threat to the nation or where Financial Action Task Force has advised with reasonable reasons.
2 Financial intelligence, in which the U.K. is mandated to report any money laundering case.
3 The U.K. is mandated by UNSCR 1373 to freeze all assets of persons and institutions presumed of financial terrorism. Once the asset is frozen, it is illegal for anyone to use the resources for whatever purpose, and it becomes U.K.'s resources.
4 According to The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Terrorism Act of 2000, Law enforcement officers have the authority to confiscate and forfeit assets and profits of terror organizations in the U.K.
5 Finally, harsh sentencing of up to fourteen years is imposed on individuals found guilty of financing terrorism. 
United States of America
The United States paid more attention to terrorism financing after 911 than before. The United States established special departments investigating, identifying, and enforcing terror financing. In addition, the U.S. enacted strict policies to suppress and curb terror financing. Further, the U.S. government freezes assets suspected to belong to terror organizations. In addition, the U.S. invested in intelligence that lists all terror groups and is updated regularly. Finally, the US joined the world in the fight against financing terrorism.
In the US, its rigorous regulatory strategies and tracing measurements conflict with the fundamental rights and interests of the people, causing public dissatisfaction. Moreover, the jurisdiction problems and the physical gap among nations will put the government in a passive position once the suspects depart the country. Even if the US claims that it will conduct international investigations if necessary, there is no guarantee that other nations will be able to provide efficient support. A situation like this will damage the effectiveness of the investigation result and therefore make it more difficult to trace and recover the funds (Institute Of International Finance, 2021)
Comparative Study
It must be acknowledged that since the 9/11 tragedy, countries have taken unprecedented steps to combat terrorism financing and other terrorist crimes. Before this, many countries, including the United States, had preconceived notions about the structure and mode of operation of the financing of terrorism. Following the attacks of 9/11, countries progressively understood the significance of terrorism financing and gave it a definition, which is "supporting terrorist acts, terrorists, and terrorist organizations."
The U.S. government was highly vigilant against terrorist attacks and made stopping terrorist financing a top priority because it was the country most affected by 9/11. (Ryder 2015, pp. 24-5). As was already established, the U.S. has developed and regulated laws about money laundering, drug trafficking, and other terrorist financings. At the same time, it has greatly aided its friends and serves as a model for other nations to follow when tackling the financing of terrorism (CRS Report for Congress 2005).
The E.U.'s activities stand in stark contrast to the U.S.'s vigorous campaign against financing for terrorism. 9/11 was a significant catalyst for the E.U.'s collective securitization of terrorism, much like in the United States. The E.U. has created various tools to combat terrorism financing, most of which are specially made to implement or improve two crucial CTF frameworks, the so-called "smart" sanctions model proposed by the United Nations ...