From P Sundramoorthy
Foreign-linked criminality has emerged as one of the most complex and fast-evolving challenges confronting Southeast Asia nations, including Malaysia, at a time when Asean is pursuing deeper economic integration and cross-border connectivity.
From cyber-enabled fraud syndicates and human trafficking networks to drug smuggling, transnational crime has learned to move as freely as capital, data, and labour.
These crimes are rarely confined within a single jurisdiction, yet their social, economic and security costs are borne locally. Addressing this threat therefore requires more than arrests and prosecutions.
It demands coordinated policy solutions that strengthen policing and criminal justice systems without undermining national sovereignty or impeding legitimate trade and investment.
Asean’s economic integration has unintentionally created opportunities for criminal syndicates to exploit regulatory gaps, inconsistent enforcement standards and legal asymmetries between member states.
Criminal networks routinely arbitrage differences in company registration rules, financial oversight, immigration regimes and cybercrime laws, operating seamlessly across borders while enforcement remains largely national.
The policy challenge for Asean is not to erase sovereignty, but to harmonise standards and procedures in ways that preserve national control while denying criminals the benefits of fragmentation.
This can be achieved through common minimum benchmarks on financial transparency, beneficial ownership disclosure and serious organised crime offences, paired with voluntary but binding cooperation mechanisms rather than supranational enforcement structures.
Quicker intel frameworks, curbing illicit flows
One of the most promising policy levers lies in intelligence sharing frameworks that are faster, more secure and more operationally relevant.
While Asean has existing platforms for cooperation, information exchange is often slow, selective or constrained by legal uncertainty. Policy reform should prioritise standardised protocols for sharing financial intelligence, digital evidence and risk indicators related to transnational organised crime.
This does not require pooling sovereignty but rather building trust through clear rules on data use, confidentiality and reciprocity. When law enforcement agencies are confident that shared intelligence will be protected and acted upon, cooperation becomes an enabler of growth rather than a hurdle.
Uneven law enforcement capacity across Asean presents another structural vulnerability. Sophisticated criminal networks naturally gravitate towards jurisdictions with weaker investigative tools, limited prosecutorial resources or underdeveloped regulatory oversight, turning them into de facto safe havens that undermine the entire region.
Addressing this imbalance requires concrete policy mechanisms beyond ad hoc training workshops. Asean should move towards structured capacity-uplift frameworks including pooled technical resources and secondment programmes that embed investigators, prosecutors and analysts across jurisdictions.
Financial crime and illicit flows are particularly sensitive in this context. Policies that strengthen anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regimes in weaker jurisdictions are not acts of charity; they are collective economic safeguards.
Coordinated adoption of tools such as unexplained wealth mechanisms, non-conviction-based asset forfeiture and enhanced supervision of high-risk sectors — implemented with due process safeguards — would raise the cost of doing business for criminal syndicates across the region rather than simply pushing them from one country to another.
Cyber fraud, online trafficking, digital gambling and cryptocurrency-enabled laundering have transformed transnational crime from a physical logistics problem into a data-driven enterprise.
Yet legal frameworks in many jurisdictions remain rooted in territorial concepts of crime that struggle to address offences committed remotely, anonymously and at scale. Policy adaptation is therefore essential, particularly in updating cybercrime legislation, digital evidence rules and cross-border investigative powers.
These adaptations must not stifle innovation or inclusive growth. Overly restrictive digital controls risk discouraging fintech development, e-commerce and cross-border entrepreneurship.
The objective should be to target high-risk actors, platforms and transaction patterns, rather than imposing blanket restrictions.
Close collaboration between law enforcement, financial regulators and the private sector is essential to ensure that compliance obligations are proportionate, technically feasible and aligned with economic development goals.
Coordination still a major hurdle nationally, regionally
Transnational organised crime cuts across policing, immigration, customs, financial regulation and prosecution. Without clear policy direction, overlapping mandates can lead to duplication, gaps or jurisdictional friction.
Asean-level policy dialogue should therefore emphasise whole-of-government approaches, encouraging member states to clarify roles, standardise procedures and embedded prosecutors earlier in complex cross-border investigations.
Early prosecutorial involvement improves evidentiary quality, facilitates mutual legal assistance and increases the likelihood of successful asset recovery.
At the national level, policy leadership must come from the executive, supported by legislatures that provide scrutiny and democratic legitimacy.
In Malaysia, this includes close coordination among the home ministry, finance ministry, Bank Negara Malaysia and the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
Regionally, Asean mechanisms should be used not merely as forums for discussion but as platforms for aligning domestic reforms with collective objectives. Policy coherence across borders strengthens enforcement outcomes while reinforcing Asean’s credibility as a safe and predictable economic space.
Ultimately, foreign-linked and transnational crime is not only a security threat but a development challenge.
Criminal networks thrive where governance is uneven, coordination is weak and policy responses lag behind economic change. If left unaddressed, they distort markets, erode trust and undermine the very foundations of shared growth.
By investing in harmonised standards, capacity-building mechanisms and adaptive criminal justice policies, Asean can demonstrate that economic integration and security are not competing priorities, but mutually reinforcing ones.
The goal is clear: a region that remains open for business, innovation and mobility, while decisively closed to transnational criminal exploitation.
P Sundramoorthy is a criminologist at the Centre for Policy Research, Universiti Sains Malaysia, and an FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.