Regulatory approaches to preventing organised crime among outlaw motorcycle gangs' by Christopher Dowling and Anthony Morgan (AIC Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice 652, 2022) comments
Australia’s response to organised crime has relied on the criminal justice system, using strong enforcement and legal regimes to dismantle criminal groups, and deter or imprison offenders (Ayling 2017, 2014). Outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMCGs) have been the most visible target of these measures, given their prominence in Australia’s organised crime landscape. Many Australian states and territories have adopted suites of laws which criminalise OMCGs and the association of their members. These laws have been introduced alongside dedicated police operations focused on disrupting the operation of OMCGs through high-intensity, low-tolerance enforcement activity.
Regulatory approaches rooted in civil and administrative law, meanwhile, are being increasingly used against organised crime in Europe (for a review, see Spapens, Peters & Van Daele 2015). These approaches focus on reducing opportunities for organised crime by blocking groups and offenders from elements of the legitimate economy that can enable it. This typically includes restrictions on the issuing of licences, permits, contracts, subsidies or grants, and the denial of real estate and other assets. Such measures can be critical to cutting off offenders from the funding streams, physical and technical infrastructure and mechanisms for concealing illicit revenue that facilitate organised crime.
Early examples of these approaches are evident in Italy (Calderoni & Di Stefano 2015; La Spina 2014) and Japan (Reilly 2014), which have long histories of private and public sector infiltration by mafia and yakuza crime organisations, respectively. More recently, the whole-of-government OMCG strategy introduced in the Netherlands best exemplifies the implementation of a regulatory approach to this offender population (van Ruitenburg 2020). Although it incorporates criminal justice measures as well, this strategy takes a broad view of disruption, with interventions coordinated across government targeting all of the conditions necessary for OMCGs to operate, including employment, finances and location.
There are recent examples of regulatory measures having been introduced in Australia, although they have typically been implemented within a broader criminal justice framework (Ayling 2017). Many Australian states and territories have now established regimes of judicial orders which restrict the activities of individuals with histories of organised crime related offending, including engagement in certain industries and financial activities. Recent changes to the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Act 2021 aim to prevent exploitation of the aviation and maritime transport sectors— an enabler of organised crime—by introducing more stringent eligibility criteria for people applying for a card that would allow them to work in Australia’s airports and seaports.
Regulatory approaches, used alongside criminal justice approaches, open up a wider variety of angles from which to target organised crime and particularly its enablers. Nevertheless, there is little local or international evidence to support the impact of these measures. Where research has been undertaken, it was often not able to completely disentangle specific regulatory interventions from other measures, making it difficult to infer the true source of any change. This is evident in a recent evaluation of the whole-of-government approach to OMCGs in the Netherlands (Klement and Blokland 2021). While results show that the introduction of this approach led to a gradual reduction in the rate of recorded organised crime offending by OMCG members, the wide range of criminal justice and regulatory measures incorporated make it challenging to identify the specific mechanisms at work.
