One of the principal findings of the research is that vast differences exist between countries in the designation of crimes considered to be predicate offenses for money laundering, i.e., the types of serious crimes that can generate funds for laundering. These differences have important implications when cross-border prosecutions are undertaken, since there may not be a corresponding degree to which conduct is prohibited in different countries. This creates barriers to mutual legal assistance and the extradition of suspects. Another significant finding relates to the extensive differences between the countries regarding the extent to which specific regulated entities comply with their reporting obligations. The volume of reports of suspicious financial activity submitted by regulated entities each year has increased significantly, with entities in Australia and the United States increasing the number of reports made to regulators by more than 300 percent between 2002-03 and 2008-09. The study concludes that despite some similarities and cooperative efforts the elements of national AML/CTF regimes differ sufficiently to make direct comparisons between countries difficult. Future comparative studies in AML/CTF regimes should involve multilingual research, as well as access to data held by regulators and other government agencies. The study compares data from eight countries that have diverse experiences in implementing AML/CTF measures from the regime adopted in Australia. The countries involved in the study consisted of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. 51 tables and 137 references