•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The digital transformation of Gulf insurance intermediation creates difficulties applying anti-money laundering (AML) rules where customer assessment, transaction processing, and compliance decisions are materially automated. This study examines how Omani law allocates criminal and administrative responsibility for money laundering in automated digital insurance brokerage, using Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as functional comparators and the European Union (EU) as a supranational benchmark for preventive regulation and systems governance. A doctrinal-comparative methodology analyses AML legislation, penal provisions, electronic-insurance regulation, digital-governance instruments, and publicly accessible judicial and supervisory materials through a qualitative comparative matrix. Three interconnected gaps emerge: a definitional gap from placing conventional and materially automated intermediaries within similar regulatory categories; an evidentiary gap, because existing record duties are not designed to reconstruct an automated decision where the awareness standards of Article 6 of Royal Decree No. 30/2016 must be established; and an attribution gap, because Article 10 of that Law, read with Article 21 of the Penal Law, locates responsibility in identifiable natural persons. A documented search for 2016–2025 identified general AML enforcement in the Omani insurance sector, including four Capital Market Authority warning decisions in December 2023, and no publicly accessible measure concerning algorithmic facilitation. The study concludes that Oman provides formal regulatory coverage while lacking technological specificity, contributing the Proximity Paradox and Algorithmic Fiduciary Duty as analytical frameworks and a drafted provision, Article 42-bis, separating administrative responsibility for automated AML systems from the proof required for criminal liability.

Pages

199-220

DOI

10.65844/2442-9899.1269

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS