england-and-wales
Short Answer:
Both Bob and Arnie comit money laundering and Bribery offences.
Much longer Answer:
There are number of different money laundering offences within the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), with a number of different options and permutations available to the prosecutor depending on the evidence, for example:
BOB commits the offence of "transfering criminal property" contrary to section 327:
(1)A person commits an offence if he—
(a)conceals criminal property;
(b)disguises criminal property;
(c)converts criminal property;
(d)transfers criminal property;
(e)removes criminal property from England and Wales or from Scotland or from Northern Ireland.
ARNIE comits the offence of "acquiring criminal property" contrary to section 329:
(1)A person commits an offence if he—
(a)acquires criminal property;
(b)uses criminal property;
(c)has possession of criminal property.
BOB and ARNIE both commit the offence of a "money laundering arrangement" contrary to section 328
(1)A person commits an offence if he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement which he knows or suspects facilitates (by whatever means) the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person
"Criminal Property" is defined at Section 340(3) if:
(a)it constitutes a person’s benefit from criminal conduct or it represents such a benefit (in whole or part and whether directly or indirectly), and
(b)the alleged offender knows or suspects that it constitutes or represents such a benefit.
Again, there are a number different offences available to the prosecutor, what the Bribery Act 2010 call "cases":
BOB comits the offence of "bribing another person" contrary to section 1 Bribery Act 2010:
(1)A person (“P”) [i.e. Bob] is guilty of an offence if either of the following cases applies.
(2)Case 1 is where—
(a)P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and
(b)P intends the advantage—
(i)to induce a person to perform improperly a relevant function or activity, or
(ii)to reward a person for the improper performance of such a function or activity.
(3)Case 2 is where—
(a)P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and
(b)P knows or believes that the acceptance of the advantage would itself constitute the improper performance of a relevant function or activity.
(4)In case 1 it does not matter whether the person to whom the advantage is offered, promised or given is the same person as the person who is to perform, or has performed, the function or activity concerned.
(5)In cases 1 and 2 it does not matter whether the advantage is offered, promised or given by P directly or through a third party.
ARNIE comits the offence of "being bribed" contrary to section 2 Bribery Act 2010:
(1)A person (“R”) [i.e. Arnie] is guilty of an offence if any of the following cases applies.
(2)Case 3 is where R requests, agrees to receive or accepts a financial or other advantage intending that, in consequence, a relevant function or activity should be performed improperly (whether by R or another person).
(3)Case 4 is where—
(a)R requests, agrees to receive or accepts a financial or other advantage, and
(b)the request, agreement or acceptance itself constitutes the improper performance by R of a relevant function or activity.
(4)Case 5 is where R requests, agrees to receive or accepts a financial or other advantage as a reward for the improper performance (whether by R or another person) of a relevant function or activity.
(5)Case 6 is where, in anticipation of or in consequence of R requesting, agreeing to receive or accepting a financial or other advantage, a relevant function or activity is performed improperly—
(6)In cases 3 to 6 it does not matter—
(a)whether R requests, agrees to receive or accepts (or is to request, agree to receive or accept) the advantage directly or through a third party,
(b)whether the advantage is (or is to be) for the benefit of R or another person.
(7)In cases 4 to 6 it does not matter whether R knows or believes that the performance of the function or activity is improper.
(8)In case 6, where a person other than R is performing the function or activity, it also does not matter whether that person knows or believes that the performance of the function or activity is improper.
