MEASURES TO COMBAT ECONOMIC CRIME, INCLUDING MONEY-LAUNDERING

D. Summing-up of the Discussions of Panels 1 and 2 by the Scientific Rapporteur
Moderator: Thank you very much for that, Mary Lee. I would like the Rapporteur to take the floor now for not
more than, shall we say, nine or ten minutes, and after that I would like to give the floor to the Distinguished
Representative of Brazil, first to see whether he has been satisfied by what Toni Makkai can give us in terms ofthe definition of economic crime, and then also perhaps to ask an additional question if you so wish. But I wouldlike Toni now to give you the floor for roughly ten minutes but not more. Thank you.
Scientific Rapporteur:16 Thank you very much. Could I have the PowerPoint up, please? I have ten minutes tosum up everything that has been said in the last couple of hours, so I will run through this very quickly. TheMember from Brazil asked the same question that I asked, as I am not an expert on economic crime, in terms ofwhat does it cover, and it is quite clear from the discussions here this afternoon that the definition is
extraordinarily broad and it depends on where you’re coming from and what it is that you’re interested in - intrying to define what is economic crime.
What we do know from the discussions is that there is a sense that whatever this thing is that it is growing.
And that the form of economic crime is changing in that it appears to be crossing national boundaries, involving
multiple actors, and that often victims and offenders are, in fact, in different jurisdictions. It is also apparent fromthe discussions and also from the case study that the method for committing such crimes is also changing so that
there’s greater complexity in the commission of the crime, that there is the issue of professionals as key
gatekeepers, and that there also is strong links to corruption.
It is also clear from the discussion that the governments and criminal justice systems vary in different
jurisdictions in terms of how they respond to economic crime, and no doubt that is because there is not a clear
definition of what this is. There is, in the UN Convention on TOC, a broad provision for comprehensive financial
sector regulatory regimes for the detection of cross-border currency and confiscation of assets, but it is verybroad.
In terms of the case study, we tried to highlight here, I think, that there are a range of things that can actually
be done, practical measures, and I think the key message that I was getting from the case study is thatprevention is better than cure and that there is no one solution.
In terms of prevention, there are a range of issues that both government and non-government and the private
sector can implement in terms of what we might call governance issues, and those governance issues include thedevelopment of policies and procedures for staff, for internal and external audits, for reporting to shareholders,and also providing whistle-blowing legislation and protection.
Another important aspect is also what we might call lesson-drawing from the control failures so that we in fact
take, though we have a breakdown, we actually draw lessons from that and therefore modify our procedures.
There was also raised the need for education and training of employers and employees in terms of codes ofethics and integrity, and how we need to be in partnership between government and the private sector;
government cannot do everything.
One very interesting point I thought that was made was that education needs to start young. In other words,
we need to be into early intervention in terms of building ethical societies.
In terms of law enforcement, some practical measures are that people need to develop the exchange of
information across institutions, but also ensuring the exchange of information across borders as well.
And finally, I thought a very good, important point made from this case study was the need for an integrated
approach, that you cannot just have one solution, that you need to have a range of solutions that target
deterrence, prevention and education.
What was clear, however, is that there is a lot that we don’t know. In terms of our data sources, they appear tobe very limited and no doubt this is due from this rather poor conceptualization of what economic crime is, and
16 A PowerPoint presentation by the Scientific Rapporteur is attached at the end of this section.

– 60 –

II PANEL DISCUSSIONS

that therefore affects all of the data that we have available to us in terms of its accuracy, its comprehensiveness,
its comparability.
There is, of course, a key issue and that is it is often very difficult to obtain data because of confidentiality
provisions, and that also undermines our ability to be able to scope out the size of the problem that we are
dealing with so that we know that we have significant under-reporting and we have no idea of what the scale is of
economic crime, and particularly cross-border crime. And a complicating factor is that there is no comprehensive
source book of data or information across regions or across the globe.
In terms of when I was listening to the discussions, I thought that there was a real lack of information on who
are the victims and who are the offenders, and that we didn’t seem to really have any clear understanding of how
networks actually operated in terms of whether the way in which they are organized, their transnational characterand the various links in the chain from the beginning to the end, and we clearly need to have more research doneon this.
And a key issue was what works? There was, I think, a weakness here in terms of what is the costeffectiveness of criminal justice interventions, that we need to be better informed in order to be able to assess
this.
There was a very clear explanation as to this emerging issue of identity crime, and I have put up here the key
issues that I think in terms of what were raised in the presentation, that we have some empirical data, that this isgrowing, that it is a precursor to other crime. An important aspect of identity crime seems to be the actual
trafficking in identity information, which actually forms part of a chain, and that there are many criminals andmany victims involved.
The other issue that came through is that legislation is lagging behind this kind of crime, and that it has thepotential to undermine trust in both government and the private sector.
So, again, we get back to this key issue, what constitutes economic crime? This is what was raised here fromthe floor, that in fact that economic crime is a reflection of our current environment, the global, the technologicaland the cultural environment in which we live, but certain behaviour, for example, corruption and moneylaundering is the method to facilitate crime, that different forms of crime are flexibly linked but that we appear tohave a less flexible approach in terms of being able to deal with this crime, and there was the issue raised about
the principle of the burden of proof and are we moving too quickly.
And two further issues that were raised in the discussion were that there is constant change in computer
crime, so how do we respond to this? Again, to the former point that I made about flexibility, do we have flexible
laws or do we in fact make specific changes to the law? And of course the need for greater cooperation.
There are various ways we can move forward. We need to certainly improve our research and intelligence.
We need to implement prevention and deterrence measures. Technical assistance, we need to utilize the existing
technical assistance that is available, and we need to be focused on efficiency and effectiveness in terms ofensuring that the interventions that we use are informed by evidence, and that we are able to identify bestpractice and promulgate that in terms of combating economic crime.
The priorities? The priorities of course will vary across different countries in terms of the issues that have beenraised, but some of the priorities that I would see is that building the long-term evidence base, we need to do thatin order to ensure that our interventions succeed, that we enhance cooperative mechanisms for long-term
intelligence-sharing across countries, that it is important to invest in preventative measures, especially with theprivate sector, to implement effective control systems, that of course we need to respond and develop
appropriate legislation to provide all sectors of the criminal justice system with the tools to respond to economiccrime. We have to have the ability to respond quickly when new crimes and new forms of crime emerge, such asidentity theft. And finally, we need to support capacity-building through technical assistance. Thank you.

Questions and Comments from the Floor
Moderator: Thank you very much for that very comprehensive and extremely interesting summary. We are soon
losing the interpretation so I would like now to ask the Distinguished Representative of Brazil to take the floor– 61 –

MEASURES TO COMBAT ECONOMIC CRIME, INCLUDING MONEY-LAUNDERING

briefly, followed by the Distinguished Representative of Argentina. Brazil, Sir, you have the floor.
Brazil: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, to ask for the floor again but it will be very quick. Just a question very quickly toJustice Smellie. He has called for harmonization of legislation across borders, and quoting, if I understoodcorrectly, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, he said that mismatches of legal systems must not be a barrier to law
enforcement.
So I would like to know if Justice Smellie, according to his opinion, if countries are prepared to provide
cooperation without asking for double incrimination. If you could see that in the near future, counsel would be
prepared to provide cooperation without asking for double incrimination.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, you would probably invite countries to think and consider the possibility of placingin the final declaration of this Congress something like the expression of Secretary-General Kofi Annan of thatmismatches of legal system must not be a barrier to law enforcement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Moderator: Could I first ask Argentina, okay, later then. So, Justice Smellie.
Justice Smellie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I understand the question, it is whether one would care to express
a view on the need for reciprocity in international legal assistance. Not reciprocity?
Brazil: I’m sorry, just to clarify. Double incrimination.
Justice Smellie: Oh, dual criminality. I see. As a basic test. Yes. That principle still all depends on a number ofmutual legal assistance treaties, and my own view is that so long as the conduct which is alleged involves activity
which would be regarded as sanctionable in the requested country, it should not matter whether the requested
country has a similar offence as that described by the requesting country in its own laws. That is just my own
view. As I said before, my understanding is that there is still the continuing need expressed in many mutual legal
assistance treaties for this test of dual criminality.
Moderator: Thank you very much. I could invite you perhaps to come tomorrow afternoon to the workshop
concerning extradition where I believe that this question also will be discussed. The Distinguished Representativeof Argentina, you have the floor, Sir.
Argentina: Thank you. I will make an observation on your last questions. We would have no problems with dual
criminality with extradition, but as my friend from Brazil said, it’s different from mutual legal assistance. Perhaps
we will press for the idea of having the possibility to the greatest extent for countries to cooperate even in theabsence of dual criminality for mutual legal assistance.
Moderator: Thank you.
Well I think that we have now finished the discussion for today, with the exception that the Chairman will makethe final statement. Sir, you have the floor.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nilsson. I thank you and all the participants and speakers.
Before I adjourn this workshop till tomorrow morning, 10:00, I will give the floor to the Secretariat, who has a
few announcements to make. Thank you.
[SECRETARIAT]
I adjourn the meeting until tomorrow morning, thank you.

– 62 –

II PANEL DISCUSSIONS– 63 –

MEASURES TO COMBAT ECONOMIC CRIME, INCLUDING MONEY-LAUNDERING– 64 –

II PANEL DISCUSSIONS– 65 –

MEASURES TO COMBAT ECONOMIC CRIME, INCLUDING MONEY-LAUNDERING– 66 –

II PANEL DISCUSSIONS– 67 –