As a professional anti-money laundering specialist it is my job to keep the bank that pays my salary free of “the bad guys” that want to clean their ill-gotten gains. This means that the millions of transactions that are processed every day have to be scrutinized by a team of highly trained analysts using sophisticated computer programs. It would seem that with the resources available today, it would be easy to determine if a payment going from A to B is just meant to facilitate the export of the latest trendy underwear and not to purchase explosives or weapons or to let Mr. Mafia buy another Ferrari. Unfortunately (or rather, fortunately) there is still no substitute for our human brain. It is this brain that helps us determine if a 14 year old boy named “Muhammad” is the same as the 60 year old terrorist of the same name. To make these decisions an analyst uses every resource he or she can get. The internet is a treasure trove of information and can shorten the research time of every case considerably. As long as professional and neutral organizations are used to provide the necessary information the result will be a professional and neutral conclusion that won’t touch any “innocent” lives and only helps to keep the “bad” and the “good” guys apart. To find these neutral and impartial sources however is much harder then it seems.
Take for instance ‘World Check”. Founded in Switzerland and used by financial institutions and law enforcement organizations world wide, it has become the leader of “bad guy” information business. Its database is both comprehensive and without question neutral. The database is only accessible for paying and screened customers who use it for professional purposes. At the same time the public World Check web site publishes articles that are far less unbiased and neutral.
Lawyer-turned-money launderer for the South American mafia-turned consultant Kenneth Rijock publishes daily about money laundering and terrorist financing concerns. Recently however his articles seem to focus on Venezuela in general and the evils of its president Chavez in particular. No doubt that the oil rich country is waging a socialist inspired war of words with the current Bush administration and no doubt that Venezuela is a country high on the financial crime concerns list,but is it the job of a seemingly neutral information provider to focus on one country? According to mr. Rijock, Chavez and his regime are guilty of everything from from election fraud (not true) to financing FARC (might be true) to bribing US Democrats (really?). The problem is that it is very difficult to find corroborating publicly available evidence for Rijock’s accusations. Even if its all true, where are the articles about Uzbekistan, Myanmar or other countries of concern? Or is it Iran, Chavez's alleged puppet master that is the source of all evil?
Another source of information I read frequently is the Terrorist Finance blog written by David Nordell and a group of contributing experts. Mr. Nordell, like mr. Rijock is an esteemed member of the AML/ATF community and his knowledge is no doubt beyond reproach, but even he can’t hide his preferences. Instead of Venezuela, the countries of choice here are the usual suspects in the Middle East. Again, there’s nothing wrong with campaigning against or for a cause but I always advice my colleagues that there is no issue with using the information of any source on or outside the internet as long as all sides of a story are told in the final analysis. So far, I’ve only encountered a few commercial sites that I consider impartial. Stratfor, ironically called “The shadow CIA” tries it’s best to show as many sides in an international issue as possible. The last few months they’ve become a bit more Readers Digest like in their marketing strategy but the analyses I’ve read are both comprehensive and sound. It might be because they use multiple analysts or it might be because providing information (or intelligence) is what they do best but it seems to help me in unraveling the complicated puzzle that today’s world has become.
4 comments:
Erik-
I write so extensively about Venezuela because it represents a clear and present danger to the United States, because of the close relationship of its government to the FARC, ELN, ETA, HIZBALLAH, HAMAS, Al-QAEDA, and just about every country that supports terrorism. Haven't you read any of the proof, revealed in the computers seized from FARC Commander Raul Reyes?
World-Check is both impartial and colour-blind; we have no political agenda or perspective. Our job is to alert our banking clients to the emerging threats facing them
from countries like Venezuela and Iran. If that makes you uncomfortable, I wonder why.
KENNETH RIJOCK
Financial Crime Consultant for World-Check
kr@world-check.com
www.world-check.com
Hi Kenneth,
You make my point exactly. As I write in my posting, World-Check is impartial and color-blind. By focusing on one country in particular this impartiality is brought into question. It doesn't make me uncomfortable in the least but your suggestive "I wonder why" does. My posting is about balanced information. I choose sides against the terrorists and money launderers no matter their nationality. If you don't see that I wonder why you're writing for a neutral organization like World-check.
Erik,
First of all, many thanks for your kind comments about my colleagues at the Terror Finance Blog and myself. However, I think that you are reading too much into the TFB's relatively strong focus on Middle Eastern and jihadi terrorism. I think it would be fair to say that I speak for my colleagues as well as myself in commenting that jihadi terrorism, including its manifestations in the Middle East itself, is a more serious threat to world peace at the moment than, say, what is happening in Colombia, India or Sri Lanka, although it's probably the case that more people are being killed there by non-jihadi terrorism than are currently being killed by the jihadi version. My colleagues include experts on the Balkans and South-East Asia, although indeed most of the terrorist activity in these areas appears to be jihadi in nature.
In my own blog articles, I have discussed the problem of terrorism in Africa, which is by no means all Islamic; the threat to the financial system of the Gulf states (which I don't think can be seen as reflecting some Israeli prejudice; and the panic created by the losing of sensitive British government documents on money laundering and terror finance just before the recent FATF conference in London. I've also commented in depth on the need of the police and security services in the UK to develop a proper working relationship with the large Muslim population there, the prejudices affecting money transfer networks, and the professional difficulties faced by compliance officers in Middle East financial institutions, none of which in my opinion, at least, can be seen as betraying any prejudice against Islam, the Arabs or whoever else.
My personal position is that the current AML/CTF regulatory system, especially the black lists, is broken and only continues to exist in its present form because it is politically convenient to nearly all governments to maintain the pretence that it works. It isn't possible to mine billions of transactions daily and get any serious level of insight from this unless AML/CTF intelligence is more carefully focussed on individual targets, whether based on known criminal/terrorist activity, specific suspicions, or risk profiling.
I certainly believe in objectivity in this field of activity. However, you should bear in mind that the TFB focuses on terror finance and not on money laundering, fraud or corruption in general; and we tend to deal with these issues more peripherally. Our remit, simply put, is narrower than that of World Check. This means, like it or not, that we focus on countries, organisations and people that finance or foster terrorism; and these (for the time being, at least) are heavily based in Middle Eastern and Islamic politics. No doubt we could and should say more about the Tamil Tigers, but we are at least for now less expert in this organisation.
David Nordell
Contributing Editor
The Terror Finance Blog
www.terrorfinance.org
-0-
Founder & CEO
New Global Markets
www.newglobalmarkets.com
Erik,
First of all, many thanks for your kind comments about my colleagues and myself on the Terror Finance Blog. However, I think that you are reading too much into the TFB's relatively strong focus on Middle Eastern and jihadi terrorism. I think it would be fair to say that I speak for my colleagues as well as myself in commenting that jihadi terrorism, including its manifestations in the Middle East itself, is a more serious threat to world peace at the moment than, say, what is happening in Colombia, India or Sri Lanka, although it's probably the case that more people are being killed there by non-jihadi terrorism than are currently being killed by the jihadi version. My colleagues include experts on the Balkans and South-East Asia, although indeed most of the terrorist activity in these areas appears to be jihadi in nature.
In my own blog articles, I have discussed the problem of terrorism in Africa, which is by no means all Islamic; the threat to the financial system of the Gulf states (which I don't think can be seen as reflecting some Israeli prejudice; and the panic created by the losing of sensitive British government documents on money laundering and terror finance just before the recent FATF conference in London. I've also commented in depth on the need of the police and security services in the UK to develop a proper working relationship with the large Muslim population there, the prejudices affecting money transfer networks, and the professional difficulties faced by compliance officers in Middle East financial institutions, none of which in my opinion, at least, can be seen as betraying any prejudice against Islam, the Arabs or whoever else.
My personal position is that the current AML/CTF regulatory system, especially the black lists, is broken and only continues to exist in its present form because it is politically convenient to nearly all governments to maintain the pretence that it works. It isn't possible to mine billions of transactions daily and get any serious level of insight from this unless AML/CTF intelligence is more carefully focussed on individual targets, whether based on known criminal/terrorist activity, specific suspicions, or risk profiling.
I certainly believe in objectivity in this field of activity. However, you should bear in mind that the TFB focuses on terror finance and not on money laundering, fraud or corruption in general; and we tend to deal with these issues more peripherally. Our remit, simply put, is narrower than that of World Check. This means, like it or not, that we focus on countries, organisations and people that finance or foster terrorism; and these (for the time being, at least) are heavily based in Middle Eastern and Islamic politics. No doubt we could and should say more about the Tamil Tigers, but we are at least for now less expert in this organisation.
David Nordell
Contributing Editor
The Terror Finance Blog
www.terrorfinance.org
-0-
Founder & CEO
New Global Markets
www.newglobalmarkets.com
Post a Comment