Category Archives: Commentary

Improving Anti-Money Laundering Models with Synthetic Data

Posted on by
1

As readers of this blog are well aware, an effective anti-money laundering (AML) regime is crucial for fighting grand corruption, as well as other organized criminal activity. A key part of the AML system is the requirement that banks and other financial institutions identify suspicious transactions and file so-called suspicious activity reports (SARs) with the appropriate government agencies. This is an enormous task, given the volume of financial transactions that banks need to monitor and the challenge of identifying which of those transactions ought to be considered suspicious. Banks spend billions on AML compliance every year, and have developed complex automated systems to assist them in flagging suspect transactions, but existing systems’ ability to efficiently sort suspicious from innocent transactions is limited by the sheer complexity of the task. (False positive rates with current systems, for example, frequently top 90%.)

Many believe that artificial intelligence (AI) systems, such as those employing machine learning (ML), hold enormous promise for improving AML compliance and reducing cost. ML algorithms scrutinize vast datasets to identify patterns that can be used to fashion predictive models. In the AML context, ML algorithms identify those transaction characteristics (or complex combinations of transaction characteristics) that are associated with money laundering, and use these patterns to more efficiently and effectively identify suspicious transactions.  

But some commentators have suggested reasons for skepticism, or at least caution. For example, Mayze Teitler recently wrote on this blog about a number of challenges to operationalizing AI-derived algorithms in the AML context, primarily those arising from limitations in the data on which those algorithms are based. As Mayze correctly pointed out, ML algorithms require vast datasets from which to learn, and the data demands are compounded by the relatively rarity of known money laundering cases in the existing datasets.

Despite these concerns, I am more bullish than Mayze regarding the promise of AI-based AML systems. Many of the challenges and concerns regarding the development of effective AI systems in the AML context can be overcome through the use of synthetic data.

Continue reading →

ML for AML: Is Artificial Intelligence Up to the Task of Anti-Money Laundering Compliance?

Posted on by
2

Fighting corruption—especially grand corruption—requires effective anti-money laundering (AML) systems capable of efficiently and correctly flagging suspicious transactions. The financial institutions responsible for identifying and reporting suspicious transactions employ automated systems that identify transactions that involve certain red flags—characteristics like transaction amount, location, or deviation from a customer’s typical activity; when the automated system flags a transaction, this triggers further review. But—given the ever-increasing volume and complexity of financial transactions that occur each day, as well as the increasing sophistication of kleptocrats, criminal groups, and others in disguising their illicit activities to avoid the usual red flags—picking out the genuinely suspicious transactions can be extraordinarily difficult. Even the cleverest compliance system designer couldn’t hope to incorporate every potential red flag into the automated system.

The need to stay one step ahead of the bad actors has fueled greater interest in how new advances in data processing technology may help make automated suspicious transaction detection systems more effective. Techno-enthusiasts are particularly interested in deploying deep learning artificial intelligence (AI), as well as classic algorithms that fall under the machine learning (ML) umbrella, in the AML context. ML and AI systems extract patterns from training datasets, and “learn” (by induction) what data patterns are associated with particular identifiable categorizations. Email spam filters provide a simple example. A spam filter, which can be created to conduct a process known as classification, sorts input variables into two categories: “spam” and “not spam.” It makes its categorization based on individual characteristics of the emails (such as the sender, body text, etc.). In the AML context, the idea would be to train an algorithm with data on financial transactions, so that the system “learns” to identify suspicious transactions even in cases that might lack the usual red flags that a human designer would program into an automated system. Advocates hope that ML/AI systems could be used both to filter out the false positives (transactions which are flagged as suspicious but turn out, on review, not to raise any concerns—an estimated 99% of all flagged transactions), while also identifying unusual, potentially fraudulent behavior that may be overlooked by human regulators (false negatives). Indeed, industry experts are understandably enthusiastic about AI systems that will cut costs while improving accuracy, and proponents claim that “AI holds the keys to a more efficient and transparent AML stance[,]” urging that “[b]anks must take hold of this new [AML] weapon[.]”

To the extent that AI tools can improve upon the admittedly-clunky automated systems currently in use, it could be a step forward. But ML/AI systems have a less than stellar track record in other contexts, and a model targeted at AML compliance presents some unique challenges.

Continue reading →

Peru’s Misguided Proposal for Countering Corruption in Arbitrarion

Posted on by
Reply

In Peru, as in far too many countries, the judicial system is corrupt and unreliable. For this reason, companies often find arbitration is an attractive alternative for resolving commercial disputes—not just because arbitration can be cheaper and faster than judicial dispute resolution in these cases, but because the arbitrators are (supposedly) less likely to be corrupt than judges. Alas, corruption has found its way into commercial arbitration in Peru as well, as illustrated most prominently by a recent case in which agents of the Brazilian construction firm Odebrecht allegedly paid bribes to arbitrators to secure favorable decisions in pending cases between Odebrecht and the Peruvian government (see here, here, here and here). 

A bill was introduced into the Peruvian Congress this past February that, according to its proponents, would address this problem. This bill would amend Peruvian arbitration law to add a requirement that all international arbitrators hearing domestic cases have their qualifications certified by the state education regulator (known by its Spanish acronym SUNEDU) within 30 days. On its face, this requirement doesn’t seem to have much to do with corruption. But the bill’s advocates have been quite explicit that this new rule should be understood as a way to prevent future corruption of arbitration proceedings in Peru. According to the bill’s supporters, corruption in arbitration arises because foreign arbitrators do not understand Peruvian anticorruption laws; therefore, the argument continues, requiring a state agency to validate the credentials of these foreign arbitrators would ensure that they understand the Peruvian system, including the prohibitions on corruption in the arbitral system and the regulation on corruption more generally (see here and here).

If that sounds silly, it’s because it is. This bill not only fails to address the actual sources of corruption in Peruvian arbitration, but might actually make things worse. Arbitral corruption is a genuine problem in Peru, but this is not the right way to address it.

Continue reading →

Social Damages for Corruption: Examples Please

Posted on by
6

Faithful readers know that for a StAR/UNODC project I am searching for cases where corruption victims were compensated for their losses.  One area where I desperately need assistance is in locating awards for social damages. 

Recovery for social damage was pioneered by Costa Rican jurists.  Article 38 of the Costa Rican penal code gives the Procuraduría General de la República the power to recover damages for acts that affect diffuse or collective interests. Termed “social damages,” the PGR web site lists five corruption cases where over $41 million in social damages have been collected.  The cases have generated learned commentary both in Costa Rica (examples here and here) and in other Latin American states (here and here). Likely because I read Spanish poorly and slowly, beyond the Costa Rican ones, I can find no case where social damages for corruption have been awarded.  Help from readers with examples or leads on where I might find examples is solicited.

For the uninitiated, social damages are compensation paid to redress harm to the welfare of a community. A community’s welfare is the combination of economic and non-economic conditions that together produce a sense of satisfaction, happiness, health, and so forth. To me, it seems to parallel Amartya Sen’s argument that GDP alone is not a sufficient measure of a nation’s well-being though I have yet to see the link made.

Thanks again to readers who responded to my earlier queries.  As with those, submissions in any language Google Translate reads welcome.

South Korea’s New Corruption Investigation Office Needs Independent Prosecutorial Power

Posted on by
Reply

When South Korean President Moon Jae-in took office, it was clear that fighting corruption was going to be high on his agenda. After all, his predecessor Park Geun-hye was sentenced to 24 years for pressuring conglomerates such as Samsung and Lotte to give millions of dollars to her friend’s foundation. And the president before her was sentenced to 15 years for collecting bribes of up to $5.4 million from Samsung in exchange for favors. President Moon capitalized on the nation’s anger and sense of betrayal, pledging to crack down on corruption. Part of his reform agenda included addressing how Korea’s investigative and prosecutorial bodies—including the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office (SPO)—have handled, or mishandled, corruption cases.

This concern led to the enactment, in 2019, of legislation authorizing the creation of a new agency called the Corruption Investigation Office for High Ranking Officials (CIO). The CIO can investigate certain crimes, such as bribery and embezzlement, related to the duties of current and retired high-ranking public officials—including, but not limited to, the President, SPO prosecutors, judges, and members of the National Assembly. The CIO has the authority to investigate current and former officials, their family members, and other individuals who are implicated in the crimes under investigation. This means if a company employee bribes the grandson of a public official, then the CIO can investigate the company. Furthermore, other law enforcement agencies must immediately notify the CIO when they learn of crimes that fall under the CIO’s investigative jurisdiction, and the CIO can compel those cases to be transferred to it.

There is, however, a significant problem with this new system, one that will likely impede the CIO’s ability to hold high-level politicians and their cronies accountable: The CIO lacks the power to prosecute most of the cases it investigates. The CIO does have the limited authority to prosecute SPO prosecutors (including the Prosecutor General, who heads the SPO), as well as judges and high-ranking police officers. But for all of its other investigations, the CIO must turn the results of its inquiries over to the SPO, which retains the discretion to decide whether or whom to prosecute. Without independent prosecutorial authority, the CIO is unlikely to live up to its potential to make significant progress against high-level corruption.

COntinue Reading

Why Are the Architects of China’s Anticorruption Campaign (Mis-)Reading Tocqueville?

Posted on by
1

Back in 2013, senior Chinese Communist Party (CCP) official Wang Qishan, who was then head of the CCP’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI), and is widely considered the architect of President Xi Jinping’s anticorruption campaign, instructed party officials to read Alexis de Tocqueville’s L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution (The Old Regime and the Revolution). This is notable in part because the Xi regime has a reputation for rejecting Western thinking, particularly with respect to governance. The timing is also intriguing, in that Wang’s advice that CCP officials should read Tocqueville’s text occurred right as the anticorruption drive was getting underway.

It’s tempting to dismiss Wang’s apparent interest in and enthusiasm for Tocqueville is a minor idiosyncratic biographical detail, with little connection to his or the CCP’s approach to governance generally, or anticorruption more specifically. But I think his interest in Tocqueville’s work is more significant, and more revealing, about the thinking shaping China’s anticorruption strategy today.

Continue reading →

Will Mongolia’s Presidential Election Put Batbold and Foreign Ownership of the Oyu Tolgoi Mine at Risk?

Posted on by
Reply

U. Khürelsükh is the odds-on favorite to win Mongolia’s June 9 Presidential election after an irregular ruling by the Supreme Court denied incumbent President K. Battulga his constitutional right to run for re-election.  Initial predictions were that the election of Khürelsükh, the former Prime Minister and current chair of the Mongolian People’s Party (MPP), would end the investigation into whether corruption infected the deal Mongolia struck with foreign investors on the Oyu Tolgoi mining project, Mongolia’s ticket to economic prosperity. 

The reasoning was that any investigation would implicate former MPP Prime Minister S. Batbold and other senior MPP members.  As this blog has reported (here, here, and here), the evidence of Batbold’s corrupt dealings with the foreign investors in the project, Australian mining giant Rio Tinto and controversial U.S.-Canadian entrepreneur Robert Friedland, seems strong and Batbold’s denials unconvincing.  But the expectation was that the MPP, the lineal descendant of the Marxist-Leninist party that ran the country when it was an appendage of the Soviet Union, still observed the principle of “democratic centralism.” Or as Benjamin Franklin put the principle more colorfully when signing one the foundational documents of true democracy, “We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”  

The assumption that MPP members would hang together is now at risk thanks to what Khürelsükh said last week on Mongolian TV9’s interview program.

Continue reading →

The U.S. State Department’s New International Anticorruption Champions Awards Are a Winning Strategy in the Fight Against Corruption

Posted on by
Reply

This past February, U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken launched one of the first foreign policy initiatives of the new Biden administration: the inaugural International Anticorruption Champions Awards. After receiving nominations from U.S. embassies around the world, the State Department honored a dozen individuals who made significant contributions to combatting corruption in their home countries. The recipients of the International Anticorruption Champions Awards were diverse in every sense of the word. They spanned six continents, represented national and local governments, state-owned companies, and non-governmental organizations. The awardees came from countries big and small, were young and old, and a third were women.

These awards added to a growing movement to provide formal international recognition to those who are leading the fight against corruption in their home countries. Transparency International has recognized such individuals and organizations through their Anti-Corruption Awards semi-annually since 2013, and the United Nations’ Rule of Law and Anti-Corruption Center established the annual International Anti-Corruption Excellence Award in 2016. But, importantly, the International Anticorruption Champions Awards mark the first time that one sovereign country—and a major global power at that—officially recognized and honored anticorruption advocacy in other countries.

While it might be tempting to dismiss these awards as empty symbolism (or worse), this would be a mistake. That the U.S. government has created these awards, and apparently intends to continue to issue them annually, is a significant positive contribution to the global fight against corruption, for several reasons.

continue reading

Corruption at the Heart of India’s Coronavirus Crisis? Prime Minister Modi Must Answer for the PM Cares Fund

Posted on by
1

India’s unfathomable Covid tragedy has left the country gasping for breath, and no oxygen can be found. Hospitals are overrun, and are often unable to help even those lucky enough to be admitted. Desperate relatives are turning to social media and the black market for help, as beleaguered crematoriums shift from unprecedented 24/7 hours to the horrors of mass cremation to keep up with demand. In the midst of this appalling tragedy looms the question: Why was the government so unprepared? And, more specifically, whatever happened to the billions of dollars raised last year through the Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations (known as the “PM Cares Fund”)? 

Continue reading →

Rethinking Presidential Obstruction of Justice

Posted on by
1

One of the greatest powers that can be granted to a national chief executive is jurisdiction over law enforcement. From the French President’s authority over the Ministry of Justice to the American President’s authority over the Department of Justice (DOJ), a number of states entrust their chief executive with significant control over the nation’s top law enforcement bodies. While these oversight powers are often exercised to achieve legitimate aims, problems arise when an executive uses his authority to shield himself or his associates from legal accountability. Such misuse of the chief executive’s authority over law enforcement is itself corrupt—an abuse of the president or prime minister’s public power to protect his private interests—and can foster the culture of impunity that allows other forms of corruption to thrive. But policing this sort of improper interference is challenging.

One possible limit on corrupt presidential interference with law enforcement is the fact that such interference may itself be a crime. In the United States, for example, it is a felony—known as “obstruction of justice”—for a government official to “corruptly” use the power of his or her office to “obstruct” a “pending or contemplated official proceeding” (such as a trial or investigation). But as Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into former President Donald Trump made clear, the current version of the obstruction of justice statute may be inadequate to check this form of presidential corruption.

For starters, it’s not clear whether the obstruction of justice statute, as currently written, even applies to a sitting president. (Scholars have disagreed on this point, with some arguing that the current statute does not apply to the president—see here and here—and others arguing to the contrary that it does.) That problem, though, has an easy fix: As Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith’s recent book has argued, Congress can and should amend the statute to state explicitly that a sitting president can commit obstruction of justice. Another difficulty is that, as Robert Mueller’s report stressed, under current DOJ policy, a sitting president cannot be criminally indicted. This too could be changed. The deeper and harder problem is that because in the U.S. system the president may legitimately seek to influence the conduct of criminal investigations, and because the president’s motives may be ambiguous or mixed, it is very hard, perhaps impossible, to prove that the president’s actions with respect to a pending or contemplated official proceedings were “corrupt.” Take President Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director James Comey. The Mueller Report concludes that President Trump fired Director Comey to save his presidency (which seems like a corrupt motive). Yet some claim that President Trump also had other, more legitimate reasons for firing Director Comey, including concerns about partisan bias in Comey’s investigations. And even if one contests that claim in this particular case, it’s not hard to imagine a situation in which a President moved to impede an investigation that both threatened the president’s personal interests and that the President thought was unwise or improper.

How should the law treat such cases, if the goal is to ensure that a U.S. President is not above the law, while simultaneously giving the President appropriate latitude oversee federal law enforcement?

Pages: 1 2