[PASSED] Concerning Financial Fraud

[Ossitania]

I am glad to have been of service. Bonne chance, Dr. Forshaw.

[Connopolis]

OOC: I've submitted the draft today, as my schedule this week is subject to change considering it's the holidays and all. I'd also like to thank Oppressorion for his tremendous help in creating a very high quality campaign prompt!

[Arivali]

While the intentions are good, I can't help but think this would be better managed on a national level. Trying to police the whole world would be slow and expensive. I will have to speak with my advisers and give it some more thought.

[Connopolis]

While the intentions are good, I can't help but think this would be better managed on a national level. Trying to police the whole world would be slow and expensive. I will have to speak with my advisers and give it some more thought.

Your Excellency, this resolution does not force member-states to do anything, aside from criminalizing financial fraud, and ensuring victims of it are compensated (not necessarily from the state's own budget either). The policies your administration implements are not mandated within the resolution, and as such, are up to you, so long as they criminalize fraud. The resolution is neither expensive, nor over-reaching, in my delegation's opinion, and I hope to have convinced you otherwise. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask, and we will respond to the best of our ability.

Yours in taking cover under his desk,

[Ossitania]

I can't actually see the proposal myself, though it may just be a glitch.

[Quelesh]

First, I've approved the submitted version for a vote.

Second, I regardless have a reservation about one element in particular:

3. Member-states shall take all effective preventative measures, including the creation of domestic laws, in order to eliminate financial fraud.

I'm concerned about the word "all" in this clause. This would seem to require member states to take any measures that would effectively prevent financial fraud, regardless of the negative consequences of those measures in areas unrelated to financial fraud. Essentially, preventing financial fraud would have to be the number one priority of all member states, even to the exclusion of all other priorities. I would suggest removing the word "all" before resubmitting.

My apologies if this issue has already been raised, as I have not read through this whole thread.

[Damanucus]

I know I'm not a delegate, and this hasn't quite reached quorum (it still has a day, and 23 approvals, to go though), but I will say this: I would like to support this resolution if/when it does reach quorum. I will ask a couple of questions, though:

1. 4. Member-state shall ensure that all victims of fraud shall receive compensation for their loss equal to or greater than the value of the loss and that this compensation shall be derived from the fiscal and/or material assets of the perpetrator of the act of financial fraud which resulted in the loss,
   

   
   I take it this can allow, for example, interest that would have been earned were the money not taken via fradulent means, as would probably be in the case of banking fraud (OOC: a la Nigeria scam or investment fraud), right?
   

2. 5. Member-states are encouraged to share information on those who have been convicted of financial fraud upon request and co-operate with each other on the prevention of further acts of financial fraud by all possible means.
   

   
   IIt would've been nice if you had included an additional statement which would've meant communication between member nations regarding ongoing cases of international fraud, or has that already been covered somewhere?

Horgen Dush
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus
Speaking very much out of turn

[Connopolis]

First, I've approved the submitted version for a vote.

Second, I regardless have a reservation about one element in particular:

3. Member-states shall take all effective preventative measures, including the creation of domestic laws, in order to eliminate financial fraud.

I'm concerned about the word "all" in this clause. This would seem to require member states to take any measures that would effectively prevent financial fraud, regardless of the negative consequences of those measures in areas unrelated to financial fraud. Essentially, preventing financial fraud would have to be the number one priority of all member states, even to the exclusion of all other priorities. I would suggest removing the word "all" before resubmitting.

My apologies if this issue has already been raised, as I have not read through this whole thread.

Ambassador, I can certainly see why one would assume that, considering the wording of the clause, however, it is of my belief that as soon as a "prevenative measure" expresses negative consequences, it's no longer effective. That's the purpose of the term "effective" in the clause. If the clause had read:

3. Member-states shall take all preventative measures, including the creation of domestic laws, in order to eliminate financial fraud.

Then a member-state would have to literally do everything that would prevent financial fraud, whether the measure is practical or otherwise.

Yours,

[Connopolis]

I take it this can allow, for example, interest that would have been earned were the money not taken via fradulent means, as would probably be in the case of banking fraud (OOC: a la Nigeria scam or investment fraud), right?

Unfortunately, ambassador, if the money was not taken via fraudulent means, then there is no victim involved, as defined by the proposal. However, this proposal does not prevent you from doing this on your own accord, and as such, that concern is not effected by the proposal at hand.

It would've been nice if you had included an additional statement which would've meant communication between member nations regarding ongoing cases of international fraud, or has that already been covered somewhere?

I agree, that would have been a nice addition; albeit, unnecessary. Your Excellency, as the proposal does not forbid it, you are still free to engage in such a practice.

Yours truly,

[Moronist Decisions]

as soon as a "prevenative measure" expresses negative consequences, it's no longer effective. That's the purpose of the term "effective" in the clause.

We consider "effective" as "effective for the purpose". What if it is effective for preventing fraud but overall negative consequences for other realms of life and an overall negative consequence on society?

Example: One effective measure might be that every financial transaction had to be approved by the Bureau of Transactions in our nation. It certainly would require every transaction of every form to be documented. But that will gum up the entire commercial world.

Yours,

[Connopolis]

as soon as a "prevenative measure" expresses negative consequences, it's no longer effective. That's the purpose of the term "effective" in the clause.

We consider "effective" as "effective for the purpose". What if it is effective for preventing fraud but overall negative consequences for other realms of life and an overall negative consequence on society?

Example: One effective measure might be that every financial transaction had to be approved by the Bureau of Transactions in our nation. It certainly would require every transaction of every form to be documented. But that will gum up the entire commercial world.

Yours,

Ambassador, practicallity is an element of effectiveness. Jailing every citizen in your nation would stop financial fraud in its tracks, but it's most certainly not an effective means of doing so. Effectiveness isn't black and white - it incorporates several elements, and if the aspiration of the "effective" measures can only be attained through ridiculous, unreasonable terms, than it's no longer effective in the standard sense of the word.

Yours,

[Ossitania]

If this wording is truly concerning to the honoured representatives from Quelesh and Moronist Decisions, I would support changing the wording to "all practical, effective preventative measures". It's worth waiting another while to reach quorum if it removes one silly flaw for people to pick at when we reach general debate. I must insist on keeping the word "all" though, as we do want to ensure this problem is curtailed. Do the honoured ambassadors agree that the addition of "practical" as a qualifying adjective is enough to assuage their fears?

[Moronist Decisions]

I agree with Ossitania. While we support this resolution and wouldn't mind supporting this when it gets to the floor, we see this as a potential cause for repeal and objection for others.

Joe Smyslow
Acting Director of International Mayhem

[Oppressorion]

OOC: I've submitted the draft today, as my schedule this week is subject to change considering it's the holidays and all. I'd also like to thank Opressorion for his tremendous help in creating a very high quality campaign prompt!

That's two "p"s there.

[Connopolis]

OOC: I added the "p", I filed a GHR, and I modified the clause. Unfortunately, I'm looking to get this to quorum very quickly, because I won't be able to campaign effectively after from tomorrow to next monday.

[Quelesh]

I would categorize Connopolis' interpretation of "effective" as iffy. A nation would probably be able to get away with it (the Quelesian government certainly "creatively interprets" a few resolutions), but it's a stretch.

If this wording is truly concerning to the honoured representatives from Quelesh and Moronist Decisions, I would support changing the wording to "all practical, effective preventative measures". It's worth waiting another while to reach quorum if it removes one silly flaw for people to pick at when we reach general debate. I must insist on keeping the word "all" though, as we do want to ensure this problem is curtailed. Do the honoured ambassadors agree that the addition of "practical" as a qualifying adjective is enough to assuage their fears?

That would be adequate. I like the idea of the resolution, and I certainly wouldn't want one word to get in the way of supporting it. While I'm still not entirely thrilled with the word "all," the presence of the word "practical" would be adequate to prevent the proposal from requiring measures that harm the nation in other ways be taken just to combat financial fraud.

[Connopolis]

Hastily re-submitted, with a campaign in progress.

Yours,

[Quelesh]

Hastily re-submitted, with a campaign in progress.

Approved.

[Scandavian States]

4. Member-state shall ensure that all victims of fraud shall receive compensation for their loss equal to or greater than the value of the loss and that this compensation shall be derived from the fiscal and/or material assets of the perpetrator of the act of financial fraud which resulted in the loss,

The Empire takes issue with the wording of this Article. Our government is substantially more authoritarian than most democracies, however we would never dream of confiscating and redistributing private property without the benefit of a civil trial. Further, this entire resolution ignores the fact that financial institutions carry insurance to cover the losses incurred by fraud. Finally, this is another case of World Assembly overreach into practices that are best handled at the national level.

[Moronist Decisions]

Since when does it say that there wouldn't be a trial?

[Scandavian States]

That's the problem, there is no mention of due process of the law.

[Connopolis]

That's the problem, there is no mention of due process of the law.

The right to a fair trial has already been granted by prior legislation. The state cannot punish those who commit criminal offenses without fair trials. Also, I will not entertain arguments that detail the inviolability of national sovereignty.

Further, this entire resolution ignores the fact that financial institutions carry insurance to cover the losses incurred by fraud.

So are you implying that the victim not receive their stolen assets?

Yours,

[Ossitania]

The Empire takes issue with the wording of this Article. Our government is substantially more authoritarian than most democracies, however we would never dream of confiscating and redistributing private property without the benefit of a civil trial.

As noted, the right to a fair trial is already guaranteed.

Further, this entire resolution ignores the fact that financial institutions carry insurance to cover the losses incurred by fraud.

It doesn't ignore that fact. If the person who committed the fraud is caught and the stolen assets acquired, why would the institutions not be reimbursed their losses? The honoured ambassador forgets how insurance works; the losses are not covered, the insurance company gives the institution a booster shot of funds which they institution must then repay in its now-heightened premiums. The loss is still there, just distributed in a series of convenient monthly payments.

Finally, this is another case of World Assembly overreach into practices that are best handled at the national level.

Like the ambassador from Connopolis, I will not entertain national sovereignty arguments. If you're going to argue that this is best handled at national level, actually explain why.

[Scandavian States]

So are you implying that the victim not receive their stolen assets?

Yours,

"Absolutely not. In the Empire, financial institutions are required to be bonded and insured for every account. The explanation for how this works is quite complex, but the basic principle is that the bond holds the bank liable to reimburse immediately an account that has been raided by some manner of fraud and the insurance is there to make sure banks don't take losses covering those accounts. And that's all before any criminal investigation and recovery of stolen funds.

"Needless to say, the Empire has a system in place that works and we can't imagine a government that doesn't require financial institutions to have some sort of fail-safe measure."

[Scandavian States]

Like the ambassador from Connopolis, I will not entertain national sovereignty arguments. If you're going to argue that this is best handled at national level, actually explain why.

"You can fail to entertain all you want whenever you want. What it boils down to is that every nation is the result of a unique culture that has unique ways of dealing with common problems. This is why every single one of the resolutions your World Government clique puts forward is invariably repealed, if not rejected outright. Not that any of you have taken off your blinders long enough to see that."