[Draft] Prevention of Money Laundering

[Identity Witheld For Security Reasons]

Title: Prevention of Money Laundering

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: [REDACTED]

---

Believing organized criminal activity, including international gangs, terrorist organizations, and criminal syndicates, fundamentally destabilizes and undermines the authority of nations,

Electing to strike such organizations at their most vulnerable point: their funding, and

Noting the difficulty of combating illegal funding of these organizations that crosses international borders and compromises member states’ security and authority,

The World Assembly:
1. Defines money laundering as the acquisition, conversion, or transfer of funds known to be the proceeds of a crime in a manner intended to conceal the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement, ownership, or rights to such funds.

2. Obliges that member states criminalize money laundering and actively prosecute those perpetrators within their jurisdiction.

3. Requires member states create a national law enforcement division devoted to investigating potential laundering operations, monitoring for suspicious national and international transactions, and maintaining information gathered regarding such transaction.

4. Further requires such divisions liaise with the General Accounting Office and their sister divisions among member states.

5. Tasks the General Accounting Office with gathering and maintaining records of member state’s financial information, to establish reporting standards based on its assessments, and to cooperate with member state’s anti-laundering enforcement divisions.

6. Mandates member states record all individual or linked transactions over a value set by the GAO by assessment of member state’s fiscal policy and monetary strength, and make those records available to the GAO upon request.

7. Further mandates that member states report all recorded transactions, regardless of value, to the GAO when there is a suspected link to the funding of international terrorism or criminal organizations.

8. Further tasks the GAO with releasing the financial transaction records to national anti-laundering enforcement divisions when presented with a lawful warrant and a credible assessment of potential laundering efforts.

9. Requires member states cooperate with the GAO in good faith and to the fullest extent.

A man walks into the room. Maybe. It could be a woman. It's hard to tell behind the shadow and backlighting that seems to magically follow them. They sit down at the front of the debate hall, and lean into their microphone.

"Good afternoon," says a heavily distorted voice. "As a result of my work, I have been forced to hide my identity. Before you is a draft, the first in a series, to combat international criminal cartels. As you can see, our first step is to attack their funding."

She - or he? - shifts in his or her seat, playing havoc with the illumination. "By merely proposing this, I have made myself a high-value target for any number of criminal elements, so my identity must be protected at all costs, but I have been allowed the opportunity to propose and defend my work before you today. I would appreciate any comments."

[Calladan]

I have one or two questions :-

Does The World Assembly have a GAO that covers every member state?

If the GAO exists, does it act in a confidential manner? (Given the nature of some of my financial records, I would rather they not be reported to some member nations with which I am not on the best of terms).

Given that Clause 7 says "regardless of value" is there not a danger that the GAO (if it does exist) could easily and quickly get overwhelmed with data, given that there are several thousand member states in The WA and any transaction could be "suspected" of being linked to terrorism or crime and money laundering - even selling sweets for 0.01coins?

I accept that money laundering is a problem, and an international one at that, and that this does appear to be a reasonable way to deal with it. But I (and My Tri-Arch) have concerns that the oversight of The GAO isn't fully discussed, and that this could just be an excuse for other nations, or The WA, to root around in our financial knicker draw, so to speak.

[Identity Witheld For Security Reasons]

I have one or two questions :-

Does The World Assembly have a GAO that covers every member state?

"Yes, the General Accounting Office handles the General Fund."

If the GAO exists, does it act in a confidential manner?

"That is beyond my knowledge. The establishing resolution is silent as to financial confidentiality."

Given that Clause 7 says "regardless of value" is there not a danger that the GAO (if it does exist) could easily and quickly get overwhelmed with data, given that there are several thousand member states in The WA and any transaction could be "suspected" of being linked to terrorism or crime and money laundering - even selling sweets for 0.01coins?

"If a thousand member states require the record of such exchanges, that would be true. Most states don't bother monitoring cash exchanges below a certain value. Practically, that concern is unrealistic, and it would not be against the spirit of the law for either the WA or member states to ignore functionally insignificant exchanges. This operates on the assumption that states already have financial oversight for taxation and domestic corruption protection, which is not an unreasonable expectation for modern nations."

I accept that money laundering is a problem, and an international one at that, and that this does appear to be a reasonable way to deal with it. But I (and My Tri-Arch) have concerns that the oversight of The GAO isn't fully discussed, and that this could just be an excuse for other nations, or The WA, to root around in our financial knicker draw, so to speak.

"The intention here is to create a secure repository of information that other nations can access, but only that information narrowly tailored to be relevant to the investigation. Streamlining that effort through the World Assembly ensures security, fair access, confidentiality, and full disclosure within the scope of a warrant."

"Please note that the World Assembly already audits nations for 'donations', and therefore already is rooting around your knickers."

[Calladan]

I have one or two questions :-
Given that Clause 7 says "regardless of value" is there not a danger that the GAO (if it does exist) could easily and quickly get overwhelmed with data, given that there are several thousand member states in The WA and any transaction could be "suspected" of being linked to terrorism or crime and money laundering - even selling sweets for 0.01coins?

"If a thousand member states require the record of such exchanges, that would be true. Most states don't bother monitoring cash exchanges below a certain value. Practically, that concern is unrealistic, and it would not be against the spirit of the law for either the WA or member states to ignore functionally insignificant exchanges. This operates on the assumption that states already have financial oversight for taxation and domestic corruption protection, which is not an unreasonable expectation for modern nations."

So - just so as I have this straight - the "regardless of any value" part only applies to transactions we are already monitoring? So (for example) if Calladan has a threshold of 2mil Coins, we would submit transactions above that threshold, regardless of what the value of the transaction was?

(I am not trying to be difficult - I just want to get the terminology straight in my head. Because when I see things like "regardless of any value" written in a legal document, it tends to make me go "hmmmmm" because - well, just because it does look a tad open ended!)

I accept that money laundering is a problem, and an international one at that, and that this does appear to be a reasonable way to deal with it. But I (and My Tri-Arch) have concerns that the oversight of The GAO isn't fully discussed, and that this could just be an excuse for other nations, or The WA, to root around in our financial knicker draw, so to speak.

"The intention here is to create a secure repository of information that other nations can access, but only that information narrowly tailored to be relevant to the investigation. Streamlining that effort through the World Assembly ensures security, fair access, confidentiality, and full disclosure within the scope of a warrant."

"Please note that the World Assembly already audits nations for 'donations', and therefore already is rooting around your knickers."

Actually, having read The General Fund resolution, I don't think it does.

The only reference I can find to audits in the resolution is in Clause 6, and that is about the GAO submitting audits to outside agencies. Which - to me - suggests that it is The GAO that is being audited, not the individual nations.

Further more, because the donations - by their very nature - must be voluntary - there is nothing to suggest that Calladan has ever donated anything and so The GAO may never have had cause to come looking at my finances.

This proposal, however, uses the word requires in quite a few places, and - I note - has The GAO setting the threshold for monitoring transactions, not the government of Calladan. Since I believe WE have more of an understanding of how OUR financial system works, and how OUR economy is doing, should it not be OUR government and OUR financial departments that set it?

(I think I know what your answer will be - if the government of Calladan is in bed with the criminal organisations, we could set the threshold so high that we would never report anything. A threshold of 10 quadrillion coins would ensure that no transaction ever reaches it, and would ensure we never reported anything to The GAO. However there is a general theory called something like the reasonable and fair state rule/theory, where it is understood that the member states will act in a reasonable manner when enacting newly passed resolutions - so I would argue that - based on that rule/theory it should be expected that we would set the threshold at a reasonable level).

Further more - if The GAO is going to demand financial records from us that could conceivable compromise parts of our government, and these could then be handed over to other governments just on the strength of a legal warrant (and I know the warrant is required to be "lawful" but lawful by whose standards? Calladan's? The GAO's? The nation that is submitting it?) - nations that might have a vested interest in destroying my government, or at least wrecking my economy for their own nefarious purpose - then I would require some reassurance that that is not going to happen.

Which I know sounds paranoid and somewhat like I should put on a tin-foil hat, but currently The GAO just takes money from nations and puts it to a good use - this would be a MASSIVE ramp up in the power it has and a MASSIVE ramp up in the potential risk that that entails.

(Don't get me wrong - I am still a huge fan of The WA, but recent events and some recent proposals in the queue and on this forum have....... caused me to re-evaluate somethings).

[Tinfect]

Electing to strike such organizations at their most vulnerable point: their funding, and

"As opposed to their communication platforms and societal bases that create and support such organizations? Funding can be acquired through any number of legitimate and illegitimate means, targeting such seems a poor method of eliminating such groups."

Noting the difficulty of combating illegal funding of these organizations that crosses international borders and compromises member states’ security and authority,

"The failure of your border security to ensure such is not an issue of international concern. Consider investing in superior personnel and methodology."

3. Requires member states create a national law enforcement division devoted to investigating potential laundering operations, monitoring for suspicious national and international transactions, and maintaining information gathered regarding such transaction.

"The Imperium fails to see the importance of subdividing our Internal Security so as to provide an exclusive unit for the investigation of a crime of minimal import or severity. Such laundering operations can be much more effectively countered through ensuring the security of a currency to prevent alteration and the recording of legal transactions."

4. Further requires such divisions liaise with the General Accounting Office and their sister divisions among member states.

"The Imperium is more than capable of enforcing law within our own borders. We have neither need nor desire for foreign personnel to be involved in such."

5. Tasks the General Accounting Office with gathering and maintaining records of member state’s financial information, to establish reporting standards based on its assessments, and to cooperate with member state’s anti-laundering enforcement divisions.

"What purpose does this serve?"

6. Mandates member states record all individual or linked transactions over a value set by the GAO by assessment of member state’s fiscal policy and monetary strength, and make those records available to the GAO upon request.

"The Imperium considers it quite enough to monitor financial transactions. We see absolutely no reason to release this information to an international organization, especially not for absolutely no purpose."

7. Further mandates that member states report all recorded transactions, regardless of value, to the GAO when there is a suspected link to the funding of international terrorism or criminal organizations.

"The Imperium sees no reason why the World Assembly must take an active role in the investigations of International Terrorism given the existence of Resolution Twenty-Five."

8. Further tasks the GAO with releasing the financial transaction records to national anti-laundering enforcement divisions when presented with a lawful warrant and a credible assessment of potential laundering efforts.

"The Imperium sees no reason that these investigations cannot be handled solely internally by Member-States.

In short, the Imperium sees little reason for this legislation to exist. There are vastly more effective methods of combating terrorist and criminal activity, and the absurdity of the forced interlocking of World Assembly Accounting Organizations, and National Law Enforcement Organizations. Nor do we see any reasoning for the unnecessary subdivision of Law-Enforcement organizations so as to combat a minor crime. As such, the Imperium will not support this legislation, nor any future derivation thereof."

[Identity Witheld For Security Reasons]

So - just so as I have this straight - the "regardless of any value" part only applies to transactions we are already monitoring? So (for example) if Calladan has a threshold of 2mil Coins, we would submit transactions above that threshold, regardless of what the value of the transaction was?

"You would submit transactions that you record above or below that record if you have reason to suspect they are funding illicit international activity. The threshold for what you report to the GAO is set by the GAO, not your nation. Ideally, in order to streamline compliance, your national and international thresholds would be the same."

Actually, having read The General Fund resolution, I don't think it does.

The only reference I can find to audits in the resolution is in Clause 6, and that is about the GAO submitting audits to outside agencies. Which - to me - suggests that it is The GAO that is being audited, not the individual nations.

Further more, because the donations - by their very nature - must be voluntary - there is nothing to suggest that Calladan has ever donated anything and so The GAO may never have had cause to come looking at my finances.

"The General Fund is funded by mandatory donations. Do not let the language confuse you, contributing is not a choice, and such an interpretation is not supported by the document."

This proposal, however, uses the word requires in quite a few places, and - I note - has The GAO setting the threshold for monitoring transactions, not the government of Calladan. Since I believe WE have more of an understanding of how OUR financial system works, and how OUR economy is doing, should it not be OUR government and OUR financial departments that set it?

"The World Assembly cares not at all how you monitor your transactions for your own use, or at what level. That threshold is for international reporting only, and domestic only if you so choose."

(I think I know what your answer will be - if the government of Calladan is in bed with the criminal organisations, we could set the threshold so high that we would never report anything. A threshold of 10 quadrillion coins would ensure that no transaction ever reaches it, and would ensure we never reported anything to The GAO. However there is a general theory called something like the reasonable and fair state rule/theory, where it is understood that the member states will act in a reasonable manner when enacting newly passed resolutions - so I would argue that - based on that rule/theory it should be expected that we would set the threshold at a reasonable level).

"You are referring to the Reasonable Nation Theory, and it does not suggest that states will interpret all legislation fairly. It states that a nation will not engage in unreasonable interpretation counter to it's own best interests. A clever misdirection, ambassador, but not clever enough."

Further more - if The GAO is going to demand financial records from us that could conceivable compromise parts of our government, and these could then be handed over to other governments just on the strength of a legal warrant (and I know the warrant is required to be "lawful" but lawful by whose standards? Calladan's? The GAO's? The nation that is submitting it?) - nations that might have a vested interest in destroying my government, or at least wrecking my economy for their own nefarious purpose - then I would require some reassurance that that is not going to happen.

"Records of transactions is not the same as a detailed fiscal report of the entirety of your economy It is merely a glorified receipt. Names, dates, and where the money came from and ended up are all that is, ultimately, required. You flatter me, ambassador, but I am not that ambitious."

Which I know sounds paranoid and somewhat like I should put on a tin-foil hat, but currently The GAO just takes money from nations and puts it to a good use - this would be a MASSIVE ramp up in the power it has and a MASSIVE ramp up in the potential risk that that entails.

"It is a great increase in the power of the GAO. It is to combat a very real evil. Fortunately, the World Assembly is, itself, a responsible and just entity."

"As opposed to their communication platforms and societal bases that create and support such organizations? Funding can be acquired through any number of legitimate and illegitimate means, targeting such seems a poor method of eliminating such groups."

"You are correct, ambassador, that there are other factors. Those are to be dispensed with in future resolutions. We all must start somewhere. Tackling the funding of such organizations has, historically, been a very successful tactic."

"The failure of your border security to ensure such is not an issue of international concern. Consider investing in superior personnel and methodology."

"If I was writing solely for the Imperium, who's borders are secured by some of the most advanced technology known to the universe, that would be true. Not all nations have the power of planetcrackers at their disposal, and still more share more permeable borders than yours. This Assembly cannot function if we expect all members to be as self-sufficient as the Imperium."

"The Imperium fails to see the importance of subdividing our Internal Security so as to provide an exclusive unit for the investigation of a crime of minimal import or severity. Such laundering operations can be much more effectively countered through ensuring the security of a currency to prevent alteration and the recording of legal transactions."

"Ambassador, how does one ensure the security of financial transactions but for monitoring them?"

"The Imperium is more than capable of enforcing law within our own borders. We have neither need nor desire for foreign personnel to be involved in such."

"Ambassador, your personnel will not have their duties stripped from them by World Assembly employees. Your personnel need only establish and maintain cooperative a working relationship with the General Accounting Office."

"What purpose does this serve?"

"Centralizing the data allows for efficiency in security and necessary dissemination to those who present warrants, ambassador. It is akin to keeping a library's books in the same building. If the World Assembly is to be caretaker of this data to ensure that domestic law enforcement agencies have access to relevant international data and only that data which is relevant, compilation is necessary."

"The Imperium considers it quite enough to monitor financial transactions. We see absolutely no reason to release this information to an international organization, especially not for absolutely no purpose."

"The purpose, ambassador, is clear in the last provision of the proposal."

"The Imperium sees no reason why the World Assembly must take an active role in the investigations of International Terrorism given the existence of Resolution Twenty-Five."

"Because, ambassador, not all nations are cooperative of their own volition. If an illegal entity bases its operations in the Imperium and commits crimes, from that base of operations, in a hypothetical neighboring nation, the Imperium's lack of cooperation could end any possibility of investigation. As a member of an international organization, the Imperium seems to have recognized the need for even limited cooperation in certain circumstances. This is one of those circumstances."

"The Imperium sees no reason that these investigations cannot be handled solely internally by Member-States.

"If your comments are to be taken at face value, ambassador, and not your usually brusque dismissal of new ideas, then you have demonstrated exactly why this cannot be handled internally by member states, especially when those crimes cross international borders."

In short, the Imperium sees little reason for this legislation to exist. There are vastly more effective methods of combating terrorist and criminal activity,

"Again, ambassador, those methods only work with cooperation between member nations. This facilitates that cooperation."

and the absurdity of the forced interlocking of World Assembly Accounting Organizations, and National Law Enforcement Organizations.

"It is a logical meld, ambassador. International financial crimes require financial experts and criminal experts coopering with international experts. National law enforcement cooperating with international and national financial experts is the perfect solution. I had hoped you might see the reasonableness of my proposal, which would hand enforcement and investigation almost entirely to national entities, and engage the World Assembly only as the gatekeeper to data necessary for investigation. All other facets would remain firmly in control of the member nation's law enforcement. It is, for a National Sovereigntist as yourself, an ideal solution to a problem that could easily be less friendly to the sovereignty of nations."

Nor do we see any reasoning for the unnecessary subdivision of Law-Enforcement organizations so as to combat a minor crime. As such, the Imperium will not support this legislation, nor any future derivation thereof."

"Ambassador, I hate to disagree with you so brazenly, but the best data I can find regrettably disagrees with that assessment. I hope you will reconsider."

[Tinfect]

"You are correct, ambassador, that there are other factors. Those are to be dispensed with in future resolutions. We all must start somewhere. Tackling the funding of such organizations has, historically, been a very successful tactic."

"The Imperium merely believes in dealing with the source of the problem, rather than engaging in a metaphorical war with illegal finances. Endeavors such as this may only be considered successful if one considers the wide-scale waste of resources and personnel in attacking a minor crime that does not significantly affect criminal and terrorist organizations, to be a success.

You claim that one must begin somewhere. The Imperium recommends drafting national civil policy so as to increase access to, and the quality of education, and to remove the financial and social pressures that lead one's people towards crime and terrorism. The remaining criminal and terrorist threats will then be crippled entirely, ensuring either their dissolution from organization, or ease in their destruction."

"If I was writing solely for the Imperium, who's borders are secured by some of the most advanced technology known to the universe, that would be true. Not all nations have the power of planetcrackers at their disposal, and still more share more permeable borders than yours. This Assembly cannot function if we expect all members to be as self-sufficient as the Imperium."

"The Subspace Barrier is not the sole method of developing a secure border, Ambassador. Your attempt to appeal to our advanced technology demonstrates only that your Government would rather force the World Assembly to handle its problems than engage in effective border policy itself. Regular and Irregular patrols by Personnel and Aircraft, the establishment of additional checkpoints, the institution of more-thorough investigation regarding those allowed to enter. Any one of these, or many others, would find your border vastly more secure."

"Ambassador, how does one ensure the security of financial transactions but for monitoring them?"

"The Imperium does exactly such, Ambassador, as I have stated previously. The Imperium merely sees the division of our Internal Security so as to create a specific investigative force for a crime of minimal import to be unnecessary, as even basic currency security and transaction monitoring processes ensure the vast reduction of such laundering."

"The Imperium is more than capable of enforcing law within our own borders. We have neither need nor desire for foreign personnel to be involved in such."

"Ambassador, your personnel will not have their duties stripped from them by World Assembly employees. Your personnel need only establish and maintain cooperative a working relationship with the General Accounting Office."

"You seem to be responding to a concern which was not raised by the Imperium. The Imperium sees no reason for the World Assembly, especially an organization created for the sole purposes of Accounting, to be involved with Imperial Internal Security. This 'working relationship' would serve only to cripple the effectiveness of Internal Security, and provide absolutely no benefit to them, the World Assembly, or the Imperium itself."

"Centralizing the data allows for efficiency in security and necessary dissemination to those who present warrants, ambassador. It is akin to keeping a library's books in the same building. If the World Assembly is to be caretaker of this data to ensure that domestic law enforcement agencies have access to relevant international data and only that data which is relevant, compilation is necessary."

"And why, exactly, Ambassador, can Member-States not handle such themselves? We are not discussing literature, Ambassador. The Imperium sees little reason to hand-off information regarding Imperial Citizens, the collection of which in the first place, can arguably be considered a violation of privacy, to an International Body, which will then transfer the information to foreign personnel. The Imperium is far better qualified to determine what information regarding our citizens is to be released, if any."

"The purpose, ambassador, is clear in the last provision of the proposal."

"The requirement of cooperation, Ambassador? I do not believe you have read your own draft."

"Because, ambassador, not all nations are cooperative of their own volition. If an illegal entity bases its operations in the Imperium and commits crimes, from that base of operations, in a hypothetical neighboring nation, the Imperium's lack of cooperation could end any possibility of investigation. As a member of an international organization, the Imperium seems to have recognized the need for even limited cooperation in certain circumstances. This is one of those circumstances."

"The Imperium sees no problem with such an arrangement. It is not the place of foreign personnel to investigate criminal or terrorist activity within the Imperium. Should foreign investigation of crimes committed within their nation lead to their awareness of a criminal or terrorist organization within the Imperium, they are more then welcome to inform the Imperium of such, and, as required by Imperial Law, and standing World Assembly legislation, the Imperium will then eliminate the threat, as it exists within our borders, and is subject only to our jurisdiction. The Imperium will not allow foreign law enforcement to operate within our borders, or gain access to restricted information, purely on the nonsensical basis of 'cooperation'."

"If your comments are to be taken at face value, ambassador, and not your usually brusque dismissal of new ideas, then you have demonstrated exactly why this cannot be handled internally by member states, especially when those crimes cross international borders."

"Do not take to merely fabricating information, Ambassador. It makes you seem either a criminal or a fool."

"Again, ambassador, those methods only work with cooperation between member nations. This facilitates that cooperation."

"This facilitates the unreasonable and unnecessary restriction of Law Enforcement personnel to the service of an international body, arguably in violation of the provisions of Resolution Two, and the release of restricted public information to foreign law-enforcement bodies, which cannot act on the information in the first place."

"It is a logical meld, ambassador. International financial crimes require financial experts and criminal experts coopering with international experts. National law enforcement cooperating with international and national financial experts is the perfect solution. I had hoped you might see the reasonableness of my proposal, which would hand enforcement and investigation almost entirely to national entities, and engage the World Assembly only as the gatekeeper to data necessary for investigation. All other facets would remain firmly in control of the member nation's law enforcement. It is, for a National Sovereigntist as yourself, an ideal solution to a problem that could easily be less friendly to the sovereignty of nations."

"Do explain the logic of interlocking International Finances and Law-Enforcement. I would very much like to know how evidence of a minor criminal organization within a Member-State could be utilized in the drafting of payment information for World Assembly staff.

International Crimes are best handled by Member-States, within their respective jurisdictions, as Standing Legislation prohibits the formation of an international force for such, and obligates Member-States to investigate and eliminate terrorist organizations operating internationally.

This... draft, is not an ideal solution, Ambassador, regardless of whatever it is you choose to call me. This is hardly a solution at all. Terrorist and criminal organizations are fully capable of operation on minimal funding, and often operate entirely on illegal markets, in which the origin of currency is irrelevant in the face of its validity. This legislation therefore serves only to waste the resources and time of Member-States and the World Assembly."

"Ambassador, I hate to disagree with you so brazenly, but the best data I can find regrettably disagrees with that assessment. I hope you will reconsider."

"Ambassador, your source of information is flawed. The Imperium will not support this legislation, and we consider the laundering of currency to be a minor crime. Such is the consensus of the Imperium, and any statement in contradiction of it claiming validity as such, should be disregarded."

[Imperium Anglorum]

MADSONS: We shall endeavour to send our security forces to determine who exactly it is which is attempting to deceive us! You will not hide for long!

[Kitzerland]

MADSONS: We shall endeavour to send our security forces to determine who exactly it is which is attempting to deceive us! You will not hide for long!

OOC: Who is Madsons and what did he do with Cyril?

[Tinfect]

MADSONS: We shall endeavour to send our security forces to determine who exactly it is which is attempting to deceive us! You will not hide for long!

OOC: Who is Madsons and what did he do with Cyril?

OOC:
Madsons is Parsons' Insane relative. He occasionally gets out of the Institution, and tries to take Parson's place at the World Assembly. That's what I remember, anyway.

[Kitzerland]

OOC: Who is Madsons and what did he do with Cyril?

OOC:
Madsons is Parsons' Insane relative. He occasionally gets out of the Institution, and tries to take Parson's place at the World Assembly. That's what I remember, anyway.

OOC: Thanks!

[Bears Armed]

Does the likelihood of differences in what different member nations consider to be criminal activity need to be considered?

[Calladan]

So - just so as I have this straight - the "regardless of any value" part only applies to transactions we are already monitoring? So (for example) if Calladan has a threshold of 2mil Coins, we would submit transactions above that threshold, regardless of what the value of the transaction was?

"You would submit transactions that you record above or below that record if you have reason to suspect they are funding illicit international activity. The threshold for what you report to the GAO is set by the GAO, not your nation. Ideally, in order to streamline compliance, your national and international thresholds would be the same."

So we are back to the same problem - if someone is using a sweet-shop to launder money, then every transaction they do could be classed as "suspect", even if it is for 0.01cn sweets? Thus potentially requiring us to submit records of THOUSANDS of transactions every week (sweet shops are popular!).

Actually, having read The General Fund resolution, I don't think it does.

The only reference I can find to audits in the resolution is in Clause 6, and that is about the GAO submitting audits to outside agencies. Which - to me - suggests that it is The GAO that is being audited, not the individual nations.

Further more, because the donations - by their very nature - must be voluntary - there is nothing to suggest that Calladan has ever donated anything and so The GAO may never have had cause to come looking at my finances.

"The General Fund is funded by mandatory donations. Do not let the language confuse you, contributing is not a choice, and such an interpretation is not supported by the document."

That doesn't deal with the first part of my question :- it is The GAO that is audited, not the people (nations) donating money. So if you are going to change that, that might be a problem.

This proposal, however, uses the word requires in quite a few places, and - I note - has The GAO setting the threshold for monitoring transactions, not the government of Calladan. Since I believe WE have more of an understanding of how OUR financial system works, and how OUR economy is doing, should it not be OUR government and OUR financial departments that set it?

"The World Assembly cares not at all how you monitor your transactions for your own use, or at what level. That threshold is for international reporting only, and domestic only if you so choose."

You've missed my point. The Calladan government has a very good knowledge of how our economy works. The WA - and whatever experts The GAO might employ - can not possibly have as good a grasp on it as we do. So why does The GAO get to set the reporting level when it will just be an arbitrary value set by people who might have no real idea what value would be best? Would it not be better to let US set the value, since we know what we are doing in relation to our government and finances? (Whether it is for reporting purposes only really doesn't matter).

(I think I know what your answer will be - if the government of Calladan is in bed with the criminal organisations, we could set the threshold so high that we would never report anything. A threshold of 10 quadrillion coins would ensure that no transaction ever reaches it, and would ensure we never reported anything to The GAO. However there is a general theory called something like the reasonable and fair state rule/theory, where it is understood that the member states will act in a reasonable manner when enacting newly passed resolutions - so I would argue that - based on that rule/theory it should be expected that we would set the threshold at a reasonable level).

"You are referring to the Reasonable Nation Theory, and it does not suggest that states will interpret all legislation fairly. It states that a nation will not engage in unreasonable interpretation counter to it's own best interests. A clever misdirection, ambassador, but not clever enough."

Pardon me? I am suggesting that if you let us set the reporting threshold, instead of a bunch of people who have no clue what they are doing, you would get more done, get better results and get less crap information. I am not trying to misdirect you, mislead you or trick you - I am merely trying to be helpful and make sure this proposal doesn't go down in flames.

Further more - if The GAO is going to demand financial records from us that could conceivable compromise parts of our government, and these could then be handed over to other governments just on the strength of a legal warrant (and I know the warrant is required to be "lawful" but lawful by whose standards? Calladan's? The GAO's? The nation that is submitting it?) - nations that might have a vested interest in destroying my government, or at least wrecking my economy for their own nefarious purpose - then I would require some reassurance that that is not going to happen.

"Records of transactions is not the same as a detailed fiscal report of the entirety of your economy It is merely a glorified receipt. Names, dates, and where the money came from and ended up are all that is, ultimately, required. You flatter me, ambassador, but I am not that ambitious."

Receipts can still be confidential. Names especially can prove problematic under some circumstances, if various parties want to keep payments secret (not for any criminal reasons but for reasons of confidentiality, national security, privacy, international relations and so forth). If we are allowed to filter out payments we KNOW are not suspicious and not connected to money laundering (because they are government related, or we have absolute trust in the source and destination of the payments) then it might not be so bad, but if EVERY payment has to be turned over to outside sources, then this will become problematic - and I can not believe I will be the only person who thinks so.

Which I know sounds paranoid and somewhat like I should put on a tin-foil hat, but currently The GAO just takes money from nations and puts it to a good use - this would be a MASSIVE ramp up in the power it has and a MASSIVE ramp up in the potential risk that that entails.

"It is a great increase in the power of the GAO. It is to combat a very real evil. Fortunately, the World Assembly is, itself, a responsible and just entity."

Bwahahahahaha..... oh - sorry. You are serious.

Well - while that might be currently true remember the two most important adages in life :-

Power corrupts, and absolute power is fun.

And ALWAYS question authority (because people in authority generally know where the toilets are).

[States of Glory WA Office]

-snip-

Dear God, the formatting of this post blatantly violates GA #9. You may want to fix that.

[Tinfect]

-snip-

Dear God, the formatting of this post blatantly violates GA #9. You may want to fix that.

OOC:
Y-you see nothing!
And appearently, neither did I. Whoops.

[Araraukar]

Alrightly then, let's see what this beast had for its last meal. *pulls out the Proposal Scalpel^TM*

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

(OOC: If memory serves, a mild IS resolution can get away with raising funding only for police or military, but significant should do so for both [and strong should do so for both a lot]. I don't see any military spending being mandated, so I suggest changing strength to mild.)

Proposed by: [REDACTED]

Not funny, not cute, not needed. It is always assumed that the presenter of the proposal is both the author and the future submitter/proposer.

Believing organized criminal activity, including international gangs, terrorist organizations, and criminal syndicates, fundamentally destabilizes and undermines the authority of nations,

How, exactly? I can see it undermining their security and stability (though the latter one is debatable), but not authority. Also, I suggest starting the whole thing with "The World Assembly" or "The General Assembly", since you need something to do the believing and noting.

Electing to strike such organizations at their most vulnerable point: their funding, and

This should come after the next one, and I would argue that communication is such organization's weakest point, not funding. Without communication there won't be an organization. You could make this "one of their most vulnerable points" instead.

Noting the difficulty of combating illegal funding of these organizations that crosses international borders and compromises member states’ security and authority,

This should come before the previous one, but if this is one of your justifications for the rest of the proposal (OOC: that's what preamble is for in its entirety - an attempt to get nations to agree that the following mandates are a good idea to implement), then you really should be focusing on the international aspect of the whole deal.

The World Assembly:

Put this at the start with a comma at the end, and here put "Hereby" with a comma at the end. Putting commas at the ends of all the clauses is the norm, so that the whole proposal reads as one very long sentence. It's not necessarily mandatory, but there are some ambassadors (OOC: who are is a powerful delegates) here who will oppose this just because of such tiny details. (OOC: Also, don't hit tab after the number of the clause, just put a normal space there. The less wonky the formatting is, the less likely is it to come out looking absolutely horrible on the submissions list.)

1. Defines money laundering as the acquisition, conversion, or transfer of funds known to be the proceeds of a crime in a manner intended to conceal the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement, ownership, or rights to such funds.

I don't think the definition of money laundering should include the acquisition of the money, merely the attempt of obscuring its illegal origins.

2. Obliges that member states criminalize money laundering and actively prosecute those perpetrators within their jurisdiction.

But not the illegal activity that got them the money in the first place? Also, to my knowledge, someone need to have been detained and accused of a crime before they can be prosecuted.

3. Requires member states create a national law enforcement division devoted to investigating potential laundering operations, monitoring for suspicious national and international transactions, and maintaining information gathered regarding such transaction.

Even if they already have such functions that are working properly, only not in a special division? Also, I repeat: you should focus only on international stuff. Also, not all nations have civilian law enforcement, or law enforcement in general (though the latter tends to be a few special cases), so it sounds like you would basically require the creation of such.

4. Further requires such divisions liaise with the General Accounting Office and their sister divisions among member states.

Why? The WA can't have a police force. Also, you do realize that there are 26,425 member nations at the time of writing this - and you honestly expect every member nation's police forces to "liaise" (whatever that means) with the same of every other member nation? That sounds like a buraucratic nightmare that could easily overwhelm less populated nations and certainly their communication services. Also, remember that some member nations are at war with one another, and are unlikely to want to exchange any information with one another.

5. Tasks the General Accounting Office with gathering and maintaining records of member state’s financial information, to establish reporting standards based on its assessments, and to cooperate with member state’s anti-laundering enforcement divisions.

Again, why? The WA can't have a police force of its own, and you already require all the member nations to "liaise" with one another. Why would a committee need to be involved at all?

6. Mandates member states record all individual or linked transactions over a value set by the GAO by assessment of member state’s fiscal policy and monetary strength, and make those records available to the GAO upon request.

Yeah, okay, no. As previously pointed out by others, that's a bad idea for a lot of reasons. Also, I don't see anything in this restricting this action to criminal activity. It says all, after all. Also, not all nations use money (this is an issue for the whole proposal, but especially for this clause).

7. Further mandates that member states report all recorded transactions, regardless of value, to the GAO when there is a suspected link to the funding of international terrorism or criminal organizations.

Kill clause 6 entirely and make this the new clause 6. Although you can probably drop the part about terrorism from it, as that's handled by an existing resolution.

8. Further tasks the GAO with releasing the financial transaction records to national anti-laundering enforcement divisions when presented with a lawful warrant and a credible assessment of potential laundering efforts.

Once more, why? And, uh, what is this clause actually supposed to do? It seems like two thoughts written into three sentences got blended together, but with all the connections missing. You need a warrant to get GAO to release information? I'm not sure member nations are allowed to issue warrants on WA committees.

9. Requires member states cooperate with the GAO in good faith and to the fullest extent.

Unnecessary. Good faith cooperation is automatically expected.

[Identity Witheld For Security Reasons]

OOC: All of your comments have been seen and are appreciated. Regrettably, real life's responsibilities are much like the tide, and right now, tide is unexpectedly coming in at breakneck speeds, and I've been left buried up to my neck in sand. Hopefully in about a week I'll be able to find time and get back to you all.

Also, its kind of adorable that I'm getting the newbie treatment, all things considered.

[Araraukar]

Also, its kind of adorable that I'm getting the newbie treatment, all things considered.

OOC: ...Chester, is that you? Gruen would just be mad at me for that treatment. Anyway, with undeclared puppets there's no way to know for anyone who can't see the behind-the-scenes information whether someone is new or not.

And in case you haven't noticed, I do vivisections to veterans' proposals as well. I'm just harsher on their mistakes as they should know better.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: ...Chester, is that you? Gruen would just be mad at me for that treatment. Anyway, with undeclared puppets there's no way to know for anyone who can't see the behind-the-scenes information whether someone is new or not.

And in case you haven't noticed, I do vivisections to veterans' proposals as well. I'm just harsher on their mistakes as they should know better.

OOC: It isn't Chester. To quote what someone told you back when you did the same thing to Kenny, 'Does it matter whose posting?'.

Also, its kind of adorable that I'm getting the newbie treatment, all things considered.

Simply just goes to show that what you need to do in the modern GA to get anywhere is to have a steaming pile of rep.

[Araraukar]

OOC: It isn't Chester. To quote what someone told you back when you did the same thing to Kenny, 'Does it matter whose posting?'.

OOC: No, it doesn't, as I think I made fairly clear. But if someone complains (even in such a gentle manner as was done here) about being treated as a GA newbie, it's because they look like a GA newbie.

Also, since my grammar gets picked on occasionally, it's "who's", not "whose".

OOC EDIT: I don't see you having offered any constructive criticism on this proposal yet.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I edited and commented changes and what-not that would have filled two pages (Letter) on this proposal, before it was posted to the forum.

[Araraukar]

I edited and commented changes and what-not that would have filled two pages (Letter) on this proposal, before it was posted to the forum.

OOC: Well, obviously not all changes were made or you aren't completely infallible. *gentle tease*

Anyway, whoever your protegee is, I hope to see them back in a week's time.

[Gandharasila]

This resolution needs to define the activities considered suspicious or criminal here, or perhaps avoid the word of 'crime' in the first clause. Money could be considered to be laundered coming out of legal sources as well. for instances with the intention of tax evasion. Any resulting framework from this resolution may require the definition of those activities anyway. Many nations would have different views and interpretations on different activities generating the supposed income. No debate on the concealing part.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Anyway, whoever your protegee is, I hope to see them back in a week's time.

protégé

[Identity Witheld For Security Reasons]

Does the likelihood of differences in what different member nations consider to be criminal activity need to be considered?

This resolution needs to define the activities considered suspicious or criminal here, or perhaps avoid the word of 'crime' in the first clause. Money could be considered to be laundered coming out of legal sources as well. for instances with the intention of tax evasion. Any resulting framework from this resolution may require the definition of those activities anyway. Many nations would have different views and interpretations on different activities generating the supposed income. No debate on the concealing part.

"I do not see why it would. The entire point of this is for nations to have a mechanism by which to track information related to money laundering. The laws the actually enforce are their own, and are enforced by their own authorities. What nations consider a crime shouldn't really matter: taking dirty money and laundering itself harms society in that it conceals crimes."

Alrightly then, let's see what this beast had for its last meal. *pulls out the Proposal Scalpel^TM*

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

(OOC: If memory serves, a mild IS resolution can get away with raising funding only for police or military, but significant should do so for both [and strong should do so for both a lot]. I don't see any military spending being mandated, so I suggest changing strength to mild.)

"Plenty of crimes involve military personnel, who are therefore obliged to use their own investigative branches. I don't recall anyIS proposals being declared illegal solely by virtue of increasing spending in the military when the police were more greatly affected."

Proposed by: [REDACTED]

Not funny, not cute, not needed. It is always assumed that the presenter of the proposal is both the author and the future submitter/proposer.

"Except that my identity is being withheld. If I wrote my name on the proposal, my identity would be preemptively revealed, and I would likely not survive long.'

How, exactly? I can see it undermining their security and stability (though the latter one is debatable), but not authority. Also, I suggest starting the whole thing with "The World Assembly" or "The General Assembly", since you need something to do the believing and noting.

"The state has a monopoly on force. It is one of, and arguably the major, method by which the state remains in power. Criminal organizations of all kinds that undermine or subsume that monopoly reduce the authority of the state, as individuals may, and in some cases will, ignore the state in order to obey the criminal organization. Since society works better when the state is the authority in charge of governance and law, these organizations threaten the authority of the state. Ambassador Parsons no doubt has a convincing extrapolation."

This should come after the next one

"A fair point."

and I would argue that communication is such organization's weakest point, not funding. Without communication there won't be an organization. You could make this "one of their most vulnerable points" instead.

"It may be the most effective place to weaken an organization, but it is often difficult to control communication of criminals while balancing free expression, privacy, and efficiency of efforts."

I don't think the definition of money laundering should include the acquisition of the money, merely the attempt of obscuring its illegal origins.

"Transfer of money necessarily involves acquisition. To remove acquisition can leave fully half the parties guilty of laundering out of the crime."

But not the illegal activity that got them the money in the first place? Also, to my knowledge, someone need to have been detained and accused of a crime before they can be prosecuted.

"The illegal activity involved in the first place is the concern of the state. I will not dictate criminal law to member states more than strictly necessary to achieve this end. Additionally, not all acts of money laundering are wholly illegal. There are a number of gray areas I wish to avoid, for the same reason as the above."

"That one must be detained and accused of a crime before prosecution is a quibble. That is understood, within the confines of existing law regarding legal rights, to be the case."

Even if they already have such functions that are working properly, only not in a special division?

"To maximize efficiency by reducing the number of moving parts between the international and national community. By segregating those investigators into a single division, which need not be any more than in name, and not the establishment of a new branch of enforcement entirely, expertise can be specialized and communication streamlined."

Also, I repeat: you should focus only on international stuff. Also, not all nations have civilian law enforcement, or law enforcement in general (though the latter tends to be a few special cases), so it sounds like you would basically require the creation of such.

"Ambassador, that same argument could be made for any international crime. To make something illegal, there necessarily needs to be enforcement. I would argue that no law that makes an act criminal could have any less effect than the creation of law enforcement, and that I have done nothing special. I have not precluded the creation of a military law enforcement organization, to my knowledge."

Why? The WA can't have a police force.

"Correct. Which is why I didn't create a World Assembly Police Force to tackle this issue, and instead rely on national police forces."

Also, you do realize that there are 26,425 member nations at the time of writing this - and you honestly expect every member nation's police forces to "liaise" (whatever that means) with the same of every other member nation? That sounds like a buraucratic nightmare that could easily overwhelm less populated nations and certainly their communication services.

"And yet, those 26,425 nations liaise with the World Assembly to combat counterfeiting, have historically engaged in multilateral trade talks, and even manage to coordinate embargoes against genocidal nations. The World Assembly gnomes are career bureaucrats. I have faith in their ability to facilitate liaisons. Liaisons do not necessarily require constant communication, but a designated position capable of dealing with foreign police forces. That could, theoretically, operate with a handful of individuals."

Also, remember that some member nations are at war with one another, and are unlikely to want to exchange any information with one another.

"Bully for them. We still require at war nations to cooperate in other fields."

Again, why? The WA can't have a police force of its own, and you already require all the member nations to "liaise" with one another. Why would a committee need to be involved at all?

"That should be obvious later in the proposal: To collect and distribute, as needed, information on money laundering practices to facilitate investigation of international transactions where parties would otherwise be uncooperative."

Yeah, okay, no. As previously pointed out by others, that's a bad idea for a lot of reasons. Also, I don't see anything in this restricting this action to criminal activity. It says all, after all. Also, not all nations use money (this is an issue for the whole proposal, but especially for this clause).

"Please, name one. Nations that have any semblance of financial law already record transactions in this manner. Transactions themselves are not great sources of information except for financial crimes, so no invasion of privacy or extreme burden is placed on systems. At worst, it standardizes the amount states record to match the amounts that the World Assembly would require."

"Any transaction, even noncriminal ones, could become criminal based on how the transaction occurs. Requiring recording of just criminal transactions would hamstring any effort at stifling international transaction."

"Nations that lack money would, necessarily, not have money laundering issues."

Kill clause 6 entirely and make this the new clause 6. Although you can probably drop the part about terrorism from it, as that's handled by an existing resolution.

"Then nations could facilitate international money laundering by simply not making it a crime. I might as well give up, then. No."

Once more, why? And, uh, what is this clause actually supposed to do? It seems like two thoughts written into three sentences got blended together, but with all the connections missing. You need a warrant to get GAO to release information? I'm not sure member nations are allowed to issue warrants on WA committees.

"Nations would be empowered to provide a warrant to the committee. That was implicit. The entirety of this bureaucratic plan was to collect information in one secure place: the World Assembly. It then distributes that information to national law enforcement information, but only that information specifically requested by those specialized investigative divisions that nations are required to create. This ensures that the transactional information of all states is accessible by law enforcement, but only that which is strictly necessary. "

"In this way, member states can track transactions that are being used to launder money for criminal organizations even if those transactions leave their jurisdictional borders. The State of Blackacre can track transactions to The State of Greenacre that they suspect are being used to launder money and be funneled to the pro-Greenacre terrorist organization known as the Blackacre Liberation Front, because it's unlikely that Greenacre would supply this information in the first place. It protects the businesses of both Blackacre and Greenacre from unnecessary intrusion by law enforcement by narrowing the information released to only those transactions named in the warrant, and lets Blackacre make arrests within it's jurisdiction without having to rely on Greenacre's non-forthcoming cooperation."

Unnecessary. Good faith cooperation is automatically expected.

"Ambassador, you've never read Machiavelli, have you?."

"The Imperium merely believes in dealing with the source of the problem, rather than engaging in a metaphorical war with illegal finances.

"I look forward to the day, ambassador, that my nation's jurisdiction can so easily ignore others'."

Endeavors such as this may only be considered successful if one considers the wide-scale waste of resources and personnel in attacking a minor crime that does not significantly affect criminal and terrorist organizations, to be a success.

"Not all criminal organizations can merely be arrested in full in one fell swoop, easily convicted, and forgotten about. If this wasn't a complex, difficult problem, no nation would have organized crime. I cannot believe that you blithely assume that all nation have the same authoritarian control over their borders and citizens as the Imperium."

You claim that one must begin somewhere. The Imperium recommends drafting national civil policy so as to increase access to, and the quality of education, and to remove the financial and social pressures that lead one's people towards crime and terrorism.

"Your claim presumes that both can't be done at once."

The remaining criminal and terrorist threats will then be crippled entirely, ensuring either their dissolution from organization, or ease in their destruction."

"You have an excellent point, ambassador. We should do the same with famine. If we pass laws that facilitate food production and transportation, we won't need to worry about programs aiding those starving from famine. Regrettably, those are problems that do not get fixed overnight, but take generations of effort. By your reasoning, we should repeal the protections for civilians during war and instead focus on national policy efforts to reduce war. Those who die in the interim are clearly expendable."

"The Subspace Barrier is not the sole method of developing a secure border, Ambassador. Your attempt to appeal to our advanced technology demonstrates only that your Government would rather force the World Assembly to handle its problems than engage in effective border policy itself.

"I would accept that, ambassador, if it was the World Assembly doing the legwork of enforcement here. If you read my proposal, which I'm starting to doubt you have, you would see that all actual investigative or enforcement work is done by member states. The World Assembly is merely centralizing information, such that it can be acquired by national law enforcement easily and securely."

Regular and Irregular patrols by Personnel and Aircraft, the establishment of additional checkpoints, the institution of more-thorough investigation regarding those allowed to enter. Any one of these, or many others, would find your border vastly more secure."

"I'm not sure how border checkpoints prevent electronic transfer of illegal money?"

"The Imperium does exactly such, Ambassador, as I have stated previously. The Imperium merely sees the division of our Internal Security so as to create a specific investigative force for a crime of minimal import to be unnecessary, as even basic currency security and transaction monitoring processes ensure the vast reduction of such laundering."

"If you already monitor transactions, you see the value in having that information available for investigation, which is all this proposal actually seeks to do. Specialization of investigative services facilitates efficient communication between your government and the World Assembly."

OOC: I'm not sure the problem here. Modern policies in this area are even more invasive but states routinely thrive despite this.

"The Imperium is more than capable of enforcing law within our own borders. We have neither need nor desire for foreign personnel to be involved in such."

"The Imperium will be doing all the enforcement within your borders. The World Assembly is merely collecting information. Have you read this? Please, ambassador, point to the proposal section that has the World Assembly enforcing your law? The power of the World Assembly to set reporting guidelines only applies to that information you send to the GAO. You're welcome to maintain any domestic system you please."

"You seem to be responding to a concern which was not raised by the Imperium. The Imperium sees no reason for the World Assembly, especially an organization created for the sole purposes of Accounting, to be involved with Imperial Internal Security. This 'working relationship' would serve only to cripple the effectiveness of Internal Security, and provide absolutely no benefit to them, the World Assembly, or the Imperium itself."

"I'm not sure how communication and cooperation cripple your security force. Is it so fragile as to wither under the requirement of cooperation?"

"Centralizing the data allows for efficiency in security and necessary dissemination to those who present warrants, ambassador. It is akin to keeping a library's books in the same building. If the World Assembly is to be caretaker of this data to ensure that domestic law enforcement agencies have access to relevant international data and only that data which is relevant, compilation is necessary."

"And why, exactly, Ambassador, can Member-States not handle such themselves?

“Because members like the Imperium would deliberately withhold information essential to an investigation, claiming that merely because it involved money flowing through it’s borders, no other investigative force deserves it. Your philosophy was why I wrote this. It isn’t National Sovereigntist, it’s blatantly obstructionist.

Ambassador. The Imperium sees little reason to hand-off information regarding Imperial Citizens, the collection of which in the first place, can arguably be considered a violation of privacy, to an International Body, which will then transfer the information to foreign personnel. The Imperium is far better qualified to determine what information regarding our citizens is to be released, if any."

“I would believe that if you demonstrated any attempt at cooperation.[/quote]

"Because, ambassador, not all nations are cooperative of their own volition. If an illegal entity bases its operations in the Imperium and commits crimes, from that base of operations, in a hypothetical neighboring nation, the Imperium's lack of cooperation could end any possibility of investigation. As a member of an international organization, the Imperium seems to have recognized the need for even limited cooperation in certain circumstances. This is one of those circumstances."

"The Imperium sees no problem with such an arrangement.

“That is precisely the kind of obstructionist approach I seek to circumvent.”

It is not the place of foreign personnel to investigate criminal or terrorist activity within the Imperium.

“They aren’t. That information is for making a case against other nation’s domestic criminals who are sending their money abroad. It has nothing to do with crime in your nation, and everything to do with collecting evidence and investigative leads based on where money flows. Other states would never have to do so much as enter your national borders.”

Should foreign investigation of crimes committed within their nation lead to their awareness of a criminal or terrorist organization within the Imperium, they are more then welcome to inform the Imperium of such, and, as required by Imperial Law, and standing World Assembly legislation, the Imperium will then eliminate the threat, as it exists within our borders, and is subject only to our jurisdiction.

“Yes! I agree! But they can’t make that determination without accessing transactional information of trans-national transfers!”

The Imperium will not allow foreign law enforcement to operate within our borders,

“They wouldn’t.”

or gain access to restricted information, purely on the nonsensical basis of 'cooperation'."

“Restricting that information ensures that no international money laundering could ever be detected. You are literally advocating being the Cayman Islands of the international community.”

"Do not take to merely fabricating information, Ambassador. It makes you seem either a criminal or a fool."

“I’ve watched you be unnecessarily brusque with new ideas for years, Markhov.”

"This facilitates the unreasonable and unnecessary restriction of Law Enforcement personnel to the service of an international body

“Cooperation is not service.”

arguably in violation of the provisions of Resolution Two, and the release of restricted public information to foreign law-enforcement bodies, which cannot act on the information in the first place.

“They aren’t acting on it, they’re using the information to facilitate arrests in their own nations. This does not interfere with GAR#2. The World Assembly is being asked to collect data, not police anybody. Not moreso than any other resolution.”

"Do explain the logic of interlocking International Finances and Law-Enforcement. I would very much like to know how evidence of a minor criminal organization within a Member-State could be utilized in the drafting of payment information for World Assembly staff.

“The detection of money laundering operations, which requires an understanding of financial systems and criminal justice. I can’t make it simpler than that.”

International Crimes are best handled by Member-States, within their respective jurisdictions, as Standing Legislation prohibits the formation of an international force for such, and obligates Member-States to investigate and eliminate terrorist organizations operating internationally.

“If a member state refuses to cooperate with foreign law enforcement to procure evidence to stop a criminal enterprise, especially one not breaking any laws in that first member state, then the international crime cannot be stopped. Because member states operating on their own don’t facilitate the prevention of international crime, it follows that member states are not best suited to operating in isolation, but require administrative aid from the World Assembly.”

"Ambassador, I hate to disagree with you so brazenly, but the best data I can find regrettably disagrees with that assessment. I hope you will reconsider."

"Ambassador, your source of information is flawed.

OOC: Do you want US Treasury Department explanations for how money laundering and international financial crimes require specialized law enforcement? I got a guy who can get you that explanation.