Maya Forstater

It is not *not* true. But the estimates are sketchy & comparison with aid is not meaningful. On the other crime & corruption are real & big: it is certainly right for the UK to act to prevent IFFs & return assets. Does it matter that these s don't mean much? (2/)

The estimates are probably either the trade misinvoicing estimates by e.g. @GFI_Tweets & @IFF_Africa, or the more general international guesstimate that corruption costs 5% of GDP, or money laundering is 2-5% of GDP (3/)

(2) continent-wide comparisons not all that meaningful -- most of the big estimates relate to a few countries (3) IFFs are not all like 'aid in reverse' --offshored private assets &laundering criminal profits are different in terms of public finances to theft of public assets

'Just think of what the money could do!' isn't the right way to think about returned IFFs IMO: the legal processes takes too long & the sums returned are too small for this to be major source of investment finance. Attack IFFs to disrupt crime & corruption and prevent impunity.

it would have been nice to see "This is not true," supported by 1. A number, representing the USD value of illicit flows out of Africa and 2. A larger number, representing USD value of aid & multilateral lending into Africa. But we never got that.

I said it's not *not* true. The statement is accurate as a representation of existing estimates, but is not meaningful for the reasons I explain.