You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
It concludes that "the current methodologies are not appropriate for measuring the precise quantity of IFFs, they are appropriate and robust as indicators of magnitude. They can therefore be used to understand the risk of IFFs in countries and regions." ...
...but it doesn't say *how* they are judged to be appropriate and robust enough as indicators of magnitude, and risk of IFFs. >> I don't think we can rule out that theses measures are mainly noise, and not signal.
So we get a few pages of repeating GFI #s for Africa. It notes without blinking that some countries have "v-high-risk (> 100% GDP)" while others have "low risk (> 1%)" >> If we can't relate statements like this to something in the real world we should 
if they mean anything!
Then a section on the difficulty of AML. It wants to differentiate IFFs from money laundering. But I think what it is really finding is that 'IFFs' are successful money laundering flows that are not caught by AML efforts.
The tendency in reports on IFF is to repeat what has been said before, so that it looks like a growing volume of knowledge about 'IFFs' as a thing distinct from money laundering. The truth is we know much less than the volume of paper suggests.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
