I have a geunine question for you @MForstater - given your reluctance to categorizing transfer mis-pricing as IFF, what about intra-firm financial methods like thin capialization and derivatives contracts? Should such activities be attempted meassured and accounted for as IFF?
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @Arvinn
Hi Arvinn, I think there will always be grey areas/ fuzzy edges to definitions -- the core concept of illicit financial flows is that the nature of the transaction is hidden or misreported to evade detection. You can do this with all kinds of transactions including TP...
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @MForstater
Thanks. So your answer is in short (rudely paraphrased) «yes it could be, depending on the interpretation of the concept of IFF»?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Arvinn
Sort of. I guess the question is what for. Yes understand behaviours & measure financial impacts. But does the category 'IFF' make sense -- i.e. does it make sense to lump *this* in with money laundering, bribe paying, theft of public assets ?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MForstater
That is a political question, not a methodolgical one in my view - the result is the same, the motivation is similar, though the source/incentives are different. My political call is - yes it makes sense. At least more sense than not lumping it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yes its political, & depends what u trying to do. If it is something that is legal but you want to stop it (like thin cap where there are no thin cap rules) then need to include ppl using current rules in consultation etc which u can't do if u call them illicit & lump w criminals
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.