-
-
Given context you'd expect any common intention on a big issue would be reflected in the agreed outputs? So poor drafting or no consensus?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @alexcobham @iaincampbell07 and
There doesn't seem too much doubt...pic.twitter.com/FApEfif5dE
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @alexcobham @iaincampbell07 and
That they meant to stress this issue.pic.twitter.com/E3LxcsXtt6
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @alexcobham @iaincampbell07 and
Here, they seem to separate out illicit financial flows and illicit non-financial flows, stating the need to make progress on both.pic.twitter.com/jRC7weBmcU
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
To me quotes show drafters wanted, inter alia, to separately address tax evasion and tax avoidance, and IFFs. Otherwise why separate?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
And the final draft goal the HLP came up with was "e) Reduce illicit flows and tax evasion and increase stolen-asset recovery by
$x"2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @iaincampbell07 and
It doesn't make sense to include legal avoidance together with proceeds of crime & corruption in one bucket & then separate out tax evasion
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So they really just forgot avoidance, or deliberately dropped it, after repeating its importance over and over? Seems tortuously unlikely
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Don't know. I don't think they thought any.MNC w different ratios of profits/revn or profits/staff across subsids="Illicit", as in indicator
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.