RESUMO
It is important to understand the amounts and types of money laundering flows, since they have very different effects and, therefore, need different enforcement strategies. Countries that mainly deal with criminals laundering their proceeds locally, need other measures than countries that mainly deal with foreign illegal investments or dirty money just flowing through the country. This paper has two main contributions. First, we unveil the country preferences of money launderers empirically in a systematic way. Former money laundering estimates used assumptions on which country characteristics money launderers are looking for when deciding where to send their ill-gotten gains. Thanks to a unique dataset of transactions suspicious of money laundering, provided by the Dutch Institute infobox Criminal and Unexplained Wealth (iCOV), we can empirically test these assumptions with an econometric gravity model estimation. We use this information for our second contribution: iteratively simulating all money laundering flows around the world. This allows us, for the first time, to provide estimates that distinguish between three different policy challenges: the laundering of domestic crime proceeds, international investment of dirty money and money just flowing through a country.
RESUMO
Financial and legal entities (e.g. banks, casinos, notaries etc.) have to report money laundering suspicions. Countries' engagement in fighting money laundering is evaluated-among others-with statistics on how often these suspicions are reported. Lack of compliance can result in economically harmful blacklisting. Nevertheless, these blacklists repeatedly become empty-in what is known as the emptying blacklist paradox. We develop a principal-agent model with intermediate agents and show that non-harmonized statistics can lead to strategic reporting to avoid blacklisting, and explain the emptying blacklist paradox. We recommend the harmonization of the standards to report suspicion of money laundering.
