Water always finds its way: Identifying new forms of money laundering

Money laundering regulations have become stricter over time and involve more and more actors. This means that the accountability of laundering regulation will become more important; theoretically, money laundering should have decreased with the implementation of new regulations. However, as this paper shows, it is difficult to estimate even the sign of the trend in the proceeds of crime and of laundering over time with particular reference to the drug trade. There seems to be a substitution from hard to softer drugs, and no substantial decline in the proceeds of crime and likewise no substantial decline in money laundering. Criminals seem to switch from the more controlled banking sector into still less controlled parts of financial markets, and from financial markets to other sectors. These new sectors include electronic payments, trade and real estate. The paper shows how one can empirically approach the latter two by using economic information of unusual prices and other characteristics in order to identify the amount of laundering in these sectors. Combining economic information with criminological data facilitates the development of a new tool for identifying money laundering in some important sectors.     

La régulation des affaires sociales: une analyse politique††

Sommaire. Le gouvernement peut être défini comme la régulation des affaires publiques¹ et à des fins d'analyse cette régulation, comme d'ailleurs les régulations privées, peut être distinpée en communication et en commandement. Pour que la régulation s'accomplisse, la communication doit être commandée, et le commandement communiqué. Nous nous situerons ici dans la première perspective:celle où la régulation est vue comme commandement de la communication. C'est la perspective de l'analyse politique, par opposition à une analyse davantage socio-économique qui se donnerait pour objet les phénomènes de communication eux-mêmes. Abstract. Government can be defined in terms of the regulation of public affairs. For purposes of analysis, public regulation, like private regulation, can be identified as communication and command. For regulation to be achieved, communication must be ordered and the order communicated. Here we will explore the first notion, the consideration of regulation as ordering communication. This is the viewpoint of political analysis, as opposed to a more socio-economical analysis which is concerned with the phenomena of communication itself.     

Disentangling privacy from property: toward a deeper understanding of genetic privacy

With the mapping of the human genome, genetic privacy has become a concern to many. People care about genetic privacy because genes play an important role in shaping us--our genetic information is about us, and it is deeply connected to our sense of ourselves. In addition, unwanted disclosure of our genetic information, like a great deal of other personal information, makes us vulnerable to unwanted exposure, stigmatization, and discrimination. One recent approach to protecting genetic privacy is to create property rights in genetic information. This Article argues against that approach. Privacy and property are fundamentally different concepts. At heart, the term "property" connotes control within the marketplace and over something that is disaggregated or alienable from the self. "Privacy," in contrast, connotes control over access to the self as well as things close to, intimately connected to, and about the self. Given these different meanings, a regime of property rights in genetic information would impoverish our understanding of that information, ourselves, and the relationships we hope will be built around and through its disclosure. This Article explores our interests in genetic information in order to deepen our understanding of the ongoing discourse about the distinction between property and privacy. It develops a conception of genetic privacy with a strong relational component. We ordinarily share genetic information in the context of relationships in which disclosure is important to the relationship--family, intimate, doctor-patient, researcher-participant, employer-employee, and insurer-insured relationships. Such disclosure makes us vulnerable to and dependent on the person to whom we disclose it. As a result, trust is essential to the integrity of these relationships and our sharing of genetic information. Genetic privacy can protect our vulnerability in these relationships and enhance the trust we hope to have in them. Property, in contrast, by connoting commodification, disaggregation, and arms-length dealings, can negatively affect the self and harm these relationships. This Article concludes that a deeper understanding of genetic privacy calls for remedies for privacy violations that address dignitary harm and breach of trust, as opposed to market harms, as the property model suggests.     

Does the American Dairy Industry Fit the Meso-Corporatist Model?

Corporatism having become a less useful label for describing entire political systems, corporatist scholars have emphasized the importance of meso-level corporatism, using dairying as the classic example. Analysis of the American dairy industry does not support the claim that there is 'no corporatism in the United States' but it suggests why meso-corporatist enclaves in a macro-pluralist system are liable to be ephemeral. What sets the American dairy industry apart from its European and Canadian counterparts is that the meso-corporatist institutional arrangements were undermined by the emergence of large regional cooperatives in the 1960s and as a result present dairy policy-making has reverted once more to a pluralist paradigm.