Ritualisation and money laundering in the Swiss banking sector
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to highlight the relationship between money laundering and the patterns of behaviour evident throughout the larger structural environment of the Swiss banking sector. In particular, the paper used HSBC as a prototype case of structural ritualisation to show that the normalisation of corrupt, unethical behaviour in the banking environment has shaped and influenced the behaviour and actions of the embedded group actors. Design/methodology/approach The paper used a content analysis methodological approach of media sources to collect data. The content analysis was categorised into six core ritualised symbolic practices (RSP) categories – corruption, reputation, blame, ignorance, regret and criticism. Findings The findings reveal that the highly ranked RSPs involving corruption, reputation, blame, regret, ignorance and criticism influence the embedded group’s patterns of behaviour, and they formed part of the cognitive script that dictated their behaviour and actions in the Swiss banking sector. Practical implications The paper added to the calls by Swiss policymakers for amendments to Swiss bank secrecy laws to reflect the changing landscape of international banking and finance. Originality/value This is the first paper of its kind to study ritualised illegal practices related to money laundering in the Swiss banking sector.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it