MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213368755 · doi:10.1108/jmlc-01-2022-0002

Developing a laundered funds destination theory: applying the Walker–Unger gravity model to US-based money launderer country preference from 2000 to 2020

2022· article· en· W4213368755 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Money Laundering Control · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttractivenessConsistency (knowledge bases)PreferenceMoney launderingGovernment (linguistics)EconomicsGravity model of tradeEconomyFinanceOperations researchMacroeconomicsComputer scienceEngineeringMicroeconomicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Although economists and academics have studied money laundering for several decades, there continues to be gaps in the research due to a lack of reliable data on money laundering activity, and a lack of detailed sources and methods of collection in government-based reporting. The purpose of this study is to apply the Walker-Unger gravity model and examine US-based money launderer preference for the 2000-2020 time frame. This paper then compares those results with previous applications of the model and identifies trends, which may serve as the foundations of a money launderer preference theory. The results of the investigation ranked countries by preference of US-based money launderers and determined that there was consistency in country destination preference even during recessionary periods. Design/methodology/approach The Walker–Unger gravity model as applied by Roman et al. (2021) is used to conduct the investigation, to maintain consistency in the application of the Walker–Unger model and further the objective of validating the attractiveness simulation. The model tests the predictive capability of the independent variables to establish the degree of attractiveness each country represents for the funds of US-based money launderers. A score is generated by the model, which is then used to analyze and interpret its significance in relation to all sampled countries. Findings Model results reveal the countries with the highest attractiveness for US-based money launderers during 2000–2020 were Australia, the Bahamas, Bermuda, Canada, Cayman Islands, Norway, Monaco, Puerto Rico, Switzerland and the USA. Model results show that over the two decades the proportion of money flow scores changed but not to a degree that would alter the country preference of US-based money launderers. US-based money launderers tended to use the same countries for their illicit financial activities, regardless of the state of the legitimate economy. Research limitations/implications One of the limitations of the model is that it does not show the effect of money laundering on legitimate economic activity. Practical implications The model results will give insight into the preferred destination of US-based money launderers and therefore frame one component of money laundering activities in the USA for the examined time period. Social implications A secondary objective of this study is to evaluate if any changes to US-based money launderer preferences occurred during the three most recent periods of economic downturn in the USA. Originality/value The model results will give insight into the preferred destination of US-based money launderers and therefore frame one component of money laundering activities in the USA for the examined time period. A secondary objective of this study is to evaluate if any changes to US-based money launderer preferences occurred during the three most recent periods of economic downturn in the USA. The periods chosen are the 2001 9/11 terrorist attacks, the 2007/08 global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it