MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318992646 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2022.12.001

Money laundering conviction rate and capital formation in Nigeria

2023· article· en· W4318992646 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Okubokeme Derek Opudu, Stanley Ogoun

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoney launderingConvictionCommissionLanguage changeCapital (architecture)LegislationAutonomyAgency (philosophy)EconomicsLawBusinessPolitical scienceAccountingMonetary economicsFinanceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF, G7) recommendations and the Nigeria Anti-Money Laundering Act that provides the penance and dissuasion for crimes in Nigeria, this study sought to interrogate the efficacy of money laundering conviction rate as an instrument of anti-money laundering policy on capital formation in Nigeria. The study is hinged on contemporary deterrence theory. The study adopted the ex-post facto research design and used quarterly data from 1Q 2010 to 4Q 2019, which was sourced from the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) and CBN statistical reports. Hence, Error Correction Model (ECM) was utilized to analyze the data. The findings indicate that the current money laundering conviction rate (MLCR) has a negative and non-significant effect on capital formation in Nigeria. Therefore, the study concludes that the current conviction rate is too weak to deter the act. Hence, it is recommended that the judicial system be rejigged with enabling legislation and autonomy to strengthen it to hasten the trial of such cases and ease conviction of culpable individuals, without necessarily putting innocent victims at jeopardy. Such autonomy should also be granted to the EFCC, ICPC, NFIU etc. and inter-agency synergy should be encouraged.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccountingSame topicCrime, Illicit Activities, and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207