MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388733193 · doi:10.1108/jmlc-09-2023-0155

A comparative analysis of the FIUs and FATF compliance of Canada, Australia, The Netherlands and India

2023· article· en· W4388733193 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 · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoney launderingTransparency (behavior)Compliance (psychology)Task forceAccountingTerrorismBusinessPublic relationsFinancePolitical sciencePublic administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to analyse the Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) of Canada, Australia, The Netherlands and India, focussing on key internal and external processes, such as the exchange of information, operations and compliance with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations. The paper relies on secondary sources to compare and assess the practices and strategies employed by FIUs within these jurisdictions. Design/methodology/approach The paper relies on secondary sources to compare and assess the practices and strategies used by FIUs within these jurisdictions. Findings The ability to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) in countries is influenced by several internal and external factors, including the efficiency of their FIUs’ and compliance with FATF recommendations. The analysis of FIUs across the countries demonstrates a raft of multifaceted challenges and concerns. Yet, when it comes to compliance with FATF’s recommendations, shared concerns emerge, hinting at the complex interplay between country-specific operations and global compliance standards. The paper recommends enhancements to the FIUs’ operational efficiency and overall effectiveness in combating financial crimes. Research limitations/implications The paper’s findings are limited to openly available data (such as annual reports and internet sources) for the respective countries. The paper relies on the transparency of FIUs through public media, focusing on comparing and analysing the FIUs of only four specific countries, which limits the generalisations of the findings. Practical implications This paper is significant for policymakers and FIU authorities, as they strive to improve the effectiveness of their units and assess their performance in alignment with international standards. The comparative analysis of the FIUs of India, Australia, Canada and The Netherlands provides valuable insights and recommendations that can inform policymakers and operational strategies towards enhancing how FIUs function globally. Originality/value This paper offers a unique comparative analysis of the FIUs of India, Australia, Canada and The Netherlands. Its findings have practical implications for policymakers and FIU authorities towards enhancing performance against international AML/CFT standards and promoting global cooperation.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.262 · 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