Re-Reading Power Inside the AML-CTF Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Money laundering and money laundering controls are having a global moment. Many jurisdictions around the world—some more than others—feature regularly in news cycles for either offences to do with money laundering or sanctions avoidance or the laxity of controls that enable such activities. The mainstream media has reported on stories about banks in Canada and football clubs in Italy, about charities in the UK and the real estate industry in the US. Each revelation prompts mea culpas from offenders—TD Bank in Canada is one such example—and often, a raft of new or enhanced regulatory measures. Critically, the point that remains overlooked is that this regulation is neither apolitical in its construction nor neutral in its application. This article deploys the lens of power to analyse the evolution of the global anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing regime. Using insights from the vast literature on power across disciplines such as sociology, politics, law and philosophy, it is argued that the global AML-CTF architecture exemplifies the ideas and the practices central to the construction of a power edifice. To understand why laundering continues unabated despite the ratcheting up of regulations, one needs to examine these structures of power. Le blanchiment d’argent et les contrôles anti-blanchiment sont actuellement au coeur de l’actualité mondiale. Bon nombre de pays, certains plus que d’autres, font régulièrement la une des nouvelles soit pour des infractions liées au blanchiment d’argent ou au contournement des sanctions, soit pour le laxisme des contrôles qui permet de telles pratiques. Les médias grand public ont fait état d’affaires impliquant des banques au Canada, des clubs de football en Italie , des organisations caritatives au Royaume-Uni et le secteur immobilier aux États-Unis . Chaque révélation suscite des mea culpa de la part des contrevenants—la Banque TD au Canada en est un exemple—et souvent, une série de mesures réglementaires nouvelles ou renforcées. Cependant, ce que l’on oublie souvent, c’est que la réglementation n’est ni apolitique dans sa conception ni neutre dans son application. Cet article analyse l’évolution du régime mondial de lutte contre le blanchiment d’argent et contre le financement du terrorisme sous l’angle du pouvoir . S’appuyant sur les nombreuses publications consacrées au pouvoir dans des domaines tels que la sociologie, la politique, le droit et la philosophie, il soutient que l’architecture mondiale de lutte contre le blanchiment d’argent et contre le financement du terrorisme illustre les idées et les pratiques qui sont au coeur de la construction d’un édifice de pouvoir. Pour comprendre pourquoi le blanchiment se poursuit sans relâche malgré le renforcement des réglementations, il faut examiner ces structures de pouvoir.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".