Ethics and governance in the European Financial centers

Tax Justice Network -USA calls on the presidential candidates to declare what they would do to combat tax evasion.

Know more

Today I would like to lay emphasis on the consequences of the “generous grant’ received by the FATF from the financial center of Luxembourg for international organisations (OECD, IMF…) in their programs in fighting against fraud, corruption and money laundering in developing countries despite such grant is compatible neither with the official funding of the FATF nor its assignments.
(FATF, Annual Report 2006-2007, paragraphs 54 and 55 page 17)

First of all, let’s recall what Luc Frieden (Minister of Justice in Luxembourg) stated at the IMF Boards of Governors in 2002 : "Personally, I have no doubt that my country can lead by example in promoting good governance, in fighting against the financing of terrorism and against money laundering, and in actively promoting development policies."

What example?
For a Court to receive a generous grant from a litigant it is gonna judge?
For a commission tender to receive a generous grant from a tender it is gonna assess?
For an auditor to receive a generous grant from an auditee it is gonna audit?
And so on.

By sheltering in a complicit silence and inaction despite many public and official red flags (that are the visible part of the iceberg) of poor governance in Luxembourg, international organisations are responsible for the drifts that took place, the “generous grant” being a milestone.

I was speaker at a conference relating to « Financial Institutions, markets and ethics : Mixed approaches in the European context » (Firenze, May 2007) : my topic was "Ethics in Luxembourg : between myth and reality". The speaker who introduced the conference (Yves Meny) explained that when you have principles you don't need rules. But we are in a situation where there is neither principles nor rules but the rule of money.

Developing countries now only have a couple of word to say to international advisors and/or assessors: up yours; ensure first that developed countries clean up their act.

AML regulation is based on soft law and not on hard law, so is the banking regulation. In other words professionals take care of the regulation by stating rules. But the rules that are defined by the negotiating parties (banks in a jurisdiction, jurisdictions at an international level) are not legally binding.
The success of soft law depends actually on the parties’ good faith.

But soft law should evolve into hard law for a party especially when this party weakens the credibility of the commitments by multiplying knowingly negligence, which is a serious threat for every negotiating party.