In the world of Money Laundering Prevention there are good guys, bad guys and some really badly written laws in between.
Now the good guys tend to rely on clear controls, their personal ethics and their professionalism when examining the suitability systems and controls which should prevent money laundering and fraud. One of the key controls of last resort is whistleblowing.
People who are tempted to follow the accountant Marta Andreason’s (pictured) example of identifying inadequate controls that, in turn, permit fraud at the expense of the taxpayer to flourish should remember the following lessons.
§ Whistleblowers are not universally welcome.
§ Most whistleblowers will be subject to retribution by their employers.
§ Some management teams will be making too much money out of dubious activity to want to take any notice.
§ Where the law compels MLROs to become whistleblowers (e.g. UK’s Proceeds of Crime Act) on their own employers systems and controls, or wilful management complicity, they have probably ended their careers with that firm.
§ What a whistleblower may think of as an essential disclosure under public interest will probably be regarded as a leak by politicians (see House of Commons, public Administration Committee, Leaks and Whistleblowing in Whitehall, July 2009)
§ The recipient organisation of the disclosure may have absolutely no pastoral care systems put in place. In other words you are on your own with your family.
§ Politicians in particular dislike being reminded of their inadequacies.
Why do I include the last point? Well it is also the reason for including the picture. You may remember that Mrs Andreasen, was the European Commission's former chief accountant, was fired in 2004 after she publicly claimed there was a £172 million discrepancy between two sets of Brussels accounts.
Now the good guys tend to rely on clear controls, their personal ethics and their professionalism when examining the suitability systems and controls which should prevent money laundering and fraud. One of the key controls of last resort is whistleblowing.
People who are tempted to follow the accountant Marta Andreason’s (pictured) example of identifying inadequate controls that, in turn, permit fraud at the expense of the taxpayer to flourish should remember the following lessons.
§ Whistleblowers are not universally welcome.
§ Most whistleblowers will be subject to retribution by their employers.
§ Some management teams will be making too much money out of dubious activity to want to take any notice.
§ Where the law compels MLROs to become whistleblowers (e.g. UK’s Proceeds of Crime Act) on their own employers systems and controls, or wilful management complicity, they have probably ended their careers with that firm.
§ What a whistleblower may think of as an essential disclosure under public interest will probably be regarded as a leak by politicians (see House of Commons, public Administration Committee, Leaks and Whistleblowing in Whitehall, July 2009)
§ The recipient organisation of the disclosure may have absolutely no pastoral care systems put in place. In other words you are on your own with your family.
§ Politicians in particular dislike being reminded of their inadequacies.
Why do I include the last point? Well it is also the reason for including the picture. You may remember that Mrs Andreasen, was the European Commission's former chief accountant, was fired in 2004 after she publicly claimed there was a £172 million discrepancy between two sets of Brussels accounts.
According to the Telegraph, Lord Kinnock, who was then her boss as the Commission's vice-president, furiously accused her of "disloyalty and breach of trust" after she went to MEPs with her concerns, already raised internally, over accounting standards.
Mrs Andreasen was then elected as a Ukip MEP for South East England in June 2009.
Following on from her election, at the end of July 2009, Mrs Andreasen was blocked by Christian Democrat and Socialist MEPs from becoming vice-chairman of the European Parliament's budgetary committee on Monday.
The centre-Right European People's Party and the Socialists broke parliamentary convention on the allocation of committee posts by demanding a vote by secret ballot to block Mrs Andreasen.
Inge Graessle, a senior German Christian Democrat MEP, admitted that the former Commission accountant had been opposed for the senior post because of her trouble-making past.
"The role she played in the past, what I feel was a certain scandalising of issues, is not really one we want endorsed by her becoming vice-chairman," she said
Chris Davies, a Liberal Democrat, attacked the "shameful decision" to hold a secret ballot so the MEPs could not be "held accountable for their actions". The message it sends to the public is that anyone who speaks out against malpractice in Europe risks being excluded from office," he said.
To my mind, the conduct of MEP's is important in setting the tone of the debate around the prevention of financial crime. In this light, their recent behaviour has been utterly disgraceful.
Does their recent behaviour inspire trust in their integrity? Or is financial crime prevention something that Eurocrats only pay lip-service to?
What are your views?
No comments:
Post a Comment