UNODC Convention Against Corruption, Organised Crime

 

- but huge gaps give justification to continuing anger within the Osama’s of the world

 

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) held one of the latter in a compact series of global seminars at Pretoria during 8-10 February 2006.

 

The seminars seek to confirm ratification of the Convention document, and to instil a co-operative framework between nations, in the fight against corruption & organised crime.

 

But the UNODC Convention is a reactive initiative that is having, will have, little impact – there is an urgent need for a pro-active initiative to combat both OCL & OCILL organised crime.

 

____________________

 

(It is fair to say that the UN’s very purpose is to have offices focussed respectively on their core functions but with an holistic, co-operative, objective of achieving global harmony & prosperity.

The problem with narrow-focus is that oversights create gaps through which serious issues fall and which can often neutralise, diminish, the very efforts of any, and all, of UN offices.)

 

For maximum effect it was necessary that the seminar ensured an understanding of the processes & mechanisms intended by the convention so that delegates could fast-track implementation.

 

The seminar was consequently narrowly focused on a reactive initiative.

 

To the extent of its narrow focus the seminar was a great success as the many delegates were sparked by the positivity of a united effort against corruption, the global co-operative approach, the streamlining of procedures, in pursuing any particular prosecution process.

 

Great camaraderie was quickly established amongst the delegates and it was clear that lasting friendships were being formed.

To that extent the UNODC must be highly commended for the visible fruits of their intensive & extensive efforts.

 

BUT!!!! ……….

 

shortly after commencement of the seminar the writer asked for an indication of the level of organised crime, corruption & drugs on a global basis and in $ terms.

 

The chair pointed out that it was extremely difficult to assess (understandable) but gave an estimate of $1 Trillion.

Let us be generous and say $2T.

 

It was also pointed out that various leaders had siphoned money out of their countries, two instances of $2.2 Billion and $5 Billion were quoted.

 

The writer then outlined some of his research work and set out:

  • that there is a distinction between Organised Crime (Legal) (OCL) and Organised Crime (Illegal) (OCILL). And that OCL accounted for far greater crime levels than OCILL by many orders of magnitude. Examples were given.

  • Pension Fund frauds by Financial Services Institutions – a simple extrapolation showed that this accounted for a conservative $6T losses globally.

  • The unitary model Interest Rate economy control device accounted for economy losses (conservative estimate of $0.2T per annum per 1% of interest rate increase being sucked out of economies)

  • 1st World corporates, and even government agencies, were responsible for the destructive raiding into developing countries which provided the fuel (money) for corruption.

  • Round-tripping of funds through secretive tax havens – difficult (impossible?) to determine the fraud on the back of this.

  • Whistleblower protection did not compensate for the realities of economic & financial prejudice to the whistleblower.

It was further argued that since OCL has, by far, the greater negative impact that it was logical that a far stronger pro-active initiative should be taken to supplement the reality that the Convention was entirely a reactive initiative; and one which will yield little impact.

These points were briefly reiterated on day two – along with a brief statement that the SA & UK governments, as well as the UN, had stolen the writer’s Intellectual Property, and that various & many SA State Authority persons had abused their powers over the years by unlawfully attacking the writer, and that SA’s government executive had economically isolated & financially destroyed him to the extent that his family had been forced to leave SA in Dec 2005.

The response from the chair was to argue that Organised Crime (Legal) was a contradiction in terms and had no valid foundation. And the reference to theft of IP was an inappropriate accusation as it was not within the intended level of the seminar.

 

It was later counter-argued by the writer:

- that whistleblowing was by its very nature the raising of issues that were accusatory, but also that the specific references cited were based on fact not accusations.

- further; that Organised Crime (Legal) - is the difference between fair business practices and unfair deceptions; between moral and immoral; it is the difference between good governance and bad governance; it is the operating within the “Grey area of Immorality” before the clear “Line of Criminality”, but which grey area is easily discerned as being of a criminal, deceptive, nature.

What is of greater concern is that a whistleblowing issue fell on deaf ears at this UN seminar – where then will be the promised protection for any whistleblower?

 

It was also stressed that for every reactive initiative that was in process (vis: the prosecuting of one corruption occurrence) that many others were concurrently being perpetrated; and that a delegate had acknowledged the low success rate of prosecutions of organised crime criminals.

 

What this meant was that despite the intensive & extensive global effort that was being consumed that very little would be achieved by this reactive route – it follows therefore that a pro-active initiative needs to be developed to disempower, rather than prosecute, organised-crime criminals.

 

To that extent it was also stressed that the identifying, detecting, of “unfair rules & practices”, which are the foundations upon which corruption is able to breed, is extremely difficult.

The issue of pension fund losses and unitary model interest rate control device were examples of how societies have been brainwashed into accepting concepts which when correctly understood can be seen to be entirely destructive to economies/societies.

 

A further example was given:

A presenter showed that it was necessary to detect the “where from” and “where to” of flows of laundered monies, especially through tax havens.

What the presenter had overlooked, not understood, was that the UN’s Millennium Development Goals exactly sanctioned the round-tripping of monies through tax havens in the quest to stimulate growth (see J Sachs, End of Poverty, Pg 162).

 

The presenter had not understood other UN initiatives that countered the very point he was making – vis: that round-tripping of monies through tax havens provided the very mechanism through which money could be laundered back into legitimacy at various rates of seepage.

The writer explained this to the presenter, and had to repeat it – the point was still missed.

 

The intent here is not to embarrass the presenter, entirely the opposite as his work was of immense value, but it was to highlight the fact that the seminar delegates, in the main legal persons (+ one ophthalmologist), do not have the training, qualifications, skills, in being able to detect the very practices & unfair rules that create the environment in which organised crime can flourish.

 

Their skills are in the prosecuting/processing of a detected crime. These legal professionals have a particular mindset in common – this mindset exactly counters the necessary foresight & intuition that is required for pro-active initiatives.

During a coffee break the writer posed to a few delegates the following:

 

If an economy is constructively growing then it seems intuitive that OCILL will diminish.

 

There was consensus on this point.

 

It was then pointed out that exactly the opposite happens with OCL – OCL rapidly increases as constructive economic growth increases. Because corporate raiders are on the speculative prowl (“speculative demand” is entirely destructive – contrast this to “derived demand” which is generally constructive).

 

The response from delegates? - Silent thought!

 

Immediately prior to the close of the seminar a document was read out that sought to summarise the seminar and general points raised. The UN chair was focussed on summarising consensual points.

The writer requested that the points he raised be added – this was rejected by the chair as being personal views not shared by other delegates.

 

Regardless of whether they were shared by others or not the point is that they were raised, a number of times – it is entirely incorrect for differing views not to be aired, and recorded, especially as the chair is also a legal person and is not qualified to discern the merits of the points. (It took some time before Einstein’s theories became accepted. UPDATE March 2014 – And now Einstein’s theories are proved wrong because Newton’s Opticks are wrong, and hence Hubble's expanding universe is wrong, hence Feynman, Hawking, Higgs are wrong).

 

The writer highlighted the important need for the UN to establish an office, or sub-office, to address the pro-active initiatives necessary to combat OCL crime – OCL crime accounts far more for global disharmony than does OCILL crime.

Whilst some critical OCL issues were presented there are many others that were not; and still many others that have yet to be detected if global harmony & prosperity is to be achieved.

 

Business/Social/Economy Engineering is entirely absent from UN initiatives – it is why the UN has had very limited effect in the fight against corruption, organised crime, poverty, etc.

 

It is also important not to lose sight of the fact that each delegate although sparked with hope by the seminar are but tiny cogs in their respective National Machinery – these delegates are expected to transfer their hope onto those that control/influence their National Machinery – but some of those in control/influence are also swayed by the influence of OCL money.

No response is sought – but how many of those delegates are prepared to stand up to the extent that they are attacked, or their families forced to flee their country?

 

A minor issue! – the seminar opening address was given by SA’s NPA National Director, Advocate Vusi Pikoli – Adv. Pikoli still refuses to assist the SA Police in investigating the pensions frauds that were masterminded by Liberty Life’s founding Chairman, Donald Gordon, and which are now globalised.

 

The Scorpions spat between the NPA & SAPS, which has become a personal issue between various top-ranking players, have operational consequences that are highly detrimental to the protecting of South Africa from OCL & OCILL criminals.

It was also requested, as a matter of urgency, that the UN rectify the wrongs done by them in the theft of the writer’s Intellectual Property (an OCL issue in itself).

 

UNODC’s seminar covering the Convention Against Corruption, Organised Crime, was, despite its narrow focus, a huge success with co-operation and many lasting friendships being developed - but huge gaps exist which give justification to continuing anger within the Osama’s of the world

 

(PS: To all those present at UNODC’s Pretoria seminar – it was a privilege, an honour, to be amongst you all)

 

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

+27 (0)83 962 7098

http://www.cdadd.com

 

Further information/insight can be gleaned from the following papers at www.cdadd.com – “Historical Archives” on lhs panel:

Mastermind of Organised Crime

Interest Rates & Loans

Annuities in Retirement

SA Bonds – siphoning & churning

etc.

Also

www.savingsinstitute.co.za; “research” lhs button panel, 2003 research papers.