A. Alkaabi, G. Mohay, Adrian McCullagh, Nicholas Chantler
{"title":"A Comparative Analysis of the Extent of Money Laundering in Australia, UAE, UK and the USA","authors":"A. Alkaabi, G. Mohay, Adrian McCullagh, Nicholas Chantler","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1539843","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1539843","url":null,"abstract":"The IMF has estimated that the extent of money laundering globally is between 2 to 5 percent of the world’s gross domestic product. This figure is larger than the GDP of all but a handful of countries and represents correspondingly huge risks to global financial stability and to the financial well-being and stability of many countries. This paper provides a comparative analysis of the extent of Money Laundering over the last decade across four countries which represent a spectrum of economic development and culture: Australia, the UAE, the UK and the USA. We do so with a view to understanding their anti-money laundering systems and their recent efforts to improve the effectiveness of those systems. In the case of the UAE, we examine also the cultural influences which differentiate it from the other three countries and which have necessarily been a factor in shaping those efforts and their current system. Money laundering and related statistics including the number of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) received from 1999 to 2008 are analyzed. The paper consolidates and analyses information made available by the government websites of these countries and information made available through other sources, both academic and non-academic. It is clear that international efforts to combat money laundering have achieved considerable success over the decade. It is also clear that there is more to be done, by policy makers, by regulators, and by evaluators, and in particular that success in combating money laundering globally must more precisely address cultural and historical differences amongst the international community.","PeriodicalId":39659,"journal":{"name":"Banking Law Journal","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91067821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"What Determines Differences in Foreign Bank Efficiency? Australian Evidence","authors":"J. Sturm, B. Williams","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1532628","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1532628","url":null,"abstract":"This study examines the factors that determine differences in efficiency of foreign banks in the host market (Australia). The impact of home market, host market and parent bank characteristics are considered within the frameworks offered by comparative advantage and new trade theories. Parametric distance functions are used to estimate the efficiency of foreign banks in Australia, and the robustness of model specification is tested using both general-to-specific modelling and extreme bounds analysis. It is found that following clients reduces the efficiency of profit creation. Incumbent bank's market share acts as a barrier to entry, while parent bank profits do not improve host nation efficiency. The limited global advantage hypothesis was found to be relevant for banks from the United Kingdom, while banks from the United States were generally less efficient.","PeriodicalId":39659,"journal":{"name":"Banking Law Journal","volume":"84 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86906146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Post scriptum","authors":"A. Kokkinis, A. Miglionico","doi":"10.4324/9781003133636-22","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003133636-22","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39659,"journal":{"name":"Banking Law Journal","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82345493","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
