The London Anti-Corruption Summit May 2016
| Date | 03 October 2016 |
| Published date | 03 October 2016 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-08-2016-0051 |
| Pages | 674-677 |
| Author | Chizu Nakajima |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & Finance,Financial risk/company failure,Financial crime |
Editorial
The London Anti-Corruption Summit May 2016
Just before the EU Referendum in June 2016 and the resulting Brexit uncertainties
engulfed the UK, under the Premiership of David Cameron, the Anti-Corruption
Summit, praised to be the rst of its kind, gathered world leaders and
representatives of business and civil society in London in May 2016. The summit
brought to the fore “tackling corruption” (Anti-Corruption Summit|London, 2016,
para. 2) as a global agenda, as the summit participants agreed “a package of
practical steps”(Anti-Corruption Summit, 2016) to expose corruption; punish the
perpetrators and support those who are affected; and drive out the culture of
corruption wherever it exists (Global Declaration Against Corruption, 2016). The
Summit communiqué links anti-corruption efforts directly to Goal 16 of the United
Nation’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, whose Target 16.5 is to
“substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms” and Target 16.4 is to
“strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of
organised crime”. The subsequent Global Declaration Against Corruption,
published on 15 May 2016 urges everyone to overcome corruption to “end poverty,
promote prosperity and defeat terrorism and extremism” (Global Declaration
Against Corruption, 2016) on the basis that corruption is at the heart of the world’s
many problems.
As for the ways to intensify the ght against corruption, the Summit Communiqué
emphasises on the need for governments to work together and for them to work with
business and civil society (Anti-Corruption Summit|London, 2016). Paragraph 14 of the
Summit Communiqué afrms the resolve to “increase international transparency on tax
and to deter tax evasion and other tax crimes and to prevent individuals from concealing
proceeds of crime, including corruption in other jurisdiction”, thereby linking the ght
against corruption to the various international initiatives already taken in regards to tax
matters. It recognises the contribution that “efcient and transparent tax systems can
make to national and global efforts to challenge corruption” and endorses the
implementation of the common reporting standards (CRS) on automatic exchange of
information.
As the present writer has observed elsewhere (Nakajima, 2016), what has laid the
foundation for the development of “information sharing” between tax authorities, which
has been endorsed by the G8 nations, are the information disclosure and sharing
mechanisms that have been established worldwide through the introduction and
implementation of anti-money laundering (AML) and combating the nancing of
terrorism (CFT) regimes[1]. The issues are intrinsically linked, as the laundering process
is a necessary element in tax evasion and also in corruption, which in turn are recognised
as predicate offences of money laundering[2]. Furthermore, there are international
initiatives to facilitate closer co-operation between tax and AML/CFT authorities.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has been
vigorously pursuing various aspects of nancial crime, including money laundering,
tax evasion and corruption. The international ght against corruption began in earnest
with the adoption in 1997 of the OECD Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign
Public Ofcials in International Business Transactions. This was followed by the
JFC
23,4
674
Journalof Financial Crime
Vol.23 No. 4, 2016
pp.674-677
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1359-0790
DOI 10.1108/JFC-08-2016-0051
To continue reading
Request your trial