Entirely true of course

The UK’s top financial regulator has no idea how much money laundering there is in the UK

For money laundering is a crime. Thus, when we find it, it stops. And obviously, the amount that is still going on is that amount which has not been found. It’s inherently unknowable.

Not that that stops the Sage of Ely:

We don’t know because no one asks. And that is because no one wants to know. How do I lnow? Because such fraud would clearly contribute to the tax gap, and HMRC’s simply not interested in finding out the true scale of uncollected tax revenue in the UK. Their attitude then flows through into all other regulators.

This is negligent.

And shocking.

But worse, in my opinion this makes the regulators a party to the crime.

That’s a big accusation. I think it is true.

It’s a crime not to know that which is unknowable.

11 thoughts on “Entirely true of course”

  1. “We don’t know because no one asks. And that is because no one wants to know. How do I lnow?”

    His most Rumsfeldian statement yet.

  2. His most Rumsfeldian statement yet.

    Hardly. Rumsfeld made sense. (I assume you’re referring to his “unknown unknowns” comment, which was perfectly clear to anyone with the capacity for logical thought. So obviously that discounts grauniad readers.)

  3. > The UK’s top financial regulator has no idea how much money laundering there is in the UK

    That’s just wrong. They have estimates. Obviously no exact figure, but a range of probabilities. Something like the German tank problem: how do you count the number of something when you only capture a small amount of it.

  4. This is beyond Rumsfeld and circumlocution.

    It’s even beyond Prescott.

    But moving house can be a confusing business and we know the Profiterole has a strangely compartmentalised mentality where everything makes perfect temporary sense in its own hermetic context.

  5. Andrew M

    Estimates are not what he trades in – He simply asserts figures – look at his calculation of the Tax Gap – put together on the back of a Fag packet (one of the ones with the warnings and visual images) it rapidly becomes, at least in his fevered mind, accepted fact. Furthermored anyone who questions either his competence or his methods is either a ‘neoliberal troll’ or ‘at the margins of the debate’, the epicentre of which is him. It’s a debating technique you can see in Archive Pathe newsreel footage from the 1930s focused on a certain European Country (or perhaps two)

  6. “We don’t know because no one asks.”

    Who would you ask? And how would you know the answer is correct?

    “Ding dong! Excuse me, how much money are you laundering?”

  7. jgh

    People do ask.

    “Excuse me sir, is that money laundering?”
    “I’m afraid that we cannot accept your explanation”
    “You’re nicked sonny”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *