A tale of two cities!
Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Financial Crime, Volume 19, Issue 1
At the 29th International Symposium on Economic Crime (Cambridge, 4-11 September 2011) among the 400 or so speakers Professor Peter Nolan, of the University of Cambridge and one of the world’s leading authorities on the Chinese economy, delivered an exemplary paper addressing the issue whether the People’s Republic of China is in fact engaged in buying up the world, or whether the truth is that the west is acquiring China. The evidence that he presented clearly indicated the latter and put a serious question mark against the widely held perception of China’s inevitable progress to domination beyond the developing world. That China is in fact, in many ways, still firmly within the third world is perhaps best demonstrated by the character of its contribution to international co-operation in fighting serious crime and in particular economic crime.
That China takes economic crime seriously cannot be doubted. Indeed, history records that those who cause embarrassment to those who run the economy have always come to a sticky end! Of course, the reconciliation of the tenets of the Chinese Communist Party to the new market-based economy – manifestly fuelled by greed, requires a degree of sophistry that only the most optimistic hope to achieve. However, China has certainly embarked on a series of costly,albeit somewhat cosmetic initiatives, for example, to promote co-operation in fighting corruption. The launch at great expense in Beijing of the International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities, the presidency and administration of which China keeps a tight reign on, is a good example of this. Of course, behind the scenes the reality is rather less impressive. The Association is still regarded with a degree of caution by a number of inter-governmental agencies and most Western governments.
Chinese initiatives have not been helped by a series of “own goals”involving, often for internal political reasons – mostly associated with petty rivalries, the embarrassment of senior justice officials “disappearing”,being suspended and even pursued by various arms of the state and party. For example, over the last five years the Chinese official delegation to the Cambridge Symposium, has either disappeared completely or appeared albeit transiently – en route to somewhere else (in two occasions the Lake District!) this is sad and does little to dispel the propaganda of some, that China is still not ready to take its place as a real player in combating serious international crime. Any one who has in fact had the privilege, as I have, of working closely with senior officials of, for example, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate or the Public Security Bureau, appreciates that the image often created by such ambiguous conduct, does not in reality reflect the commitment and competence of many in China. Where, however, senior Chinese officials and even the prime minister are allowed to be hosted and escorted on foreign visits,by individuals who have been convicted of money laundering and are currently facing charges in the British courts related to alleged organised crime, the judgement of those responsible must be questioned.
On the other hand – and not wishing to fall into yet another pit of controversy, it is in fact the case that Taiwan has long achieved credibility in its commitment to international co-operation in fighting crime, albeit often bereft of the diplomatic mechanisms and procedures which have increasingly placed international mutual assistance in criminal matters in a straight jacket. One tiny, but indicative manifestation of this commitment was the much deserved award, at the Symposium, of the highest Presidential medal to the Chairman Mr Saul Froomkin QC – who among many other major contributions over the last 40 years to fighting international economic crime played such a significant role in the founding of this journal.
Barry Rider
