It would be nice to think of bank employees deployed to fight financial crime as super-effective old-school gumshoes, with a bottle of bourbon in the bottom drawer and an inexhaustible stock of one-liners, but in reality their jobs are more like something from ‘The Office’ than ‘The Big Sleep’.

Thousands of people sit in cubicles in Warsaw or Bengaluru, checking through transactions flagged as possibly abnormal by banks’ automated systems, and confirming that 99% of them are, in fact, normal. Anything that might conceivably be abnormal gets sent up the chain, where someone more senior will almost certainly decide it wasn’t. 

It is a ruinously expensive process and, as far as we can tell, completely ineffective. The best estimates we have for the size of the criminal economy suggest it has grown, untroubled, along with everything else for decades despite all the laws, fines, and prosecutions that we’ve thrown at the problem. 

But banks’ financial crime compliance isn’t about stopping financial crime at all: it’s about stopping banks from being fined, as Standard Chartered has previously been, enormous sums in both the U.S. and the UK. As long as banks can be sure that AI checks boxes in ways that satisfy regulators, then they’ll be happy.

This is a little bit worrying because AI is already getting very good at fraud. I am very alert to attempts to trick me but was sufficiently fooled by an AI email yesterday to forward it on to someone. Fortunately, a very similar one arrived (purportedly from someone else) a few minutes later, alerting me to my mistake. Money laundering is a laborious activity and criminal gangs will be as keen as banks to cut their back office expenditure, and AI could help automate the processing of the many small transactions that add up to a large amount of money. Phishing and smurfing are just a couple of its use cases, however.

“Scammers can leverage AI to scrape data from social media and dating platforms to identify vulnerable targets (e.g. lonely individuals, recent retirees, or people interested in finance) for pig butchering scams,” notes TRM Labs. “Bots can sustain long-term, emotionally persuasive conversations without tiring or making mistakes, making the scam more scalable.”

And that’s before you get onto AI’s ability to exploit cryptocurrencies and smart contracts to really start rampaging through the crypto world. “TRM observed a roughly 500% increase in AI-enabled scam activity over the past year. The convergence of generative AI, programmable financial infrastructure, and global crypto liquidity has altered the economics, velocity, and scalability of fraud,” the blockchain analytics firm said in a follow-up report. This is very bad indeed.

So, although I can see why people are annoyed that Withers referred to his bank’s employees in such a disparaging way, I am more troubled that he’s planning to replace them with AI, rather than to retain them and train them in how to counter it.

It was remarkable, however, to see Warren Davidson, chair of the illicit finance subcommittee at the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, draw precisely the wrong conclusion from all this. Although he was correct in condemning the defensive nature of compliance, and its focus on generating paperwork over results, he then got lost in praising the White House’s decisions to attack corporate transparency legislation.

"As we focus on risk, we must also ensure that tools like artificial intelligence are fully deployed to counter the AI-enabled crimes of today,” he said, without realising that, without reliable information to train the AI models on, this is as useless an approach as the one he says has failed. If you don’t know who owns what, neither will a computer, no matter how cleverly it can pretend to be human.

I sincerely hope he listened to the testimony of Carole House of the Atlantic Council who forcefully pointed out the harm to national security and to ordinary Americans caused by the United States’ failure to create even an approximation of a decent corporate registry, as well as the historic idiocy of its current crypto policy. “Without a secure identity foundation, AI agents will simply scale up fraud at a speed and volume that human investigators can't possibly track, destroying trust in the whole system,” she said in testimony that I highly recommend you take a look at.

I very much doubt Davidson was listening, however, because that is not the direction the Republican Party is going in right now. I would write more about that, but frankly it’s all too depressing, and I’d rather move on.

So let me point you towards this excellent paper on how online scam marketplaces work, with criminals using the messaging app Telegram and the stablecoin Tether to launder hundreds of billions of dollars. It argues that our current approach of sanctioning exchanges is futile since their owners just shut them down and switch to a new platform that works in the same way but hasn’t yet been sanctioned.

“As long as the underlying digital infrastructure remains permissive, criminal syndicates will simply migrate to new channels. To move from reactive disruption to systemic prevention, the international community must shift its focus toward the structural enablers of these marketplaces,” Elliptic’s Tom Robinson argues. Elliptic is unusual among blockchain analytics companies in being willing to name Tether as a major vector for money launderers. Its rivals tend to just say “stablecoins,” I have no idea why.

Meanwhile, there is something grimly depressing about the fact that — against the backdrop of, well, everything — the UK has postponed June’s illicit finance summit due to “scheduling issues in the international calendar.” Everyone is so busy dealing with the consequences of illicit finance, that no one has time to talk about illicit finance.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post AI is not the answer to AI-enabled fraud appeared first on Coda Story.

“Reducing smoking and improving diet and physical activity can delay the onset of illness and improve day-to-day wellbeing,” notes this extremely commonsensical analysis from the UK healthcare think tank The Health Foundation. “Secure work, good-quality housing and supportive local environments all influence physical and mental health.”

Being unhealthy is just terrible in all ways, and the problem is clearly getting worse, so you would expect the disrupters of our new economy to be finding ways to respond to this challenge. And at first glance, the Sam Altman-backed Retro Biosciences — with its focus on targeting “aging mechanisms to increase healthy lifespan” — looks promising. So does Altos Labs, with its mission to reverse “disease, injury, and the disabilities that can occur throughout life.” And there’s Saudi Arabia’s Hevolution, which is catalysing “the shift from lifespan to healthspan.”

And that’s before we get to the start-ups operating in a “free city” off the coast of Honduras, which has the brave approach of basically letting people do whatever medical research they like (“Prospera is a unique place where we can do such things,” says one businessman) to help drive progress towards an illness-free future.

But don’t get your hopes up. They’re not looking at ways to help people to get vaccinated, eat healthily, stop smoking or do more exercise. Instead, they’re working on gene therapy, stem cells, and other extremely expensive treatments that will only benefit people who can afford them, and who are thus already likely to be doing well. In the UK meanwhile, Genflow is also aiming to slow the ageing process in dogs, to make sure the super-rich aren’t left without their pets in this artificially prolonged future.

It’s tempting to see this as a metaphor for late-stage capitalism in the West, with its focus on the needs of the few (and their pets) rather than of society as a whole, except that we’re seeing a similar pattern in other places too. In Russia, Moscovites live longer than people from the provinces (although the picture is complicated by the relatively good health of the non-drinkers from Muslim regions), so you would have expected Vladimir Putin to be concerned about how to close that gap. But when he was chatting with Xi Jinping last year in China (where inequality has also harmed health), they were instead more focused on how to live forever. 

“Human organs can be continuously transplanted, and people can live younger and younger, and even achieve immortality,” Putin said. (Three important questions: firstly, does this mean he will be president of Russia literally forever, the world’s first un-dead head of state? Secondly, are they farming people as a source of organs for him? Thirdly, does he really believe this?)

“This century, there's a chance of also living to 150,” replied Xi, who could — under that scenario — rule China for another 77 years, which is longer than he’s been alive, by which time his nation’s population could well, according to UN estimates, have halved.

I, for one, wouldn’t mind having a vote on whether this is a future I want to be a part of.

An insider betting scam

Here’s a fascinating piece of research from the Anti-Corruption Data Collective about prediction markets, looking at how often “long shot” bets on military and security matters pay off compared to what you would expect: fully 52% succeed, compared to only 14% across Polymarket as a whole.

“Government officials and members of our military being able to turn a profit on insider information incentivises corrosive corruption in public office and undermines national security,” notes David Szakonyi, Co-Founder of the Anti-Corruption Data Collective.

The analysis follows the indictment of a U.S. serviceman who made $400,000 betting on the bid to capture Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, with 13 “yes” wagers on various aspects of the operation in December and January. And that was only a comparatively small military campaign. Just imagine how much money privileged insiders could have made in the past, if only they’d had access to prediction markets before D-Day, before the first nuclear bomb test, or before the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo.

I really enjoyed this recent episode of Planet Money about prediction markets, particularly with its clear explanation that — like so much “financial innovation” of the past — they’ve not invented anything new at all; they’ve just found a clever way around regulations that previously stopped people making bets in this way.

There is fierce competition between the two leading players — Kalshi and Polymarket — although they have common ground in one area: they both employ Donald Trump Jr.

Trump sues his own government

There are so many things happening in the United States at the moment that it’s hard to keep track, but I did like this analysis from David Allen Green of a particularly strange lawsuit, in which President Trump is suing the federal government for $10 billion. The judge is, unsurprisingly, concerned about a situation where the president is basically suing himself, and wants more information about how that’s going to work.

This could, however, be a whole new money-making front for the first family, and why should the Trumps stop at just $10 billion? They could presumably take the government for every penny it’s got. I’m amazed no one has done this before.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Why Trump-backer Justin Sun is suing the Trumps’ firm

Oliver Bullough

Can a Task Force set up to punish the little guy, take on Trump?

Oliver Bullough

Making corruption great again

Oliver Bullough

The post Wealth is health, Insider betting & Trump will see himself in court appeared first on Coda Story.

It starts with a simple search term in the Department of Justice’s Epstein Library. “Blue eyes.” Hundreds of results. Jeffrey Epstein’s international trafficking agents send him pictures and descriptions of blue-eyed young girls: potential victims to be dispatched to his various homes. “I spotted two skinny blond blue eyes 21 years old ladies in Monaco last weekend and asked them for CVs,” one agent, whose name has been redacted, wrote. “Trying her best to move from her small town to Moscow; English isn't great. Could be fun for Paris, blue eyes,” wrote another. “Can't understand if her breast is real. Otherwise very pretty and sweet…Very blue eyes as we like.” 

One of Epstein’s victims wrote of being chosen for her eye color in a journal entry later shared with federal prosecutors. "Superior gene pool?!? Why me?" she wrote, describing Epstein's worldview as "Nazi like." "It makes no sense. Why my hair color and eye color?" 

Epstein — himself blue-eyed — seemed to prefer both his victims, and the people he bankrolled, to have blue eyes. “All of my fundees have blue eyes,” he boasted in one email. In the entryway of his Manhattan townhouse, he displayed dozens of prosthetic eyeballs in a frame. Epstein made notes and sent article links to his contacts asking if having blue eyes meant you were more intelligent or a “genius”. He even had a list of scientists and tech leaders with blue eyes — including Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Google’s Ray Kurzweil. “Total — 70 people Blue eyes — 41 Unclear (might be blue, but not 100% sure)” the list says. Appearing in the files — whether on this list or elsewhere in Epstein's records — does not connote legal wrongdoing.

Going deeper into the files, Epstein and his network of contacts discussed beliefs about how physical characteristics and race might denote intelligence. They exchanged emails about population control. They spoke of engineering women’s sex drives, building designer babies, and living in a world full of superintelligent humans that could merge with robots. They spoke of getting rid of the elderly, the infirm, and the poor.

The files offer a glimpse into a world where ideas about eugenics and race science have never gone away. On the contrary, they run through our elite universities, through the most powerful companies in Silicon Valley, and through the tech industry itself. Epstein’s was an exclusive club that counted among its members people who harbor dreams of re-engineering human minds and bodies, seizing control of our collective future, and building technology that, they hope, will one day merge with — or even replace — all of us.

In 2002, two decades before the launch of ChatGPT, Epstein hosted an Artificial Intelligence summit on his Caribbean island. In the years that followed, he cultivated close, regular contact with a network of  (predominantly male) scientists, researchers, academics and tech leaders working at the vanguard of AI, biotech, genetics and cognitive science, meeting them at universities like Harvard and at his various homes. 

In August 2018, a year before Epstein was found dead in his jail cell, he was in email correspondence with software consultant and bitcoin investor Bryan Bishop about funding a project to create “designer babies” — children with genes cherrypicked for their looks, health, strength, immune systems, sleep needs and even, in Bishop’s imaginings, abilities to live on a different planet. 

  “Attached is the doc you requested, it's the "use of funds" spreadsheet for the designer baby and human cloning company,” Bishop wrote to Epstein. “This gets us out of our self-funded ‘garage biology’ phase to the first live birth of a human designer baby, and possibly a human clone, within 5 years. Once we reach the first birth, everything changes and the world will never be the same again.”

Bishop went on to discuss how his ultimate ambition was to make “practically unlimited modifications to the cells before generating an embryo.”

In response to a request for comment, Bishop sent Coda a publicly available set of answers to frequently asked questions about designer babies.

“The reason people have an aversion to eugenics, and rightfully so, is because countries used genocide and sterilization to prevent reproduction by populations that they didn’t like. We have no intention of doing anything of the sort,” Bishop writes in the public FAQ. “‘Designer baby’ simply describes a child whose genome has been intentionally altered or chosen by their parents, rather than left entirely to the genetic lottery of natural conception.”

“It’s such a great subject,” Epstein responded after he read Bishop’s proposal. “We need to get a read on legal. Can’t do anything where US rules apply to US citizens regardless of where [they are].” 

Building a super-race of humans, and parachuting humanity into a different evolutionary era — or even obsoleting the human race as we know it — is a running theme in the Epstein files, and an increasingly prominent ambition for tech evangelists today.

“It’s eugenics all the way down,” said Jacob Metcalf, a founding partner at Ethical Resolve, a consulting firm working with tech companies to develop their ethics protocols. A common fantasy in tech circles, he said, is “to essentially control human destiny. And a lot of the times that human destiny is for humans to be replaced. That's the really bleak thing here. What could be more eugenic than getting rid of humans.”

In 2008, Epstein began conversations with the computer scientist Ben Goertzel. Over the years, Epstein would send Goertzel more than $360,000 to fund the researcher’s plans to build towards Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), a term Goertzel himself popularized.

“I remain eager to move forward on working together to accelerate progress toward a human-obsoleting thinking machine,” Goertzel wrote to Epstein in May 2008. Eighteen years on, and the idea of obsoleting humans with artificial intelligence is widely discussed in the tech world.

When asked to comment on his exchange with Epstein, Goertzel told Coda: “I do think we will create forms of transhuman intelligence going beyond the scope of humanity as we know it, but I also very much hope and envision a strong role for humans even after this happens.”

Goertzel went on to describe a future where the world reaches the “Singularity” — a Silicon Valley buzzword signifying a tipping point where AI surpasses human intelligence. “I do think AI will eventually gain its own superhuman autonomy, but I think this can happen in a way that respects and nourishes human life rather than being harmful to it,” he said. “Epstein and I discussed this face to face a few times and indeed I was a bigger fan of the human species than he was, and more optimistic about its flourishing post-Singularity.” 

In an email to Epstein, Goertzel laid out a scenario where AI systems would start running their own economic activity. He envisioned this Artificial Intelligence economy acting as a “parasite to overcome the regular human economy” that would eventually “gain its own superhuman autonomy.” The ideas Epstein and Goertzel exchanged mirror a broader conversation unfolding in the tech world that imagines a future where ultimately, human labour could be rendered superfluous, and ultimately be replaced by artificial intelligence and robots.

Together, Goertzel and Epstein also discussed modifying human brains — a concept popular in Silicon Valley today, where numerous brain-computer projects are researching ways to cognitively enhance the human brain, and alter human personality, memory, and mental capabilities.

In 2008, when Epstein told Goertzel he was “off to jail” for a year, after he was convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution, Goertzel suggested the solution to his problems might one day be solved if human brains could be re-programmed.

“According to my understanding, the girls you were involved with were old enough to know what they were doing, so society really has no ‘moral right’ to lock you up,” Goertzel wrote to Epstein. “This is a fucked-up society we live in. But past ones have really been no better -- the fault is really w/ the human brain architecture, which is precisely what I'm aiming to supercede in my AGI work.”

When asked to comment on these remarks — and in particular the implication that Epstein’s problems might be solved if his accusers' brains were one day re-engineered — Goertzel told Coda: “This was a general observation that the messed-up nature of our society generally is rooted in the way our brains have evolved... and that advanced tech will let us modify our brains to make ourselves and thus our society better.  There was no implication intended (nor stated) that women’s brains are any more or less messed up or in need of improvement than men’s.”

Goertzel reflected that his comments on Epstein’s victims being “old enough” were “regrettable and unfortunate in hindsight,” adding that his impression was that Epstein had been involved with adult women, not “disgustingly curating high school students for sexual purposes. I should have paid more attention.” 

In 2013, three and a half years after Epstein was released from jail, Goertzel approached Epstein for funding to build a “toddler robot”. Given Epstein’s criminal history of abusing minors, this has inevitably attracted attention online. “When we were discussing measuring the IQ of robot toddlers, the topic was never sexualized in any way,” Goertzel told Coda when asked about the project. “While I had nothing to do with Epstein's perverse sexual tastes or abuse of women, what I have read about his awful doings in the newspapers relates to his interest in teenage girls not toddlers.”

Epstein was particularly interested in funding projects that built — like Goertzel’s –- on transhumanist theories. Transhumanism is a worldview that captivates many of the most prominent tech leaders in Silicon Valley today. It believes in a future when the human body can be endlessly altered, genetically engineered, and ultimately fused with artificial intelligence. 

“Transhumanism is a much more radical concept than eugenics,” explained Timnit Gebru, a computer scientist and researcher who has written extensively about eugenicist ideas within artificial intelligence. “In eugenics, you're trying to create a more superior human by breeding humans through generations. In transhumanism, you're trying to get rid of humans altogether.”

For transhumanists, she added, “their idea is to get rid of any undesirable properties they see with humans."

Perhaps the most well-known proponent of transhumanism in the Epstein files is Peter Thiel.

“I think you would prefer the human race to endure, right?” New York Times journalist Ross Douthat asked Thiel last year. “Uh—,” Thiel said. “This is a long hesitation!” Douthat said. “Should the human race survive?” “Yes, but I would like us to radically solve these problems,” Thiel said. “We want you to be able to change your heart and change your mind and change your whole body.”

Thiel’s name appears in the files more than 2000 times, and Epstein reportedly invested some $40 million into Valar Ventures, a firm co-founded by Thiel. The two spoke of building secret societies and shared an interest in transhumanism and cryogenics — Epstein wanted to freeze his brain and penis when he died, so that one day he could be revived, while Thiel has also stated his body will be frozen after his death. 

They also appeared to share an interest in bringing an end to the democratic systems of today, imagining a different system altogether. Epstein, for his part, spent his life puppeteering the most powerful people in the world and undermining democratic systems. Thiel, meanwhile, first expressed his own anti-democratic views in 2009 when he wrote: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,” adding that since women were allowed to vote, the notion of a capitalist democracy became impossible. When the Brexit vote came through, Epstein wrote to Thiel: “Brexit, just the beginning.” Thiel asked — “of what”; Epstein said – “Return to tribalism, counter to globalization, amazing new alliances.” 

Globalization — and the idea of internationally powerful governing bodies — is a worldview that both Epstein and Thiel seemed to distrust. In March, in a palazzo in Rome, a stone’s throw from the Vatican, Thiel gave one of his infamous lectures in which he espoused his views about an “antichrist” that gets in the way of technological progress. This antichrist, he suggested, could be an internationally powerful body; the product of globalization. I stood outside the palace as attendees — priests, students, researchers — mutely hurried out, refusing to speak to the cluster of reporters waiting for Thiel’s black Mercedes. 

“He has a totally irrational side, which lives on fear, of what danger might happen,” one audience member told me of Thiel on condition of anonymity, recalling how, up close, Thiel looked haunted and ill. “His head is full of future scenarios, which is what’s killing him. I think he’s scared.”

Thiel did not respond to multiple requests for comment. 

Epstein didn’t confine himself to lofty conversations about a future collapse of the global order or re-engineering humanity. He also had ambitions for his own personal eugenics project. In 2019, it emerged that he wanted to seed the world with his DNA — and reportedly have 20 women impregnated at a time at Zorro ranch, his New Mexico property.

Epstein tried to recruit Virginia Giuffre for this very project. He “fantasized about improving the human race by fathering children who carried his superior genes,” she recounted in her memoir, published posthumously late last year.  “He’d talk about using his Zorro ranch as a literal breeding ground to propagate babies.” When Giuffre was 18 years old, she recalled, Epstein asked if she would carry his child and hand over all legal rights to it – “like a modern-day handmaid.”

In a haunting diary entry from another Epstein victim, written between the ages of 16 and 17 and shared with federal prosecutors, a girl describes being told she will be sent to Zorro ranch — possibly to participate in the very same project. “Go to New Mexico? What in the hell? This makes no sense. What about school?” she writes, describing how Epstein chose her for her hair color and eye color, and tried to convince her she would create “perfect offspring.”

The teenager chronicles her pregnancy, pasting a sonogram into the scrapbook, before giving a traumatic account of giving birth with Ghislaine Maxwell beside her. “Ghislaine said to push all the pain away. I don't understand. Blood and water all over the bed.” As the baby was born, she writes, Maxwell covered her eyes. “I saw between her fingers this tiny head and body in the doctors hands.”

The girl describes hearing the baby’s “tiny cries” before “they took her.”

“I’m nothing but your property and incubator,” the teenager writes of Epstein. The diary is a terrifying piece of evidence that appears to link to Epstein’s longstanding fixation with creating genetically bespoke humans. The diary author’s lawyers, Wigdor LLP, declined to comment.   

Epstein’s fever-dreams of creating an army of children carrying specific genes reflect a broader trend of “pronatalism” — a movement historically tied to eugenics — that’s thriving in Silicon Valley.

 Millions of dollars of funding are currently being poured into projects creating “superbabies,” while billionaire tech oligarchs including Elon Musk — whose name appears more than 1000 times in the files — reportedly want to use surrogates “to reach legion-level before the apocalypse.” Musk did not respond to requests for comment.

In the files, women appear either as victims, as objects, or as vessels for genetic engineering experiments. They are an inconvenient reality, people to be controlled and re-booted. Epstein wrote a 2013 email implying that women “are like shrimp. You throw away the head and keep the body.” 

“The obsession with "artificial" life appears tied to a masculine desire to try control the production of life – ultimately ridding themselves of their dependency on women," said Gabriella Razzano, Co-Founder of OpenUp, a social impact tech lab based in Cape Town, who is also a senior advisor at the African AI Observatory. “I think there is important work to be done on tying the narratives that are very revealing in the Epstein files to understand how, and why, technology is being developed as it is.” 

The trading of ideas about intelligence — both artificial and human — takes a particularly sinister turn in a 2016 exchange between Epstein and the cognitive scientist and AI researcher Joscha Bach, whose research Epstein funded to the tune of $300,000.

Bach writes to Epstein about a study claiming that “black children outperform white children in motor development, even in very poor and socially disadvantaged households, but they lag behind (and never catch up) in cognitive development even after controlling for family income.”

Epstein responds with racist ideas about his notion of how to “make blacks smarter”, adding — “maybe climate change is a good way of dealing with overpopulation. The Earth’s forest fire. Potentially a good thing for the species,” before contemplating a world with “too many people,” where “many mass executions of the elderly and infirm make sense.” 

Epstein then imagines creating a future “Übermensch” — a superior human with cherry-picked attributes. “What I like is the idea that ubermensch could be the melding of humans, put together in one brain,” Epstein writes. This bespoke human, he suggests, would include traits from marginalized groups, who he appears to believe have a stronger awareness of how to navigate power structures because of their historical exclusion. “An increased motor system, an increased awareness, an increased status calculator (Blacks, jews, women). Ubermensch could be the combination of the best of humans, not the best of a specific race or gender. Fun idea.” 

Bach told Coda in a statement: “I was summarizing a scientific study in a private email. Studies like this get often abused in ideological discourse to justify discrimination, which I strongly oppose and condemn.”

“I am firmly opposed to any form of racial discrimination, and I reject the use of group-level statistical claims to make judgments about individuals or to justify unequal treatment.” 

He continued: “It goes without saying that if global warming were to lead to a reduction in the human population, it would be accompanied by immeasurable suffering. Our civilization would break down, leading to a return to dark ages, in which the elderly and infirm were often killed, because people could not support them, and often did not care about supporting them. Every reasonable person understands that this is horrible and not desirable in any way.”

Epstein “was often callous about human suffering in a way that I found disturbing but worth understanding, as a window into the perspectives of the rich and powerful,” Bach added. 

Alongside Epstein’s conversations about mass executions for the old and and the sick, he was also interested in Silicon Valley’s dream concept of living forever — he had numerous email conversations with the longevity guru Peter Attia about prolonging his own lifespan, and funded a Harvard project geared towards “the end of aging.” In an email to Attia, Epstein mused: “I’m not sure why women live past reproductive age at all.” Attia, who published a statement about his relationship to Epstein, did not respond to requests for comment. 

This interest in “longevity” — living for as long as possible, even living forever, is popular among the elite precisely because they find themselves in an elite class, says David Robert Grimes, a scientist and disinformation expert who has written about longevity and race science in Silicon Valley. “They're both sides of the same coin — the Silicon Valley eugenics, and also the longevity stuff. They promote an idea that ‘we are exclusive and we are special',” he said. "It helps them to justify deep social inequality."

The tech elite did not inherit this ideology by accident. Stanford University, the intellectual heart of Silicon Valley, was once a major hub for the American eugenics movement, which later helped to inspire Nazi race laws. Stanford’s founding president, David Starr Jordan, was a prominent eugenicist, campaigning for forced sterilization of people with undesirable genetic traits. The university removed his name from its buildings in 2020 — but in Palo Alto, his beliefs did not disappear with the nameplate.

"Instead of eugenics we just call it longevity or biohacking," Christopher Wylie, the Cambridge Analytica whistleblower who has spent years investigating Silicon Valley's belief systems, said on a panel with me at a journalism conference last year. "It's the same."

The ideology Epstein bankrolled in private is being built in public. It’s a vision of the future in which a select few get to upgrade and extend their lives, while tightening their grip on the systems that determine which humans are worth investing in — and which are not.

It sounds like a dark sci-fi fantasy, except, as the files show, that fantasy is being funded and pushed into reality. Most of us will never be in the rooms where these ideas are discussed. All of us will live with the results.

Related Articles

The future according to Silicon Valley’s prophets

Isobel Cockerell

Peter Thiel is building a parallel justice system — Powered by AI

Nic Dawes

When I’m 125?

J. Paul Neeley

The post “All my fundees have blue eyes.” Epstein and the tech world’s dark ideology appeared first on Coda Story.

The Netherlands hosts the largest port in Europe, and is therefore home to a vast smuggling industry — Dutch politicians not infrequently warn that it’s becoming a narco-state — which requires an equally vast money laundering industry to service its profits. The Court of Audit set out to check the government’s response to this challenge, concluding that it cost banks €1.6 billion a year. It’s a price tag that has increased by almost 17% between 2021 and 2024, during which time the number of reports the banks’ 13,000 compliance officers made more than doubled.

“We think it is important that these employees make a meaningful societal contribution to preventing and combatting money laundering. There is no evidence that shows that they do,” the report witheringly observes.

The court sent surveys out to “politically-exposed people” (PEP is a jargon term meaning anyone in a position of power, or a close relative or associate) asking about their experiences. One person’s 83-year-old mother was asked to explain the source of an inheritance she received after the PEP applied for a loan. It is an eye-opening section, revealing how process is prioritised over any kind of judgement about where the risk of money laundering genuinely lies, but the real shock is in the section about different religious groups, which shows how the transactions of immigrant-focussed churches and mosques are systematically checked more thoroughly than local Protestant or Catholic congregations.

“A bank told a mosque that it was not possible to collect so much money after a prayer meeting,” the report notes. “The mosque’s trustees said the bank could come and see for itself but the bank declined. Feeling powerless and unable to deposit the money with the bank, the trustees hid it in the mosque.”

Imagine if we had an ongoing health crisis. And imagine that the government had created an expensive, intrusive system to tackle it, which was generating an endlessly increasing amount of paperwork, employing thousands of people and actively discriminating against religious and ethnic minorities. Surely, someone would at least put in the hours to check if the system worked, whether it was making people healthier, and assess therefore whether all these bad side effects were justified? 

With anti-money laundering policy, that is simply not happening. It’s based on faith rather than facts: we just need to do more of the same thing, and eventually we’ll get the results we want; if we don’t, we need to do the same thing even more. Interestingly, Texan judge Jeremy Kernodle — fresh from gutting the Corporate Transparency Act — has returned to the fight against anti-money laundering regulation. He has killed Geographic Targeting Orders, which were supposed to collect information around real estate transactions. “FinCEN’s explanations are vague, conclusory, and unpersuasive,” the court ruled. “The fact that some bad actors have conducted non-financed real estate transactions does not make such transactions categorically ‘suspicious.’”

I’m not saying I agree with Mr. Kernodle, because I don’t, but I don’t think pushback on anti-money laundering orthodoxy is necessarily a bad thing, since it obliges us to think more deeply about what actually works, rather than just going along with ineffective old policies. I hope people outside the Netherlands read the Court of Audit’s report and start wondering whether this approach isn’t long past time for a complete overhaul.

How do you solve a problem like crypto?

It’s quite unusual for there to be a divide in the UK’s anti-corruption community, which tends to agree on technocratic solutions to the problems around illicit finance, but one has emerged around the role of cryptocurrencies in political donations. Spotlight on Corruption doesn’t think the government’s moratorium on crypto donations goes far enough. There needs to be a ban, they argue, in primary legislation with additional safeguards. I agree.

The folks at RUSI, on the other hand, think a moratorium on crypto donations is a better idea since it would prime the country to take regulating cryptocurrencies more seriously, and prepare the way for them to be widespread. Take a look, judge for yourself, and let me know what you think. The difference may reflect deeper and unresolvable political differences in how countries should respond to globalisation, but it’s an interesting one to think about.

One thing I think we all agree on is the need for an urgent overhaul of all rules around electoral finance, while there’s still an honest system to approve them.

On that note, interesting news from Cambodia, which has extradited Li Xiong to China. Xiong, who is accused by governments worldwide of playing a key role in the now-collapsed Huione group, which was laundering money for crime syndicates on an industrial scale, with particular expertise in cryptocurrencies. Of course, the criminals have not stood still and have new markets up and running, but it is striking how quickly the extradition went ahead.

In contrast, the legal proceedings around the mammoth tax fraud exposed two decades ago by Sergei Magnitsky grind tortuously on, with the culprits still safe in Russia. They certainly enjoyed themselves in Europe for a while, however, as a court case in Paris shows. “The spending spree included: €668,517, ($771,703) at a Parisian art and antique gallery; €696,015 ($803,445) across two high-end French women’s fashion brands; €96,814 ($111,757) at a luxury jewellery store in Courchevel, an exclusive ski resort in the French Alps; and €127,182 ($146,813) for a Courchevel tour package.”

There are few things that reveal the moral bankruptcy of the regime in the Kremlin more than this case. It’s not enough that corrupt officials could kill a good man who exposed their $230 million theft from the Russian people, but the Russian state then shielded them while they splashed the loot on European luxury holidays, and continues to do so to this day. 

Nothing on the same scale is happening in the United States of course, but still this analysis of how enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is being politicised is a bit grim: “The transformation of U.S. antibribery tools into economic weapons also threatens to undo the global system the United States helped establish to punish business corruption.”

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

How dodgy digital finance destroys democracy

Oliver Bullough

Our corrupt world, run by oligarchs for oligarchs

Oliver Bullough

Iran’s cryptocurrency enablers

Oliver Bullough

The post The performative war on money laundering appeared first on Coda Story.

So huge kudos to Earth League International for producing a detailed, specific and thoughtful report on how corruption facilitates wildlife crime globally, which is packed full of lessons for the study of corruption in general as well. Corruption is a system, everything is connected. It’s the water in which criminals swim, and it will drown the rest of us if we let it.

Earth League International embeds investigators in corrupt networks all over the world, and reveals how it is so much more than just the “abuse of entrusted power for private gain” and their report quotes multiple specific examples. The choice for an official standing in the way of a Transnational Criminal Organisation (TCO) is not between taking a bribe and being honest, it’s between taking a bribe and having a family member killed. 

“Corruption tilts the playing field of justice by turning some officials or even agencies into additional arms of criminal networks, akin to painting a group of white chess pieces red and then commencing a match, giving the criminal side a decided advantage”, notes the report. And, it adds, “Transnational Criminal Organisations are savvy about which officials they approach, assessing weaknesses such as debt or family ties that may make them more vulnerable to financial offers or threats.”

It estimates the value of global wildlife-related crime at over $1 trillion annually, which is an astonishing amount of money, but an important point to take is that this is not a separate form of corruption. The same border officials that wave through illegal shipments of timber or shark fins also help with other forms of smuggling. The money that criminals funnel into politics undermines democracy in all ways. “Corruption is not the sole purview of less wealthy nations. It is everywhere. During investigations into illegal wildlife trafficking for (traditional Chinese medicine) in Europe, for example, Earth League International found enablers in San Marino, Italy, Belgium, and Poland,” notes the report.

There is something grimly ironic that so much of the despoliation that is making things worse for everyone is driven by the trade in “medicine” and thus a desire to make the world better. In reality, of course, pangolin scales and totoaba swim bladders are no more medicinal than my toenail clippings. Perhaps the ultimate expression of this is the demand for hallucinogenic toad venom, as detailed in this excellent article from a few years ago, which supposedly helps us all access the inner divine, but which is meanwhile wiping out the unfortunate toads that secrete it. “Most harvesters don’t have a consciousness about the sacredness of the species”, said a toad practitioner. “It’s just a hustle business.”

On a more geopolitical and less psychedelic level, this report on how Russia is repurposing its influence networks in Europe so as to maintain its fossil fuel exports show that other forms of corruption have huge environmental impact of their own. “The time for polite half-measures is over. Stronger enforcement, embargoes and tariffs on Russian fossil fuels to cripple exports, personal sanctions, and transparency rules are the only way to dismantle Russia’s covert influence architecture,” it concludes.

I’d add to that: we all need to build renewable energy sources like there’s a war on, because there is, and democracies urgently need to gain the freedom to act independently of autocracies’ control of fossil fuel supplies. You can’t act freely if someone’s hands are around your neck.

So, what’s the answer? As so often with financial crime, it’s possible to be overawed by the scale of the challenge. But the important thing is just to start. Here’s a manifesto from a coalition of British environmental groups, which gives some ideas. I particularly approve of this one: “government should introduce comprehensive protections and safeguards for whistleblowers, followed by financial incentives, to enable whistleblowers to disclose evidence of corruption and money laundering”.

Of course, corrupt officials are not just standing still while we agonise about how to stop them. I am particularly alarmed by the potential appeal of modern prediction markets for allowing politicians, military officers or anyone to profit from their privileged access to advance knowledge of government actions. Here’s a remarkable story about how people betting on the specific details of the Iran War sent death threats to a Times of Israel journalist whose reporting threatened to lose them a wager.

U.S. lawmakers have introduced a bill, the BETS OFF Act, for which acronym they deserve credit — to crack down on the markets that encourage this kind of behaviour, which was also observed in the hours leading up to the U.S. attack on Venezuela. “There’s no getting around the fact that any prediction market where somebody knows or controls the outcome of a bet is ripe for corruption,” said Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. “When events that involve good and evil, life and death become just another financial product, morality no longer matters and the soul of America is fundamentally corrupted.” 

On that note, I see that someone is trying to juice the price of the $TRUMP memecoin by inviting its biggest holders to dinner at Mar-a-Lago, apparently with a speech by President Donald Trump (or whoever that is in the decidedly weird picture accompanying the announcement — Nigel Farage in a blond wig?), and an exclusive audience for the 29 biggest holders. The president, should he attend, will not, however, be accepting gifts, which is a weight off my mind. I had been worrying that this whole event was a bit dodgy.

The announcement of the event did boost the price of the $TRUMP tokens, as presumably did the announcement that Tether head Paolo Ardoino would be the headlining speaker, a remarkable turnaround for someone whose company was, just 18 months ago, having to vehemently deny it was the subject of a Department of Justice probe. Whether corruption will continue to be seriously investigated and punished, in a newly transactional world order, remains to be seen. The signs, though, are not promising.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Iran’s cryptocurrency enablers

Oliver Bullough

Can a Task Force set up to punish the little guy, take on Trump?

Oliver Bullough

Making corruption great again

Oliver Bullough

The post Our corrupt world, run by oligarchs for oligarchs appeared first on Coda Story.

But to get the real headliner, we need to drop down to number 17 where we find Changpeng Zhao ($110 billion, since you ask), founder of cryptocurrency exchange Binance and business partner of the Trump family’s own crypto firm. Centibillionaires are old hat now but CZ is, as far as I can tell, the first centibillionaire on the Forbes list to have been pardoned by the U.S. president for egregious financial criminality. That feels like quite a big deal so congratulations to him.

CZ’s pardon last October was, according to the White House, because his 2023 plea deal and $4.3 billion fine for enabling money laundering on an industrial scale were the result of “an overly prosecuted case by the Biden administration” and part of a war on cryptocurrency.

Awkwardly for all concerned, Binance is now suing the Wall Street Journal after it reported that $1 billion had moved through the company to Iran-backed terror groups. And the Wall Street Journal has not only declined to spike the story, it has doubled down by reporting that the Justice Department is now investigating the firm’s actions. “The Wall Street Journal couldn’t determine whether the Justice Department is investigating Binance itself for potential misconduct, or solely the customers on its platform,” the WSJ said. But either way, considering the White House has committed to wiping out Iran’s support of terror groups and upended the global energy markets in its quest to do so, the news reports alleging that CZ’s company enabled those same groups would surely be embarrassing for all concerned, were any of them the kind of people capable of embarrassment.

After all, the fact that Iran is using crypto on a huge scale to evade the sanctions placed on its activities, and to support foreign proxies like Hezbollah, with the active connivance of some of the biggest companies in the crypto world, could only be a surprise to the most witlessly incurious of numbskulls. Or perhaps, I suppose, they are all making so much money from crypto that they don’t care who else might be.

While we’re on the subject of Trump, he’s at No. 640 on the list of billionaires as I write this, nearly tripling his wealth in just the last two years. Forbes has this very apropos explanation: “Donald Trump has presided over the most lucrative presidency in American history, adding billions to his net worth, largely by cashing in on crypto.” 

But, I hear you ask, what about non-billionaires? How are the few billion of us whose net worth isn’t counted in the billions doing? Well, not great. And I’m beginning to feel a bit concerned about what this all means for democracy. “The widening gap between the rich and the rest is at the same time creating a political deficit that is highly dangerous and unsustainable,” said Oxfam International Executive Director Amitabh Behar back in January, and the situation has gotten worse since then.

The Bank of England’s animal stories 

I spend a lot of time at the moment talking in public about money laundering because of my new book. Top of my list for policy suggestions for tackling financial crime, if anyone were to ask, is that governments should stop printing large denomination bills: $100 bills, €200 notes or — worst of all — Switzerland’s colossal 1,000-france banknote are little used by ordinary people, but extremely helpful for criminals looking to transport large amounts of wealth in a small space.

So, in one way it was great that Britain was temporarily convulsed by controversy around banknotes last week. It’s high time we talked more about them. Could this spell the end of the UK’s own big bill: the £50, of which the Bank of England issued almost an extra 30 million last year, even though pretty much the only people that ever use them are criminals and tax dodgers? Would Britain finally get serious about ending the epidemic of financial crime?

No, of course not, the controversy was entirely about the Bank of England’s decision to replace the pictures of people on its next series of banknotes with pictures of animals. For some reason, badgers were mentioned. Also otters. “It says all you need to know about the lack of seriousness of the Bank,” said former business secretary Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, without any apparent irony, considering his own spectacular lack of seriousness in agreeing to comment on this absurdly unserious confection.

A sledgehammer that cracks nuts

While researching the anti-money laundering system that has grown over the last few decades, I have come to find it strange that there isn’t more public disquiet over the powers that governments have awarded themselves to check ordinary people’s transactions. When there is concern, it tends to come from crypto/libertarian bores (the kind of people who talk about ‘Operation Choke Point 2.0’), so perhaps no one else wants to be associated with it. But I think the situation would be a bit healthier if more of us engaged with what is being done to us in ways that we can get.

I obviously think that tackling money laundering is of huge importance, but I am coming round to the view that more public pushback over exactly how that is being done would be good. It would force policymakers to justify what they’re doing, and therefore come up with some techniques that actually work, instead of the ineffective but intrusive mess we have at the moment.

To cut a long story short, I found this contribution from the Dutch non-profit organisation ‘Privacy First’ to be interesting. “Instead of managing risk, banks seek to eliminate it by withdrawing altogether from customers or sectors perceived as problematic. The burden of compliance and over-enforcement often falls not on criminals, but on already marginalised communities with limited access to remedies,” it says.

I agree with that, and I agree also with its argument that beneficial ownership transparency should not be absolute. Were there to be opt-outs from ownership registries for vulnerable people, there would be less scope for rich crooks to argue that shell company transparency is a violation of their human rights. 

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Why Kleptocrats go to war without a care in the world

Oliver Bullough

Can a Task Force set up to punish the little guy, take on Trump?

Oliver Bullough

Why the law lets financial criminals off the hook

Oliver Bullough

The post Iran’s cryptocurrency enablers appeared first on Coda Story.

If it is extracting wealth, hiding that wealth offshore and thus secure in its future, it is able to take risks and make decisions without concerning itself about their effect on ordinary people. “While ordinary Iranians contend with a collapsing currency, rising prices, fuel shortages and now war, elites like (Hossein) Shamkhani have translated political lineage into global capital — buying property abroad, securing foreign passports and moving freely through systems that everyday citizens cannot enter,” Bloomberg notes.

Much of the elite’s ability to enrich itself has come from its evasion of Western sanctions, which Iranians have had decades of practice in learning how to dodge. And the role of cryptocurrencies in enabling Iran’s kleptocrats is clearly significant, as demonstrated by this report from Chainalysis. But of course the backbone of the corruption has been the elite’s control over trade, and thus its ability to move value to safe havens like Dubai (that’s not looking as safe as it did of course but, don’t worry, the money can easily find a new home), which gives it the security to fire missiles without worrying too much about retaliation.

In this though, I’m not sure Iran is particularly unusual. A lot of the governments involved in the crisis in the Middle East are a bit like those F. Scott Fitzgerald characters who “smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness”.

Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu has been dancing on the edge of a corruption trial for the best part of a decade, ever since he was indicted in 2019 for, among other things, accepting “hundreds of thousands of pounds in luxury gifts from billionaire friends”. Donald Trump’s family has assets worth more than double what they were just two and a half years ago. The earnings from crypto alone are enough to guarantee the most comfortable of futures. These two are very definitely careless people, as is everyone around them.

If this ill-planned military adventure ends badly, then the elites of none of the combatant countries will end up suffering in the way that ordinary Iranians, Israelis or Americans will. This sense of impunity infects much of the discussion of the war: how, for example, could someone who feels any connection to other people be exulting in their death in the way that U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth does? In this bloodthirstiness, as in so many other aspects of kleptocracy of course, Russia led the way, but the rest of the world is catching up and I don’t think we’re ready for what that will look like.

An important aspect of this, again long visible in Russia with its dreadful public services and military failure in Ukraine, is that corruption does not just enrich elites, it also degrades state capabilities. “Corruption at the top always rolls downhill. Once it becomes open and acknowledged, it leads to corrupt and slovenly acts throughout a system,” as Phillips Payson O’Brien argues, in a piece which builds on another article in which he lays out how the Russian model might be worth applying to much of what’s happening in the United States.

This of course adds fresh weight, not that it’s needed, to the urgency of shoring up defences not just against foreign interference in the democratic processes of those countries that still have them, but to getting big money out too. It’s great that a U.S. politician has, for the first time, taken the Political Integrity Pledge and won (though admittedly only a primary), but just to get to the stage of standing in the general election, he’s had to raise more than $20 million. Too much of that and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.

This week at Tether

Talking about real money, the latest episode of Tether watch is a weird one: our favourite crypto concern has just invested $50 million in a smart mattress company. Now admittedly, that isn’t even two days’ worth of last year’s profits, so it’s not exactly a big deal for CEO Paolo Ardoino but it’s still sufficiently sinister to be worthy of mention.

I find it disturbing enough that tech companies are harvesting our browsing history to make money from, but it’s a whole other level to have Tether — Tether!?! — monitoring what people get up to in bed. It’s all, apparently, about personal sovereignty, which is to say you should stop trusting big companies with your data and instead trust it to Tether, including with what’s happening in your head: “Paolo's $200 million acquisition of a majority stake in brain-computer interface company Blackrock Neurotech may not be because he is optimistic about the size of the brain-computer interface market, but because he does not want the brain-computer interface to be controlled by others”.

Historians are going to be so confused by this; assuming of course that there will still be historians, which may be an over-optimistic assumption about a future with brain-computer interfaces.

The need to know your enemy

I’ve been talking to quite a lot of people about money laundering of late, and one of the enduring problems is the lack of reliable ways to gauge the scale of the problem. We’ve been saying it’s between 2% to 5% of the world economy since the late 1990s, but beyond repeating that age-hallowed guesstimate, how do you measure it? 

Often we turn to other measures, such as how many suspicious activity reports get filed, or how many fines get imposed. So, on that note, is it good or bad that the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority imposed fines last year of just £124 million, a decline of 78% from half a decade earlier? Maybe this means there’s 78% less crime? Or maybe it means that the FCA has stopped investigating 78% of crime? Or maybe 2021 was just a really big year for fines (which it was)? Or maybe something else happened?

The answer to this is that we should properly investigate money laundering not just criminally but also academically, looking at gaps in statistics and devising new methods of measuring how large the criminal economy is, rather than rely on proxies for it. That would not only help us identify what to target, but also help us see what techniques are working as criminal wealth rises and falls. As it stands, it feels like we’re waging a war without a clear idea of where the enemy is, and what the final goal might be, and there’s quite enough of that going on elsewhere at the moment.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Can a Task Force set up to punish the little guy, take on Trump?

Oliver Bullough

The new boss? Not the same as the old boss

Oliver Bullough

How Stablecoins make it easy to sidestep sanctions

Oliver Bullough

The post Why Kleptocrats go to war without a care in the world appeared first on Coda Story.

But I do think it’s important that, this year, influential Western countries are sliding down the rankings: the United States has dropped to its lowest-ever score and last year’s crackdown on independent media and judges haven’t even been reflected in that score yet. “We’re seeing a concerning picture of long-term decline in leadership to tackle corruption,” noted TI. “Even established democracies, like the U.S., UK and New Zealand, are experiencing a drop in performance. The absence of bold leadership is leading to weaker standards and enforcement, lowering ambition on anti-corruption efforts around the world.”

Hopefully, TI’s index and its grave conclusions will help galvanize opposition to the pro-oligarch policies that are infesting the world, and help to stave off oligarchical takeover in places that are still doing okay. That is, I suppose, valuable. 

Still, I haven’t changed my opinion that the Corruption Perceptions Index should be abolished. It is absurd that Hong Kong is ranked as the 12th cleanest jurisdiction in the world, while China — the country it exists to loot — is 76th. Just as ridiculous is the position of the United Arab Emirates at 21st in the list, considering its growing role as a lynchpin of global kleptocracy, including from Russia (ranked a lowly 157).

The United Kingdom may have fallen to 20th but that is still far too high for a country that, by its own admission, launders a hundred billion pounds a year. That’s equivalent to the entire GDP of Kenya, which is down at 130 in the list.

You simply cannot understand corruption on a country-by-country basis because kleptocracy is a globalized phenomenon, and anything that suggests you can — particularly something so crude as a league table — is too misleading to be useful. 

Talking about multijurisdictional wizardry, check out this report from the FACT coalition on how U.S. companies structure their affairs. Thanks to new accounting rules, it is possible to see how and where U.S. corporations pay tax. Some of the results are pretty remarkable: Boeing pays more tax in Germany than in the United States; Tesla pays only $28 million to the U.S. Treasury, fully 27 (!) times less tax than it pays in China.

Of course, a large chunk of these companies’ profits barely get taxed at all, but instead are routed to countries that treat them generously, of which Ireland, the Netherlands, Bermuda and Singapore are particular standouts. 

The fact that this information is disclosed is good, because it allows ordinary citizens to see how big companies win special treatment, and hopefully thus increases public pressure for fair taxation. I would not therefore be at all surprised if some skilled and energetic lobbyists are right now working very hard to make sure the disclosures end as soon as possible.

Of course, you do not need to leave the United States to obtain complicated corporate structures, as shown in this recent piece from Bloomberg, about how the Russian oligarch, party-goer and billionaire Suleiman Kerimov opened a Delaware-based trust to, er, manage assets held by a Liechtenstein-based foundation but originating from his business empire in Russia, where he remains a member of the upper house of parliament. But then Kerimov was sanctioned in 2018 for what the first Trump administration called “worldwide malign activity”. He was specifically accused of bringing millions of euros into France in suitcases, using it to purchase villas, and evading taxes on them (there’s no school like the old school).

Despite the sanctions, Kerimov continued to benefit from the trust, according to Bloomberg. But the Treasury Department has gradually been catching up with everyone involved: a $216 million fine for a venture capital firm in June; an $11.5 million settlement from a private equity firm in December; and a $1.1 million fine for an attorney around the same time.

I’d like to say that hopefully this will focus minds on the majesty of sanctions and the importance of complying with them. And there are certainly some — such as the excellent folks of Collectif Sassoufit who are campaigning against corruption in Congo — who want the United States to designate more people, since justice can’t be obtained at home. I, however, think it’s time to have a serious reconsideration of Western over-reliance on sanctions, particularly in the light of the way that the United States is using them now. 

If you want an example of what I mean, consider the case of Kimberly Prost, an impeccably-credentialled Canadian judge at the International Criminal Court who was sanctioned because the White House didn’t like the way she’d authorised investigations into U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan (other ICC staff were also sanctioned for investigating other alleged American and Israeli transgressions), and who suffers repeated indignities as a result. “I have an e-reader,” she said. “it’s not even an American product, but for some reason, I assume tied to the payment, I’d purchase books, I’d start to read them and then they’d disappear.” You just, she admitted, “sort of end up using cash a lot.”

Frivolous sanctions like this are just driving countries to find ways around the restrictions (it’s notable that banks in Canada, the UK, and the Netherlands are happy to keep serving her, and it seems unlikely they’d be doing that without permission from their respective governments) and, in decades to come when genuine criminals can bank with impunity, future generations will despair at how U.S. governments wasted the powerful weapon that was their dominance of the global financial system.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Making corruption great again

Oliver Bullough

How Stablecoins make it easy to sidestep sanctions

Oliver Bullough

Why the law lets financial criminals off the hook

Oliver Bullough

The post The war against corruption: Why corruption is winning appeared first on Coda Story.

This story is intended to illustrate how one of the reasons for the world’s failure to stop money laundering is that politicians are addicted to the sugar rush of new policy announcements, but shun the hard work of enforcing old ones. But it’s indicative of a problem with journalism too. Journalists like to talk about shiny new things — crypto! AI! — and ignore the old ones that we’ve already reported on. 

This is the lesson I draw from the horror of the Jeffrey Epstein revelations, with the rich, powerful men dividing up the world between themselves. Crooks and thieves may invent new tools, but they’re always designed to do the same old job: steal. A world-weary shrug — “politicians on the take? How is that a story? Bring me something new” — just lets them off the hook.

So in a small gesture towards being the change I want to see in the world, this week’s newsletter is about massive problems that have been going on for so long that everyone’s kind of forgotten about them, but which we should still be trying to solve because they’re still massive problems.

Global Financial Integrity, a research and advocacy organisation in Washington DC, has been arguing for almost two decades that we need to spend as much time looking at how illicit value flows through the trade system as we do looking at the financial system. In simple terms, by lying on the documentation that accompanies trade shipments, exporters can suck wealth out of poorer countries and — according to GFI’s analysis — have been doing so on a vast scale for decades.

In its latest analysis of trade flows out of Sub-Saharan African nations, GFI has identified “a renewed intensification of trade misinvoicing risks across the region”, with an average of $112.97 billion in value disappearing each year over the past decade, and at an accelerating rate. This total significantly exceeds that of the countries’ new debt over the same period, meaning that they should be seen effectively as net creditors to the world, rather than as net debtors.

“Illicit outflows on the scale observed in Africa have dire consequences for development. Every dollar siphoned out of African economies is a dollar not taxed or invested at home,” GFI concludes.

This phenomenon is often called ‘Trade-Based Money Laundering’, and is central to how illicit finance works, including the business model of the giant new ‘Chinese Money Laundering Networks’, but policy proposals for how to tackle it are sorely lacking. 

There has been, however, no shortage of suggestions for how to stop criminals being able to hide their identities behind shell companies when moving illicit funds. Corporate transparency has been pushed by the Financial Action Task Force since its earliest days. 

Efforts to achieve that goal have foundered in the European Union and the United States, but the UK has been a bright spot, with its notoriously filthy corporate registry of a decade ago adopting new rules to clean itself up. It would be nice to think this would mean we’d no longer see insiders from ex-Soviet republics using UK-registered companies to arrange questionable deals, but here’s the Organised Crime and Reporting Project to set us right.

“Two UK companies with no prior record in the mining industry have won tens of millions of dollars in Uzbek state procurement contracts,” the report states. “One was owned, on paper, by a septuagenarian British bookkeeper with no evident ties to Central Asia. The other, by a UK corporate services provider that for years managed corporate structures that shielded their true ownership from public view.”

The real meat in this sandwich, however, is how — after the journalists asked questions about the companies — their owners were able to seamlessly change the inconsistent pieces of information in the registry, much of it backdated, despite the supposedly more stringent new requirements.

I know this may all seem a bit academic because, thanks to the gutting of the U.S. Corporate Transparency Act, it’s easier, cheaper and murkier to use an American shell company these days anyway, but it’s important to remember that the battle hasn’t yet been won anywhere.

And one of the reasons it hasn’t been won is incompetence by underfunded and under-supported regulatory bodies. This was once again on display in the disastrous attempt to punish a British lawyer for allegedly persecuting a whistleblower who helped to expose the workings of the vast OneCoin scam. 

Everything about the case has been a fiasco: the fact that the fraud happened in the first place; the fact that the fraudster was able to retain a British lawyer; the fact that the regulatory action took eight years to happen; the fact the tribunal threw the case out; and now the fact the regulator is on the hook for everyone’s costs. I would say this has achieved nothing, but it’s worse than that: now the regulators have a reason to be even more timid than they already are.

It means that theft keeps happening and even when efforts are made to find the stolen wealth and punish those responsible, the damage has already been done. For instance, it’s good that UK prosecutors are launching a case against Nigeria’s notorious former oil minister, but how much better would it have been if theft hadn’t been so easy in the first case?

Of course that’s not to say that we shouldn’t talk about shiny new problems too, so here’s this week’s instalment of Tether watch. Fair warning — it is unusually gross, even by the low standards of this newsletter’s most regularly-appearing crypto company.

“Private Telegram groups for the sharing of secretly taken footage of women and girls take payment via the popular Chinese digital payments systems Alipay and WeChat Pay, as well as the cryptocurrency Tether.” One group “offers access to more than 40,000 videos of secretly taken footage from hotels, homes and public toilets for a $20 ‘V.I.P.’ membership”.

Tether denies any wrongdoing, and says that it cooperates with dozens of law enforcement agencies worldwide. It’s clearly doing something right anyway, since it claims to have made more than $10 billion in profits last year, having issued $50 billion worth of new crypto currency, and has launched a separate stablecoin — USAT, as opposed its normal USDT — for the American market.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post Why the law lets financial criminals off the hook appeared first on Coda Story.

There’s a small insight into what this looks like in practice from a fine imposed on Britain’s Bank of Scotland last week over its failure to notice that a new customer had been sanctioned for his role in Russian-occupied Crimea. He had registered with a slightly-different spelling of his name — “a changed character and an additional character in the forename, a missing middle name and a changed character in the surname” — which briefly out-foxed the bank’s compliance systems.

I’ve written about this particular gentleman’s adventures in transliteration before. Having opened the account, the bank failed to notice that although he had been removed from the European Union’s sanctions list, he had not been removed from the equivalent UK list, meaning that for 18 days he had access to financial services he should not have had, until various automatic systems and manual checks caught up with him.

In the circumstances, the Bank of Scotland is probably happy to pay its 160,000-pound fine, which also serves to remind financial institutions to invest in all possible compliance-related software, to employ more people who can check and double-check everyone and everything, just in case the next fine is bigger and comes with sharper teeth. 

The upshot is that sanctions just got more expensive, more laborious and more complicated. But have they got any more effective? For that, we need to remember what they were supposed to achieve. “Our actions, taken in coordination with partners and allies, will degrade Russia’s ability to project power and threaten the peace and stability of Europe,” said then-Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in February 2022, when announcing a first tranche of sanctions, to which many others have since been added, in many countries.

Now, I’m not saying this hasn’t been completely without effect – Russian oil revenues dropped sharply last year, for example — but it’s important to remember she was talking almost exactly four years ago, which means Ukraine has been resisting Vladimir Putin’s Russia for longer than either the USSR or the USA spent fighting Adolf Hitler’s Germany. Whatever the argument about the effectiveness or otherwise of sanctions in eventually stopping Putin’s war machine, you have to agree that they haven’t worked very quickly.

And this creates a problem. As with incompletely applied restrictions on money laundering, sanctions imposed without other enforcement mechanisms fail to defeat the people they’re aiming at, while incentivising them to learn how to circumvent restraints. 

So what’s the solution? Should we just give up on sanctions altogether and create a financial free-for-all equivalent of this year’s Enhanced Games, when cheating will be legalised so a rich man “with a mission to build superhumanity” can pay poorer people to take performance-enhancing drugs and see what happens?

You might think that’s a rhetorical question to which the answer is “OBVIOUSLY NOT!!!”, but that’s kind of what’s already happened. In April, Donald Trump’s Department of Justice decided to step back from the Biden administration’s policy of trying to make crypto companies obey the law. “The Department will no longer target virtual currency exchanges, mixing and tumbling services, and offline wallets for the acts of their end users,” the deputy attorney general said in a memorandum titled ‘ending regulation by prosecution’.

It is hard to over-stress quite how wildly this Enhanced Games-esque policy diverges from the approach taken towards money laundering since 1970, when the authors of the Bank Secrecy Act specifically stated that banks were responsible for the criminal acts of their clients, a financial anti-doping policy subsequently adopted by the whole world.

What’s been the result of the White House’s unilateral surrender? Obviously, it’s too early to see the full effects, but the general outlines of a catastrophe are already visible.

“Illicit cryptocurrency addresses received at least $154 billion in 2025. This represents a 162% increase year-over-year, primarily driven by a dramatic 694% increase in the value received by sanctioned entities,” said Chainalysis, the respected crypto investigations organisation. “We must caveat that this figure represents a lower-bound estimate based on illicit addresses we’ve identified to date.”

That means sanctioned entities moved almost seven times more value via crypto in 2025 than in 2024! That whole approach of using Western dominance of the financial system to restrain geopolitical adversaries is gone, and who knows what, if anything, will replace it.

Stablecoins now account for 84% of all illicit volume, according to Chainalysis, which also separated out the booming business being done by Chinese money laundering networks, which are seizing an ever-greater share of the market with their “industrial-scale processing capacity, operational resilience, and technical sophistication”.

US officials love stablecoins, since their issuers tend to buy Treasury bills to guarantee their assets’ value, which helps provide some extra support for the long-term U.S. policy of piling debt onto future generations rather than raising taxes on presidents’ wealthy friends. But if the approach now involves handing a sanctions-evasion opportunity to mobbed-up Chinese kleptocrats, Russians and others, then it is even more disastrously short-termist than it already appears.

Stablecoin giant Tether, by the way, may be buying a lot of U.S. government debt but is also hedging its bets and investing heavily in gold, of which it buys two tonnes a week. Of course, it keeps its stash in nuclear bunkers in Switzerland. Because why wouldn’t the people behind Tether want to resemble Bond villains even more than they do already? Next month perhaps they’ll announce a new corporate headquarters inside a Japanese volcano, with its own shark pool, stealth catamaran, and space station.

And that’s before we get to the effect of artificial intelligence on how criminals can complicate and obfuscate crypto laundering schemes, something I’ve been hearing about for a while. “The intersection of AI and cryptocurrency reflects the operational reality of contemporary jihadism,” notes one rather terrifying report. “Current counter-terrorism finance systems” it warns, “are structurally misaligned with how terrorists use crypto today.” I see no sign that any government minister anywhere is close to being ready for any of this, or to be honest, even aware that it’s happening.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Did a Putin ally evade sanctions to pay private school fees?

Oliver Bullough

Cash moves everything around us & the Kremlin’s crypto gambit

Oliver Bullough

Tether, Trump and the twisty road to transparency

Oliver Bullough

The post How Stablecoins make it easy to sidestep sanctions appeared first on Coda Story.

We’ve seen the same pattern all over the world — a criminal hands cash to a middleman, and receives cryptocurrency in exchange — but rarely has it been so well explained as in this affidavit attached to the indictment of Jorge Figueira, a 59-year-old Venezuelan charged this month with laundering more than a billion dollars.

In some ways, this was a very old-fashioned scheme, with funds derived from the South American drugs trade being shuttled between as many as seven different accounts to confuse any pursuers before being transferred to their recipients. Were it not for the crypto element, this could have happened at any time since the 1980s, but it is the crypto element I want to focus on: and, once again, it was Tether’s USDT.

“Basically, it is used for what we are doing,” said Figuera in a tapped phone conversation transcribed in the affidavit. “It is used to transfer money in a quick way, even to make it get to jurisdictions that have some type of issues, etc. For example, to send it to China… Let me be clear with you, (USDT) is used a lot for laundering money.”

The USDT was transferred specifically on the Tron blockchain which, said FBI Special Agent Stephen Walker, “is commonly used by individuals involved in money laundering.” You may be rolling your eyes that I’m talking about Tether yet again. And while a day may come, to egregiously misquote Aragorn, Son of Arathorn, when I don’t bang on about USDT, it is not this day. Because there is an important point to make here.

Last week, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick went to Davos as part of a strong U.S. team that wasted no time in expressing its contempt for everyone else in Europe, if not the world. “With President Trump, capitalism has a new sheriff in town,” Lutnick wrote in the Financial Times. (Question to American readers: is this kind of clichéd Wild West tosh as jarring to your ears as it is to mine when a UK politician does that whole “my dear chap” posho act?)

On the face of it, the indictment of Jorge Figueira does indeed look like the stereotypical muscular American sheriff in action again, ropin’ up the bad hombres and bringin’ ‘em into town tied to his saddle. America has after all historically been very good at prosecuting financial criminals. But this new sheriff operates in new ways.

It was Lutnick’s company Cantor Fitzgerald — overseen since last February by his sons Kyle and Brandon — that provided Tether with the services it needed to operate, which back in 2023 no other major institution would provide. With Tether valued at perhaps $500 billion thanks to the healthy demand for its products from people like Figueira, Cantor’s own windfall from it could total $25 billion, enough to vault members of Lutnick’s family into the stratospheric wealth club.

The owner of the Tron blockchain meanwhile — our old friend Justin Sun, consumer of a $6.2 million banana, generous investor in the Pitcairn islands, and so on — has been a substantial investor in the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial, although the relationship has not been entirely smooth.

I have no personal experience of the American Old West, but I’ve watched a lot of Westerns, and traditionally a good sheriff’s family members do not profit mightily from companies named in the indictments that the sheriff brings, nor from those that help the sheriff’s strategic enemies build a whole new system outside of the sheriff’s jurisdiction. (If you’d like a more extensive, thoughtful and sophisticated version of this argument, without the silly jokes, I think this is a very interesting paper.)

Because it’s not just money laundering where companies like Tether are implicated. “The Central Bank of Iran has acquired at least $507 million in USDT, the US dollar-backed stablecoin,” notes Elliptic in this new piece of research. “The CBI also appears to be constructing a ‘sanctions-proof’ banking mechanism that replicates the utility of international dollar accounts. By treating USDT as ‘digital off-book eurodollar accounts’, the regime creates a shadow financial layer capable of holding US dollar value outside the reach of U.S. authorities.”

I’m sure everyone has either watched, read, or read about Mark Carney’s speech at Davos, and I think his conclusions — about mid-sized countries needing to help each other in this uncertain new world — apply as well to financial crime as they do to geopolitics. Their law enforcement agencies need to band together and start investigating the kind of companies that have been welcomed into the United States, and to stop relying on the U.S. to do their job for them because the new sheriff in town really is not like the old one. Perhaps these middle powers could call their cooperation “a posse.”

At present, however, I can see no recognition of the urgency of this task, although I notice that the European Union’s Anti-Money-Laundering Agency has laboriously ticked one more bureaucratic box in the mammoth task of thinking about maybe beginning to actually start doing something. Meanwhile, the UK has heroically completed part of a consultation into whether it should slightly change its own AML regulatory set-up. 

One of the offshore centres I wrote about in my last book was Gibraltar, which has not had nearly as much scrutiny as places like the British Virgin Islands, partly because it specialises in gambling rather than kleptocracy, but also because a particular kind of Brit sees any criticism of The Rock as tantamount to spitting at the royal family.

But there are serious problems in this strange little overseas territory, with worrying implications for the governance of a place that has previously been central to several European smuggling networks and could easily become so again. “Sir Peter Openshaw’s findings are clear as light and day: the man running Gibraltar had tried several times to hobble a police investigation into matters relating to national security, which was grossly improper,” says this Transparency International report, which deserves reading.

My new book is very shortly to be out in the wild, and has even had a nice review, so I am doing lots of events (come along!) in which I tell people about how dreadful the world’s money-laundering system is and hopefully don’t leave them so depressed that they break down and cry, which in this line of work is always a risk.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Tether, Trump and the twisty road to transparency

Oliver Bullough

Launderers turn to the Euro, and an Arctic tax haven?

Oliver Bullough

An email fraudster’s comeuppance & the age of the multi-centiBillionaire

Oliver Bullough

The post The new boss? Not the same as the old boss appeared first on Coda Story.

The value of banknotes in circulation is a useful proxy for the size of the illicit economy, because they are used less than ever by ordinary people in ordinary transactions. So a primary source of demand for physical cash comes from criminals and money launderers. Since 2022, however, while the value of all the physical US dollars, Australian dollars, and pounds has been rising, the value of Euro banknotes in circulation has stagnated. 

This is especially notable because, in the giant €200 bill, the European Central Bank provides a super-convenient banknote for transporting large values around in a relatively small box. 

But it’s happy days for those looking for the green shoots of a revival in European criminal dynamism. In December, the value of Euro banknotes in circulation finally hit its first new all-time high — of €1.619 trillion — since June 2022, when it was €17 billion lower. Interestingly, however, the share of €200 bills in that total is falling. Consumers appear to prefer €100 bills and, if there are any money launderers out there able to explain why that is, please get in touch.

The Geenland gyp

I’m not going to express an opinion on the embarrassing idiocy of Donald Trump’s “policy” on Greenland, but I am interested in what the world’s biggest island would look like as the 51st state (as proposed in this bill from the improbably-named Congressman Randy Fine) from a financial crime perspective.

Greenland may be larger than Alaska, but it is the world’s least-densely populated territory, with only 57,000 inhabitants. That’s about the same number as people in Carson City, Nevada where there’s so little going on that it’s almost a relief to escape to the comparatively vast Reno, which isn’t something I’d otherwise imagine myself saying about such a barren wasteland. Greenland has a tenth of the population of Wyoming, the current least-populous US state, which might give you a clue about why I’m concerned should Greenland be accepted into the warm embrace of the USA. In recent decades, many of America’s least-populous states have enthusiastically embraced financial secrecy as a useful source of additional income, in that it allows them to swipe business/tax revenue from their larger fellows. 

South Dakota and Delaware are the most famous examples, but Wyoming, Nevada, Alaska, Oregon and others are involved too. It is famously easier to get a shell company up and running than a library card in many states, and those companies help their anonymous owners evade tax, launder money, hide stolen wealth, and more.

One of the reasons for this phenomenon is that it’s just so much easier for lobbyists to get pieces of enabling legislation passed through the legislatures of small states, which have fewer competing industries and smaller numbers of lawyers. Now, if that’s the case in Wyoming, just imagine what it would be like in Greenland – laws could be rushed through in minutes, rather than hours. There’s no tax revenue to speak of, so why bother having any taxes at all? It would be a criminality haven for the ages. 

It would, I admit, be quite amusing to watch the fury of Republican-voting states as they lost all this lucrative business to somewhere whose accession to the Union they had so enthusiastically endorsed. There would also be a tremendous irony in the extent to which shady Chinese and Russian money could pour through a secrecy haven even murkier than Delaware, considering the stated justification for the mooted annexation. But, more broadly, this would be absolutely awful for democratic accountability and other good things, so let’s hope it never happens.

Tether rides in with the cavalry

Tether, issuer of the world’s largest stablecoin USDT, has frozen $182 million worth of crypto that it thinks is linked to Venezuelan sanctions evasion. In this, it repeats a pattern familiar from its playbook of jumping aggressively to enforce Western governments’ rules just as soon as it has absolutely no choice about it. 

The fact that Caracas was relying on USDT to fund most of its oil trade was common knowledge, helping both to support a corrupt and dictatorial regime and to ensure a healthy source of demand for Tether’s signature product for years. The same was previously true of Garantex, a Russian crypto exchange much used by criminals and sanctions evaders, which continued to shift large amounts of USDT for two years after it was designated by US authorities. When Garantex was finally shut down in a laborious joint operation by Finnish, German and US authorities, Tether rushed into belated action, freezing $23 million. Similarly, it hurried to assist US authorities only after Trump had sent in special forces to kidnap the Venezuelan president, thus keeping the money flowing till the bitter end.

It shouldn’t be necessary to say it, but this isn’t supposed to be how anti-money laundering works. The whole point of global standards is that companies report their suspicions to the authorities and freeze accounts while those suspicions are investigated, so that assets can be confiscated if shown to be of criminal origin.

With Tether, however, it appears to be the other way round, that is keeping silent for as long as possible until the authorities compel them to act, which may help explain why USDT is proving to be so very popular. After all, who wouldn’t want a version of the dollar without any of the downsides?

Tether insists that it does cooperate with law enforcement agencies, and recently announced a partnership with the United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime. “Supporting victims of human trafficking and helping prevent exploitation requires coordinated action across sectors,” said Paolo Ardoino, CEO of Tether, in a recent joint statement with the UN agency. There is a grim irony to this, considering that USDT remains the currency of choice for the horrific scam farms of Southeast Asia, where huge numbers of trafficked people are abused if they fail to meet their fraud targets. 

“Aside from [the messaging app] Telegram, the cryptocurrency Tether also plays a key role in scam markets — the popular “stablecoin” is the preferred tool for all of the markets’ money-laundering transactions,” noted this analysis from Wired. “Tether and Telegram’s efforts to combat the ballooning scam industry’s use of their tools is comparable to Southeast Asian law enforcement’s minimal, often performative shows of raiding scam compounds, only to allow them to rebuild and resume operation.” Or indeed Tether’s performative rush to freeze Venezuelan crypto holdings.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

An email fraudster’s comeuppance & the age of the multi-centiBillionaire

Oliver Bullough

Tether, Trump and the twisty road to transparency

Oliver Bullough

Cash moves everything around us & the Kremlin’s crypto gambit

Oliver Bullough

The post Launderers turn to the Euro, and an Arctic tax haven? appeared first on Coda Story.

If you replied — “I’m sorry for your loss, of course you can borrow my bank account, I look forward to my cut” etc., etc. — then a correspondence would begin, and the scammer would eventually require you to pay a fee to arrange the transaction. If you paid the fee, the scammer would vanish, and you would be left wondering how you could have been so foolish, and lamenting the fact that your money was now in a bank in Beirut.

Until now.

The most random piece of New Year’s good news I’ve seen in some time is that “the Serious Fraud Office”" (SFO) has successfully recovered more than 400,000 pounds to be returned to nine fraud victims almost 24 years after they were defrauded.”

Abdullah Ali Jammal was the fraudster in question, but fled the UK before he could be convicted, so the SFO seized his money. Normally, if there has not been a conviction, the money goes to the government, but — in this case and, hopefully, in future ones too — it will go to his victims instead, who were laboriously traced in several different countries by law enforcement agents.

This is all very munificent (though it will be interesting to see if the UK’s generosity continues when larger sums of money are on the line), but the most interesting conclusion to draw is just how long financial crime cases take to come to any sort of conclusion. They are complicated, multi-jurisdictional, frequently packed with political and diplomatic complexities, and almost invariably feature defendants who can afford armies of lawyers.

My own personal favourite example is the case of Pavlo Lazarenko, a spectacularly corrupt Ukrainian politician who fled to California in 1999 when he fell from grace. This was an unwise choice of destination (there are reasons why they normally go to Russia or Belarus) and he was promptly arrested, tried and convicted on money laundering charges.

It is now 2026, he has been out of prison for more than a decade, but U.S. authorities have still not succeeded in confiscating his assets. Whole generations of lawyers have come and gone as the case has ground its way through the courts, yet Lazarenko fights on. I almost admire his tenacity, though I’m not quite sure what he is holding out for. Perhaps he is hoping for a pardon? To be fair, if he did receive one, he would be far from the least worthy recipient of late.

Money makes money and the money that money makes, makes money

Many thanks to the good folks at the Institute for Policy Studies for doing the sums on how U.S. oligarchs fared in 2025. “The biggest gains were among the top 15 U.S. billionaires, those with assets over $100 billion. This elite group saw their wealth surge to $3.2 trillion at the end of 2025, up from $2.4 trillion a year ago, a gain of 33% (more than double the S&P 500 increase of 16%),” the IPS said. 

I know we’ve all got used to this, and we’d all rather think about something less depressing like climate change or the return of gonorrhoea. But it is worth thinking about how weird this is. Oligarchs’ already enormous wealth is growing twice as fast as the wealth of even those who can afford to own shares, let alone the 40% of Americans who are cut out of the stock market altogether.

Five years ago, Elon Musk was worth $25 billion, which is an unimaginable fortune in and of itself; now, he’s worth $716 billion, which is a sum greater than Belgium’s GDP. But then, five years ago, the sheer idea of a centi-billionaire was so astonishing that the creation of a new one was worthy of remark. Now there are so many of them that they’re not even all American any more. 

This is bad news for democracy. No system supposedly based on equality but funded by political donations can survive for long when the richest 300,000 Americans own $19 trillion more wealth than the poorest 170 million. I am particularly concerned about how the oligarch class in the United States might copy their fellows in Russia and use the state’s machinery to maintain their grip on power if there is a backlash.

As such, I think it’s worth having a look at a report published last month from the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee on what Republicans and crypto-people call “Operation Choke Point 2.0”. In one interpretation, this is just a self-pitying conspiracy theory (named after a previous one), in which Joe Biden’s White House supposedly acted in the interests of monopolist banks and abused money laundering regulations to stop crypto firms from establishing themselves.

A more important interpretation though is to read the report and marvel at the huge amount of leeway that anti-money laundering (AML) regulations give to governments to exclude people and institutions from the financial system. Previously, this has largely affected Muslims, spuriously linked to terrorism in the UK, the U.S., Canada and indeed almost everywhere, and Russians accused of nothing much, and other marginalised groups. It has thus failed to gain the political traction it deserves, but it is genuinely a huge deal.

Authoritarian regimes have abused this power for decades and I think it deserves far more attention than it gets, so I’m actually quite pleased the Republicans are looking at it, even if they’re only doing it because it’s affected some big donors. The Cato Institute in this new report makes some very good points, not the least of which is the fact that there’s no evidence that the AML system is working anyway, so a proper re-examination of its inner mechanisms is long overdue. And perhaps with added urgency, given the question of whether you’d want those mechanisms to be in the hands of an authoritarian government with no interest in tackling corruption, but quite a lot of interest in swiping other people’s or indeed countries’ stuff.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Making corruption great again

Oliver Bullough

It’s the criminal economy, stupid

Oliver Bullough

Cash moves everything around us & the Kremlin’s crypto gambit

Oliver Bullough

The post An email fraudster’s comeuppance & the age of the multi-centiBillionaire appeared first on Coda Story.

Why is this important? Because it “shouldn’t” be happening. People use far fewer banknotes in transactions these days, so there should be less demand for them, so central banks should be issuing fewer of them, so the total in circulation should be falling. But the reverse is true. Central bankers call it a paradox, chuck out a few explanations for the mystery source of demand concerning inflation, ATMs and distrust of the financial system, and move on. 

What they almost never do is ask whether demand for their products comes from criminals using banknotes to hide, move and launder their illicit wealth, which is weird because that is obviously what is happening. Why else would the most popular form of cash dollar be the $100 bill? I don’t know what explains central bankers’ profound lack of curiosity about the impact of their signature product (perhaps how much income they derive from it?), but it appears now to be infecting the crypto space as well.

Last week, the Federal Reserve published a new paper called “Banks in the Age of Stablecoins”, discussing what these fiat-pegged cryptocurrencies mean for the traditional financial system. Like all central bank papers, it is jargony, infested by Greek letters, and curiously banal (“the rise of stablecoins presents challenges and opportunities for traditional banking”), but I’m more interested by what it leaves out. If you do a ctrl-f on the document, you will find zero uses of the words “launder”, “crime”, and “illicit.”

I appreciate that analysing the misuse of financial instruments by criminals is not the Federal Reserve’s job, and that its analysts are interested instead in stuff like the stability of the financial system, but the problem is that it isn’t anyone else’s job either.

This means that, as with banknotes, no one is standing back and asking: why are these things so popular, are we okay with that, and should we have a bit of a think before unleashing them on the world? 

The currency of sabotage

In the absence of such thinking, business is booming. Tether, the world’s largest stablecoin company, has just offered to buy Juventus — the Italian chief executive’s favourite football club — and to invest a billion euros in it. This is the kind of profligacy associated with Russian oligarchs back when they were really coining it, but not what you’d expect from a financial institution. Particularly when the prudent thing might be to lie low, given the accusations of complicity in financial crime.

“It is reprehensible that Tether would let so much money flow through a service flagged for money laundering,” a former prosecutor is quoted as saying in a very troubling recent piece from the International Consortium of Independent Journalists. “They should have frozen this.”

The vast majority of stablecoins are denominated in dollars, which means their issuers need dollar reserves, thus ensuring healthy demand for U.S. government bonds, which helps to explain some of the enthusiasm for them in Washington, DC. But I’ve just been in Moldova for a week, talking to people about how very close the country came to succumbing to Russian interference in recent elections. The authorities worked tirelessly to intercept cash couriers and block bank transfers from Moscow, in their efforts to secure the integrity of their democratic process. 

But there was nothing the Moldovan authorities could do about crypto. Russia has now overtaken the UK as the biggest crypto market in Europe, with a 32% growth over the past year, most of it driven by transactions larger than $10 million. Ordinary Russians don’t have that kind of money to move, so this has nothing at all to do with the mooted “democratisation of finance”, and everything to do with the Russian state seeking financial channels outside the oversight of the West.

The Kremlin may have lost the battle to influence Moldova’s elections, but it learnt an important lesson from the battle. Don’t bother paying thousands of couriers to each smuggle $9,900 in cash on flights via Yerevan or Almaty, just use crypto and move as much as you like. Now, they are hiring petty criminals to engage in sabotage, arson or espionage activities and paying them in crypto in a way that threatens to overwhelm Europe’s financial and physical defences. I can see how, from the safe distance of the United States, decision-makers prefer to focus on the profits they’re personally making from crypto, rather than the potential harm their adversaries could cause their country by using it. 

But, if I could wish for one thing for Christmas, it would be for them to wake up. This isn’t going to stop at Moldova.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Making corruption great again

Oliver Bullough

Tether, Trump and the twisty road to transparency

Oliver Bullough

Can Britain clean up its overseas tax paradises?

Oliver Bullough

The post Cash moves everything around us & the Kremlin’s crypto gambit appeared first on Coda Story.

“On the day of the executive order, former FCPA targets whose stocks are publicly traded experienced returns on equity markets that were about 0.69 percentage points higher than what would have been expected from stock market trends. The effects cumulated substantively, resulting in capitalisation gains for the portfolio of past targets of corporate corruption cases of about $39 billion and outsized returns to shareholders,” found three academics in a new paper titled ‘Making Bribery Popular Again?’.

The conclusion is clear. Investors thought that the threat to the future profitability of the 261 companies previously targeted for enforcement action was caused not by the corruption itself. What the investors didn’t like was the prospect of those companies being prosecuted for corruption. Once that threat was removed, they were happy to invest regardless of possible corruption. Interestingly, the average increase in the market capitalisation for the companies — $160 million — matched the size of the average fine previously imposed under the FCPA. Truly, capitalism is a magical thing.

To say that corrupt people and/or companies do well out of corruption may not sound particularly controversial, but this has important implications for how policies should be structured in a world where an important country has decided to stop doing the right thing. Enforcement matters and, if the U.S. has stepped back, everyone else needs to step forward.

The paper’s publication coincided with a report from Reuters looking at the impact on tax enforcement of the U.S. now that the government has sacked loads of tax enforcement agents and attorneys. Funnily enough, it isn’t great. Prosecutions have declined by 27%.

Again at the risk of being obvious: if you want people to be honest and to pay their taxes, you need to prosecute people that aren’t. Alternatively of course, if you don’t want either of those things, you can pause enforcement of key legislation, and sack everyone involved. After all, why bother going to all the trouble of changing the law when it’s so much easier to stop enforcing it? From there it’s a short hop to going full Kremlin and selectively enforcing the law against your enemies. Happy days.

It’s a sign of how grim global public debate has become that it’s genuinely refreshing that the UK’s new anti-corruption strategy so straightforwardly comes out and says corruption is a bad thing, and that the country will work harder to fight it. It’s a pretty good document, all being said, though it could be far more ambitious in how it tackles lobbying, abusive lawsuits, and conflicts of interest.

I was also sorry not to see firm commitments to toughen up rules around electoral funding: at the very least, there should be caps on donations, restrictions on the use of shell companies to disguise the identity of donors, and limitations on how foreign companies can route money into UK politics. “The strategy acknowledges that restoring trust in government is ‘the great test of our era’ yet it fails to address the elephant in the room,” said Daniel Bruce, the chief executive of Transparency International UK.

This is important. It doesn’t much matter how good the laws you pass to protect a country from dirty money are, if you don’t also secure its commanding heights against takeover by corrupt or ill-intentioned actors. Because they can then buy electoral victory and cease the enforcement of all those excellent laws, just like Trump did with the FCPA.

So it’s urgent that European democracies take steps to keep corrupting wealth out of their politics before it’s too late. We are accustomed to stories about Russian money, or Chinese money undermining democracy, but the White House’s national security strategy now explicitly states that America too intends to support European fascist (“patriotic”) parties. Liberal democracy is under attack from all sides and needs to get a lot better at defending itself.

An anti-corruption Oscars?

This is all a bit depressing, but it is the festive season so let’s cheer ourselves up a little. There are countless people toiling away at considerable cost to themselves to reduce corruption and to protect democracy, and they deserve a lot more recognition than they get. I’ve been talking to some friends about the best way to provide that, and obviously prizes are one idea.

The Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) has traditionally given an award to the “Person of the Year in Organized Crime and Corruption” to highlight villains, such as Bashar Al-Assad in 2024, or Danske Bank in 2018. But it has clearly decided that there is already more than enough irony in the world now that Donald Trump has won the first ever FIFA peace prize, so it’s changed focus and collected nominations for “Anti-Crime and Corruption Heroes” instead. Winners are due to be selected this month. This is a good initiative, and I’m looking forward to seeing who they choose.

Elsewhere, there’s the Allard Prize and the ACE award (you may have questions about an anti-corruption prize supported by Qatar, considering some of the ways its government goes about its business, but the list of previous winners includes lots of good people). It would be nice, however, if there was something ritzy and glamorous, an integrity Oscars where people committed to making the world better could be celebrated like Hollywood A-listers.

So, this is where you come in. Send in ideas. How would it work? Who should be nominated? Who should decide the winners? What should they win? Which top-end venue should host the ceremony? Should Ricky Gervais be brought in to do an incredibly dull comedy ‘roast’? Should we invite an oligarch and/or financial institution to sponsor it in return for naming rights (“the HSBC Anti-Corruption Champion of the Year”)? How often should President Trump win before we give someone else a turn?

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Can Britain clean up its overseas tax paradises?

Oliver Bullough

Terrorism’s crypto financiers & Trump’s clemency habit

Oliver Bullough

Tether, Trump and the twisty road to transparency

Oliver Bullough

The post Making corruption great again  appeared first on Coda Story.

The free ice cream at the gate was sponsored by a crypto company promising seamless exchanges between roubles and the dollar stablecoin USDT; an exhibitor offered to deliver you cash in an hour when you transferred them some crypto; and the title sponsor was A7A5, fresh from being sanctioned by the European Union, but very much alive, kicking, and cheerfully distributing stickers to people who took a spin on its wheel of fortune.

The centre of the hall was dominated by a crypto-trading competition, in which a number of people sat behind screens and sought to make a profit while against the clock. Despite the best efforts of two fast-talking Russian MCs, as a spectator sport, it had all the charm of watching an HR department finishing up the month’s payroll. Still, the competition drew the biggest crowd simply for the lack of other things going on.

None of the whales that might once have come to a Dubai crypto conference were present, now all the action has spectacularly moved to Washington, DC. Check out this Reuters investigation into how much cash The Trump Organization has made in just the first six months of 2025: “the U.S. president’s family raked in more than $800 million from sales of crypto assets in the first half of 2025 alone”, with “potentially billions more in unrealized ‘on paper’ gains”, mostly from foreign sources.

Those who did make it to Dubai intoned the usual verities about crypto ushering in a new age of liberty, despite the huge contradictions all around them. Particularly bewildering was a panel featuring Vít Jedlička, a Czech libertarian and founder of “start-up nation” Liberland, alongside Nabil Arnous, whose job is to bring investment into “Innovation City”, a newly-renamed AI-powered free trade zone in the absolute monarchy that is Ras Al Khaimah, one of the seven emirates that make up the UAE. The blockchain is powerful indeed if it can unite people from such supposedly opposite political poles.

Even more head-scratching to me though was a presentation by Reeve Collins, who co-founded Tether and was an early advocate of all things crypto, He came to Dubai to pitch his idea for “white label” stablecoins which would allow companies to put their name on a dollar-pegged cryptocurrency while leaving all the hard work of running the blockchain to someone else.

Why might companies want to do that? Because every time they sell something, they get to collect even more data about their clients than they already do, as well as earning profit from issuing money that currently goes to the government. 

“Since this is programmable money, you get real data on all of the users, and you get to understand who are the power-users, who deserves more, who deserves to be rewarded,” Collins said. “This is loyalty points times a thousand. It really will supercharge what companies are able to offer their users, so they'll be able to extract more value.”

I kept expecting someone to speak up and point out how far his vision had strayed from cryptocurrencies as a tool for individual autonomy, rather than a tool that enables the world’s largest corporations to frack humanity even harder than they are now. But no one did. Instead, the conference moved onto a panel about how governments couldn’t be trusted.

At some point the music will stop, and none of us will have chairs, and there will be an almighty blow-up. The prospect slightly terrifies me.

Kyrgyzstan's crypto compulsion

For now, though, the music is very much still playing. Particularly in places like Kyrgyzstan, which seems to be doubling down on its strategy of becoming a ‘cryptatorship’ like El Salvador. Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, the crypto billionaire who pleaded guilty to violating U.S. anti-money laundering laws and was recently pardoned by Trump – though the U.S. president claimed not to know Zhao –  headed to Bishkek to talk up its transformation. “Had a great time in Kyrgyzstan in the past two days. I encourage more crypto companies to explore the country too,” he Xed.

There are already a number of crypto companies in Bishkek, including the sanctioned A7A5, and their close connections with the Kyrgyz government are of great interest to the country’s journalists. However, since Kyrgyzstan’s best investigative outlets – Kloop, Temirov Live and Ayt Ayt Dese -- have just been labelled as extremists, it will be difficult for reporters to bring attention to their findings.

“This is the first time in the history of Kyrgyzstan when media outlets have been labelled extremist,” said Kloop in a statement. “Now it is dangerous to like or share outlets’ material, or to circulate it. That could all be considered support for extremist organisations and the circulation of extremist material.” At least, “watching and reading it is currently safe.”

There used to be something admirable about Kyrgyzstan’s bloody-minded refusal to become a dictatorship like the other republics of Central Asia. Now there is something grotesque about the fact that it is the lure of crypto, a technology supposedly intended to enhance freedoms, that is helping to cement autocracy. The country is holding snap parliamentary elections on November 30. The president’s party, unsurprisingly, is expected to do very well.

Watching Kyrgyzstan heading towards autocracy is a reminder that the only plausible long-term solution to kleptocracy is for rich countries to stop enabling it. If Westerners started living up to their professed values, and made it impossible for crooks to buy property and launder money in the West, it would reduce the appeal of being one. 

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Crypto’s backdoor through Bishkek

Oliver Bullough

A Crypto-fueled Crash, How Blockchain Blunts Sanctions & MBS’ Folly

Oliver Bullough

A Warning from the Gilded Age & An ‘End’ to the Khodorkovsky Saga

Oliver Bullough

The post Dubai’s blockchain blues & the Kyrgyz ‘cryptatorship’ appeared first on Coda Story.

So, what will historians make of the latest developments in the United States? On Thursday, the government sanctioned Russia’s two most significant oil companies, in what threatens to be a massive blow to the financial underpinning of a key geopolitical adversary. On Friday, however, the government pardoned Changpeng Zhao, a crypto tycoon who two years ago pleaded guilty to, among many other things, facilitating sanctions busting by Iran, also a key geopolitical adversary.

How do you interpret that contradiction, or the fact that the US government is currently not paying its employees, while spending hundreds of millions of dollars, albeit privately raised, on a new ballroom? This could provide material for a hundred newsletters, and no doubt has already done, but I think there is value in asking whether the sole consistent factor here is inconsistency, and whether that itself is significant.

This is what happens when individual people make decisions without oversight, scrutiny or process and, although there may be some value in rapid decision-making, it also makes it far more likely that the decisions reached will be illogical, inconsistent and corrupt. I have been reading a lot recently about the last time inequality was as high as it is now, which was the time before World War One, a time that Americans call the “Gilded Age” and Brits call the Edwardian period. That too was a time of conflicts, inconsistency and excess, when plutocrats built ludicrous houses for themselves, and awarded themselves vast pay deals, when politicians got assassinated and political movements appeared and disappeared with dizzying speed.

I try to be optimistic, because there’s no sense in being otherwise, but the parallel is worrying. After all, the period before World War I all ended with World War I. If I were a plutocrat, I would be working very hard to steer the horse in another direction, away from disaster, rather than spurring it on ever faster.

Restitution from Russia?

But look, like a refugee from a different galaxy, here comes news of what should be the end of the long-running legal challenge brought by shareholders in the ex-oil company Yukos against the Kremlin’s expropriation of their assets. The Kremlin lost, and now the shareholders can seek to claim tens of billions of dollars from state assets worldwide. This saga sort of began 22 years ago when the Russian authorities arrested the country’s richest man, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, prosecuted him, and imposed such vast back tax bills that it could auction off his assets in a process that – funnily enough – was won by a state oil company run by a close ally of Vladimir Putin. It was an early sign of the kind of country Putin was building: kleptocratic, authoritarian, centralised, ruthless, and deeply stupid.

But the real beginning of the story was a decade earlier, when President Boris Yeltsin, attempting to build a different kind of Russia, one which followed international norms, signed the Energy Charter Treaty, an agreement designed to protect foreign investors’ stakes in national oil and gas industries.

The primary shareholders of Yukos were Russian but, like any competent global oligarch, they structured their ownership via multiple offshore entities so – when their company was taken away – they sued. And now, they have won in a process that is a memorial to the 1990s, and the odd alternate reality when globalisation was widely considered a good thing.

Obviously, Russia won’t abide by the judgement on its own territory, but the Yukos shareholders will continue their battles for various assets owned by Russia, such as this plot of land in London and these vodka brand names. “Real justice requires successful enforcement, so we will now focus all our efforts on enforcing against Russian state assets worldwide until every penny of the $65+ billion awards has been paid,” said Tim Osborne, who heads the shareholders’ company, which is called GML.

In that effort, however, he may well have competition. There is 210 billion euros of Russian state money frozen in the European Union, mostly in Belgium, and the EU is inching closer to using it to help Ukraine. The universe in which Russia happily deposited its assets in Western countries now feels like an alternative reality – one that historians will spend a lot of time dissecting.

Making criminals pay

International arbitration is a tricky game to play, however, or so the owners of P&ID may be feeling. In a complex (and, let’s be honest, rather imaginative) attempt to swipe a lot of Nigeria’s money, this small offshore company obtained a gas processing contract in 2010. Neither side did anything to fulfil the contract, then P&ID sued Nigeria and won a giant compensation award, the size of which has been growing larger still with the interest owed.

It is a case rife with allegations of corruption, professional misconduct and more, and mercifully the  initial judgement in favour of P&ID was overturned. Last week, a court ruled that P&ID will have to pay the vast legal costs in sterling, rather than in naira, which will help Nigeria to avoid missing out on the advantageous exchange rate.

To say P&ID’s British lawyers have questions to answer is to understate how serious the allegations against them are, but regulators have so far done nothing. That is a very bad reflection on Britain’s ongoing facilitation of kleptocracy, and the state of its regulators.

Britain, in common with many other countries, has a very fragmented system of anti-money laundering regulation, so it is potentially good news that the government has proposed to combine many of the existing 23 regulators into “a small number” of bodies. Hopefully, this will mean the regulators are better funded, more motivated, and more willing to anger potentially powerful vested interests by actually investigating financial crime. “It is crucial that existing regulators do not take their foot off the pedal while we await legislation which could risk things getting a lot worse before getting better,” said Sue Hawley, of Spotlight on Corruption.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Russian sanction-dodgers, Chinese gangsters & Mexican cartels

Oliver Bullough

The oligarch’s guide to sitting out a nuclear winter

Oliver Bullough

Crypto’s backdoor through Bishkek

Oliver Bullough

The post A warning from the Gilded Age & an ‘end’ to the Khodorkovsky saga appeared first on Coda Story.

“The Justice Department’s National Security Division [filed] a civil forfeiture complaint against approximately 127,271 Bitcoin, currently worth approximately $15 billion,” the DoJ announced last week. Now that really is a big deal (it’s not far off the total BP paid to settle charges over the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico). There can only ever be 21 million bitcoins in existence, so this seizure accounts for more than one in 200 of them.

The seizure was part of a case against Chen Zhi, a Cambodian businessman charged with being behind some of the most appalling forced-labour fraud compounds in Southeast Asia. Every aspect of the alleged scheme, from its targeting of vulnerable people in Western countries, to its reliance on trafficked labourers, is foul on its own but cumulatively, it’s beyond dreadful.

The money laundering techniques were complex and multi-jurisdictional, and the profits were spent on the usual expensive trash: “watches, yachts, private jets, vacation homes, high-end collectables, and rare artwork, including a Picasso painting purchased through an auction house in New York City”.

And of course there were shell companies in the British Virgin Islands and properties in London, because there are always shell companies in the British Virgin Islands and properties in London: a £12 million mansion near Primrose Hill; a £100 million office building in the City; plus various flats in the Centre Point building, and others in Nine Elms, a newly-built neighbourhood where many of the off-plan apartments went to cash purchasers from the Far East. 

(Nine Elms is also, incidentally, home to the new U.S. embassy and a few years ago I did a talk for staffers interested in financial crime and one asked why, if there was so much money being laundered in London, none of it was visible. I drew his attention to the view from the window.)

The U.S. government earlier this year said it will place any bitcoin it seizes into a strategic reserve. I suppose a crypto reserve sort of makes as much sense as a gold reserve, at least until people lose interest in crypto and/or the power goes off. But there is a problem with the basic idea here: these bitcoins don’t belong to the United States. Assuming that the criminal complaints are proven, then this money is the fruit of crimes committed against millions of victims, and should be returned to them, whether in the form of bitcoin or whatever, not stashed away in Washington.

Some commentators have said cryptocurrencies help fight financial crime. In a blog, Elliptic, a blockchain analytics company, argued that “blockchain technology enables comprehensive visibility into financial flows, empowering all ecosystem participants to play a crucial role in identifying and reducing illicit funds.” But I don’t think that’s the message I take from this. 

If the two biggest asset seizures of all time have come one after the other in the form of bitcoin, I think the important question to ask is “why do criminals have so much of their wealth in cryptocurrencies?” If crypto is helping baddies to hide their money more than it’s helping goodies to find it, then it’s more of a problem than it is a solution.

The Pitcairn crypto plan

Thanks to an Australian reader for tipping me off to an odd situation in the Pitcairn Islands, the only British Overseas Territory (BOT) in the Pacific, and the smallest territory in the world by population. Pitcairn has fewer than 50 inhabitants and is extraordinarily remote so unlike most BOTs – the Cayman Islands, the BVI, Gibraltar, Anguilla, etc – it has never developed an offshore financial services industry.

Anyway, it seems that in January 2020, Justin Sun – the Chinese-born billionaire head of the crypto giant TRON; prime minister of Liberland; first Kittitian in Space; former Grenadian ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to the World Trade Organisation; eater of a $6.24 million banana; and early investor in Donald Trump’s crypto company – explored the possibility of turning Pitcairn into a crypto haven. According to the minutes of the meeting with the island’s council, three of Sun’s representatives were there on a friend-making mission: “TRON is looking to partner with a BOT to work together to craft regulations etc to help make crypto currency more mainstream.” 

There was “a lot of community interest” among the locals for carving up this unexpected cash cow, but fate intervened in the form of a killjoy governor, who represents the U.K. in these parts. “TRON will not be permitted to establish bitcoin/crypto currency”.

According to one academic’s assessment of things, “a company with such a variable track record was never going to be afforded a foothold in the territory.” And, generally speaking, that should have been the end of the matter, leaving us with nothing more than a ghostly alternative timeline in which Pitcairn is a crypto hub (or, perhaps, a 21^st century version of Nauru) and its few-dozen residents are multi-billionaires.

None of this has been confirmed by Tron, so I only have the Pitcairn administration’s documents to go on but it appears that the company did not in fact go away quietly. Instead, in order to “garner favour”, it began to provide solar panels to Pitcairn residents. An attempt by the governor to stop this collapsed, given that everyone really wanted them, and by July 2023, the council’s meeting minutes noted: “we all have solar units donated from TRON on our roofs”.

My Australian interlocutor informs me that Pitcairn residents are unsurprisingly now super-enthusiastic about Tron for having provided them with free electricity, though loath to publicise it. This year Tron advertised for a Project Director (Pitcairn Islands Development) to lead “a humanitarian infrastructure development project aimed at improving the medical and accommodation conditions of 35 indigenous fishermen residing on Pitcairn Island", and is now looking for a “Legal Counsel (Pitcairn Islands Development)”. 

Something’s happening here and I don’t know what it is, but if I worked for the British government I’d be trying to figure it out. Justin Sun’s stated philosophy is underpinned by the libertarian creed of “no forced obligations, no taxes, and no mandates”. It would be a challenging development if, now that he’s provided Pitcairn with free power, he managed to bring the islanders around to that point of view. 

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

A Tale of Two Bitcoin Billionaires

Oliver Bullough

Who Should Profit from Crypto?

Oliver Bullough

The Bulloughs of Kinloch Castle

Oliver Bullough

The post A record Bitcoin haul & crypto comes to the Pitcairn Islands appeared first on Coda Story.

I mention these amounts to put into perspective quite how ginormous the confiscation order secured last week by London’s Metropolitan Police against Zhimin Qian was. She could have paid all the fines imposed for those iconic acts of financial skulduggery in full, and still have had enough left over to buy the most expensive home ever sold, splash out on the most expensive car ever bought, and have a few millions left over for spending money. Before her wealth was snatched away, her net worth matched that of Donald Trump, who’s done pretty well himself over the last, hmmm, nine months or so.

“Between 2014–2017, Qian orchestrated a large-scale fraud in China through defrauding over 128,000 victims and went on to store the illegally obtained funds in Bitcoin assets,” the Met said. She fled to the U.K., where she was arrested last year, and her devices containing the keys to access her 61,000 bitcoins were seized.

There is a little bit of an asterisk next to the size of the seizure, however, since the bitcoins weren’t worth nearly as much when she bought them with stolen money as they are now. At the end of 2018, the year when the inquiry into her crime was launched, her bitcoins were worth around $228.5 million. That is obviously still by any standards a lot to steal but the cryptocurrency has had a wild ride since then, and her haul is now worth $7.24 billion and counting. 

Qian had promised to triple the investments of the people she defrauded, but she actually increased them thirty-fold by stealing the cash and sticking it in bitcoin.

This episode raises some very interesting issues. What happens to the money? Obviously, her victims should get their money back, but what return should they get: just a standard interest rate, which is better than the nothing they have at the moment; the 300 percent she promised them, which would in ordinary times be awesome; or a proportionate share of this incredibly successful crypto-investment? If I was in the U.K. government, I would be arguing for the first option, but if I was in the Chinese government, I’d be aiming for the last.

Western law enforcement agencies normally struggle to get any kind of cooperation from their Chinese counterparts, but this case appears to be an exception. “Through a meticulous investigation and unprecedented cooperation with Chinese law enforcement, we were able to obtain compelling evidence of the criminal origins of the cryptoassets,” stated Will Lyne, head of the Met’s Economic and Cybercrime Command, which is something I have never heard a senior copper say before.

Could this be the prelude to an unprecedented thawing in relations between the U.K. and China, and the dawning of a new appreciation, nay a respect, for the rule of law in Beijing? Or could it just be that Xi Jinping’s people want a chunk of that $7.24 billion? The jury’s out. And it will remain out until those pesky jurors learn to do what they’re bloody well told.

There are some pretty odd, if compelling, details in this whole affair. “Zhimin Qian dreamt that the Dalai Lama would anoint her a reincarnated goddess,” reported the FT, “and that she would go on to become the Queen of Liberland, an unrecognised micronation on the Danube, where she would build the biggest Buddhist temple in Europe”. Qian travelled to the U.K. with a passport issued by the Caribbean nation of St Kitts and Nevis, which she applied for under the false name of Yadi Zhang.

St Kitts pioneered the whole “citizenship by investment” idea in partnership with Henley & Partners, and has done very well from it, as is abundantly obvious if you visit this extremely beautiful country. It may, however, be time for the rest of the world to start wondering why we are quite so happy to offer its “citizens” visa-free travel if this is the kind of person it sells passports to.

Another citizen of St Kitts and Nevis is the blockchain billionaire Justin Sun, who in August became the first Kittitian to sort of go into space. He travelled just beyond the official boundary on one of Jeff Bezos’ New Shepard rockets, which are so ludicrously appropriate in their phallicness that each trip is almost performance art. 

Sun’s involvement in libertarian fever-dream Liberland, unlike that of fellow Kittitian Zhimin Qian, is no mere fantasy. He has been elected prime minister, and says the microstate “is a manifestation of a political philosophy that champions liberty, minimal government intervention, and individual autonomy”. Sun, notoriously, was one of the attendees at a private dinner hosted by Donald Trump in May for the top investors in his meme coin $TRUMP. The dinner was the culmination of Sun’s transformation from a fraudster charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission to a celebrated business associate of the U.S. president. Sun runs the TRON blockchain, which was home to more than half of all illicit crypto activity last year, according to TRM labs. To be fair, if I was in charge of that kind of business, I suspect that I would be in favour of “minimal government intervention” too. 

The contrast between Sun’s fate and that of Qian couldn’t be more striking. The former, however shady his business dealings, gets to dine at the White House, while the latter is scheduled to be sentenced in a British court next month. If only Qian had invested in Trump’s meme coin?

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

The Tehran-Washington Crypto Connection

Oliver Bullough

Derailing the Kleptocrats’ Gravy Train

Oliver Bullough

Russian sanction-dodgers, Chinese gangsters & Mexican cartels

Oliver Bullough

The post A tale of two Bitcoin billionaires appeared first on Coda Story.

Perhaps relatedly, Bo Hines – who from January to August was the executive director of President Donald Trump’s council of advisors on digital assets – has been hired to run the US operations of Tether, the company behind USDT, the world’s largest stablecoin. USDT is a cryptocurrency that functions a little like a pick/shovel does during a gold rush. Now Tether will release a new U.S.-based stablecoin called USAT. 

Anyone alarmed by the implications of Hines changing sides can be reassured. There is no conflict of interest, because Hines himself said so: “I stepped down from my roles touching anything related to crypto in the White House and I felt like this was a fantastic opportunity to jump into the private sector.”

It must have smarted for Hines to be languishing in the public sector drafting regulations for the crypto rush, while in the private sector people – including family members of senior administration officials – were making billions of dollars. USDT, the stablecoin Tether has created for the US market, is being marketed in partnership with Cantor Fitzgerald, which is run by Brandon Lutnick, son of Howard Lutnick, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, so that too is being kept in the family.

In order to guarantee that Tether’s tokens will always be worth the same as a dollar, it owns a lot of US debt: some $127 billion worth at the end of July, which works out basically as $127 billion of free money for the U.S. government.

“Tether is by far and away the most important private-public partnership the U.S. government has, we’re buying more treasuries than anyone else in the private sector,” said Hines, which is an interesting way of defining ‘important’. Once upon a time, the major defence contractors would have ranked top of the list, but now it’s a company that buys debt so Trump can keep cutting taxes for his friends.

This is not to say the U.S. government isn’t concerned about crypto. The Office of Foreign Assets Control has sanctioned Iranian nationals, Alireza Derakhshan and Arash Estaki Alivand, and a network of foreign enablers, who were selling Iran’s oil to raise money for its armed forces via the medium of cryptocurrency.

“Iranian entities rely on shadow banking networks to evade sanctions and move millions through the international financial system,” said John Hurley, Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. But you’ll scour that press release and related documents in vain for information about what specific cryptocurrency was being used by the Iranians to finance the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of oil. Luckily, you can turn to this bit of analysis from Elliptic: “Alivand’s addresses have received a total of $300 million, while Derakhshan’s have received $442 million, mostly in the USDT stablecoin”.

Oh. 

So, Iran sells oil for USDT; which creates demand for Tether; which buys US government debt. Cut out the middleman and essentially, thanks to the magic of the blockchain, the Iranian and US governments are in business with each other.

It seems a bit weird that the United States so enthusiastically prints $100 bills even though the only significant market for them is organised criminals, who do far more damage than the U.S. makes in profits from the trade. And it’s very disturbing that the government IS making the same mistake with cryptocurrencies.

TUVALU AHOY!

One of the annoying things about financial skulduggery is that new techniques keep getting invented all the time, even as the old techniques remain as useful as ever. If crypto is offshore’s newest manifestation, then flags of convenience are probably its oldest.

Ships have been flying other countries’ flags as a ruse de guerre for centuries, but it only really became a formalised business technique in the 1920s when American vessels reflagged as Panamanian so they could sell alcohol during prohibition. But as with everything offshore, a trick invented for naughty rich folks – in this case so they could drink cocktails without legal consequences – has morphed into a tool for criminals and scumbags to make life worse for everyone.

Flags of convenience are almost ludicrously artificial, even by the standards of other offshore trickery, in that registries often have only the sketchiest relationship with the country they’re nominally part of. The Palau, Marshallese and Liberian ship registries are all in the United States (as was Panama’s, until recently); St Kitts and Nevis’ is in the UK; Tuvalu’s is in Singapore; Togo’s is in Lebanon, etc. Small countries are basically just hiring out their sovereignty so foreigners can do dodgy stuff with boats.

The most recent manifestation of this is in Russia’s shadow fleet of ageing oil tankers, some of which lost their Liberian flags and re-registered under the flag of Gabon (effectively a private company based in the UAE), as they sought to continue evading Western sanctions while they sail through the English Channel. “The ease with which vessels can obtain flags without scrutiny, avoid ownership transparency and escape enforcement actions has created the conditions for an entire parallel shipping ecosystem,” notes the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in this fascinating paper.

Western countries have sought to do something about this, and some larger registries have become more compliant under pressure, but that has just encouraged new countries to hire out their flags to all-comers, including “Cameroon, Comoros, Gambia, Honduras, Mongolia, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone and Tanzania”. RUSI calls for states issuing flags of convenience to be checked by the Financial Action Task Force, which raises the prospect of blacklisting for rogue actors. 

I am not as a rule a big fan of the FATF (or indeed of how it goes about blacklisting countries), but the situation has got so bad, that perhaps it is the only body that could now make a difference and head off consequences that are almost impossible to overestimate. “Without such action, the shadow fleet will continue to entrench itself as a parallel system that threatens financial security, undermines legal norms, poses immeasurable environmental risk and raises the threat of geopolitical escalation,” RUSI’s paper concludes.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Russian sanction-dodgers, Chinese gangsters & Mexican cartels

Oliver Bullough

Criminal dollars, Trump’s crypto trapdoor, and Dalek solicitors

Oliver Bullough

Crypto Warfare and a New Gold Standard

Oliver Bullough

The post The Tehran-Washington crypto connection appeared first on Coda Story.

So, props to Transparency International’s exiled Russian chapter for this excellent report on the new laundromat, which has grown out of the Garantex crypto exchange that was shut down in April after a multi-year, multi-country effort. There is something grimly depressing, if inevitable, about the fact that within days of Garantex being snuffed out, it had been reborn. 

“It reemerged under new names, such as MKAN Coin, Grinex, and Exved, morphing into a decentralised laundering system sustained by technical obfuscation and governments’ tolerance,” TI-Russia notes. “Entities tied to Garantex continue operating across UAE, Brazil, Kyrgyzstan, Spain, Thailand, Georgia, Hong Kong, and Russia.”

Powered by the encrypted messaging app Telegram, the skilled launderers behind Garantex’s successors are learning to mitigate their vulnerabilities, rather like bacteria evolving in response to antibiotics. And they have found helpful new hosts, particularly in Kyrgyzstan. 

The rouble-pegged stablecoin A7A5 is, according to Chainalysis, operational largely in office hours, which suggests it is operating more like a shadow bank than the kind of cryptocurrencies beloved of speculators in the West. By the end of July, more than a billion dollars’ worth of transactions were moving through A7A5 every day, with it being used as a bridge between roubles and the dollar-backed cryptocurrency Tether, adding a layer of obfuscation that helps to obscure connections between Russian sanctions-busters and the big crypto operators.

There is nothing too surprising about this: money launderers have nimbly adjusted to limits on their activities ever since there have been attempts to limit those activities. In many respects, the way that Garantex’s successors have spread across jurisdictions, taking advantage of mismatches between legislation and law enforcement capabilities, is just a digital-age copy of the way the drug cartels’ bankers operated in the Caribbean in the 1980s.

Nonetheless, it is depressing that Western governments appear not to be learning as rapidly as their adversaries, and instead are relying on the blunt instrument of sanctions, rather than engaging more proactively with the causes of the problem. This is not to say that sanctions do not have their uses. They are obviously useful as a first step, and clearly very irritating to kleptocrats, otherwise they wouldn’t fight so hard to overturn them. 

For instance, Viktor Yanukovych, the corrupt former president of Ukraine whose disastrous tenure sowed so many of the problems that are causing death and misery today, has been fighting to cancel European Union sanctions against him for more than a decade. He’s now failed to have the courts overturn those sanctions, as has his son, which is wonderful. Yanukovych always seemed to have a tenuous grasp on reality, and this is nowhere more in evidence than in the apparent plot to reinstall him as president of Ukraine after the Russian full-scale invasion, which is detailed in the court’s judgement. The idea that anyone in Ukraine wanted him back goes way past self-confidence and deep into the territory of profound delusion. A weird but true aside: Yanukovych’s press secretary once bit me on the arm to prevent me asking him a question about a ludicrous inconsistency in a speech he’d just made; it was very painful, and very effective.

CHINESE GANGS & MEXICAN CARTELS

Much of the early structures used by money launderers were created in the 1950s and 1960s to serve wealthy people looking to dodge the era’s strict capital controls and high taxes. Just as today, it is the desire of wealthy Chinese people to evade capital controls that drives innovation and growth in money laundering methods.

“Chinese money laundering networks are global and pervasive, and they must be dismantled,” said FinCEN Director Andrea Gacki. “These networks launder proceeds for Mexico-based drug cartels and are involved in other significant, underground money movement schemes within the United States and around the world.” 

The core of the system is that Mexican cartels are earning huge amounts of cash dollars, which they are unable to pay into banks. So they hand them over to Chinese gangs, which in turn sell them to wealthy Chinese people looking to spend in the West. The circle is completed by the Chinese gangs shipping counterfeit goods, precursor chemicals or other things that the Mexicans need.

FinCEN has issued an advisory with guidance on what Chinese Money Laundering Networks look like, which makes very interesting reading, especially its long list of “red flags”, each one helpfully illustrated by an actual red flag. The trouble of course for the U.S. authorities is that most of the action happens outside their oversight.

With one exception: the White House could always seek to limit the printing of cash dollars that are the lifeblood of the whole system. At the very least, it could stop printing so many of the super-convenient $100 bills. But it’s not doing that. On the contrary, the value of dollars in circulation hit a new all-time high in July.

TAKING BACK ILL-GOTTEN GAINS

Among the curious folkways of British politics is that TV dramas have far more impact on political discussion than even the most considered bit of journalism. Misha Glenny’s book, McMafia, came out in 2008 and received excellent reviews for its forensic analysis of organised criminality. But it was only when a TV drama of the same name appeared a decade later that U.K. politicians woke up to London’s central role in laundering the world’s criminal wealth. 

They nicknamed a new legislative proposal “the McMafia law”, and promised it would drive kleptocratic wealth out of London. Spoiler alert: life is not a TV drama, and there was no happy ending. Lawyers fought back, and the impact of the Unexplained Wealth Order was limited.

But, wait, what’s this? The Serious Fraud Office has used an Unexplained Wealth Order to confiscate a 1.1 million pound house! So there is life in the old law yet. Granted the target was not a kleptocrat, but a fraudster; the house was not in London, but in the Lake District; and 1.1 million pounds is a rounding error compared to the 100 billion pounds or so of criminal wealth estimated to pass through the UK financial system every year. But a win’s a win, and they deserve congratulations. “Unexplained wealth orders offer investigative opportunities to pursue assets on behalf of victims and taxpayers. This is our first successful use of this legislation and it certainly won’t be the last,” said Nick Ephgrave, Director of the Serious Fraud Office. Hooray for that.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Did a Putin ally evade sanctions to pay private school fees?

Oliver Bullough

Crypto Warfare and a New Gold Standard

Oliver Bullough

Systemic Rot, the Launderers at ‘Buckingham Palace’ & Zombie Trusts

Oliver Bullough

The post Russian sanction-dodgers, Chinese gangsters & Mexican cartels appeared first on Coda Story.

He gifted the island a mausoleum and a castle that is architecturally foul even by late-Victorian standards (“nothing that a good fire and subsequent demolition couldn’t rectify”), but us Bulloughs have to take what we’re given, so I dragged the family off to have a look, even though we are – at least as far as I know – completely unrelated to him. 

In its glory days, Kinloch Castle – which looks vaguely like a sandstone version of Shawshank prison reimagined by someone who’s read too much Walter Scott – was quite something. Sir George imported 250,000 tonnes of topsoil for the gardens, built heated greenhouses for his collections of hummingbirds, alligators and turtles, and installed one of Scotland’s first electricity generators. He paid his gardeners extra if they wore kilts, and built the laundry on the uninhabited north side of the island because his wife didn’t want anyone to see her knickers drying on the line.

Like the Titanic, the castle is a monument to the hubris of the European ruling classes in the years before World War One. Built at vast expense, it relied on a reserve of cheaply-paid labour that vanished with the arrival of hostilities, and – as with the European empires of the time – never recovered.

“There were only the boys left, of which I was one, to maintain the gardens and the greenhouses,” remembered a gardener in a passage quoted in a book on the Bulloughs. “The grapes, the peaches and the orchids vanished, gradually sliding into the wilderness of weeds and broken glass that marks their position today.”

Sir George and Lady Monica’s wealth never recovered either. In her old age, Lady Monica sold the island at a knock-down price to the Scottish government, which has let the castle slip into disrepair, and I can’t say I blame it.

This feels symbolic too. The decades after 1914 marked a collapse in wealth inequality, and a playboy’s crumbling mansion was an apt metaphor for how profligate that whole generation looked to those who came later.

However, the wheel keeps turning: wealth inequality started to grow once more in the 1970s, and is now – including, worryingly, in the United Kingdom – approaching previous heights. “At the top of the American economic summit, the richest of the nation’s rich now hold as large a wealth share as they did in the 1920s,” it says here.

This is bad news for democracy and risks sending us back to a future when those of us whose net worth does not include multiple commas have to live in an isolated hovel in a midgy, rainswept bay and wash oligarchs’ underwear. But bad news for democracy could be good news for Sir George’s folly. Kinloch Castle is on the market for 750,000 pounds, although its new owners are unlikely to be able to move in immediately. “It requires significant refurbishment to return it to full residential or hospitality use. Repair and redevelopment costs are likely to be in the region of approximately 10 million pounds or more,” the estate agent notes. 

Having looked at it, and considering its isolated location, I would say 20 million is a more reasonable estimate but, whatever the cost, surely some of my readers have a few quid they can chuck at the one material legacy left to this world by a Bullough? And since you ask: yes, once you’ve patched the roof, restored the orchestrion and employed some decent chefs, I’d be more than willing to come and stay. The island is absolutely stunning. In buying Rum, if in nothing else, Sir George showed excellent taste.

A NEW AGE OF INEQUALITY

It is sadly easier to spot sell signals after a market has crashed. To his contemporaries, Sir George’s castle – along with the other extravagances of the Gilded Age – presumably looked like a perfectly reasonable thing to spend money on, rather than a symbol of excess and frivolity. I would challenge anyone, however, to look at Trojena and not think that it is a gigantic flashing stop sign for civilisation.

A proposed ski resort in Saudi Arabia, it is being built in mountains where there is almost no precipitation, so all the water must come from the ocean, which is at a distance of 200 km laterally and 2.6km vertically. Once the salt has been removed (at a vast cost in both money and carbon), the water is to be pumped uphill through a metre-diameter pipe, and then stored in an artificial lake, which will provide all the resort’s needs, including for the manufacture of the snow required for its 30km of runs. The 140 meter-deep lake requires three separate dams and will cost $4.7 billion to build, according to Italian company Webuild. Just filling it up will take two years of pumping.

“Webuild will also create the futuristic Bow, an architectural structure that will extend the surface of the lake beyond the front of the main dam. It will be shaped like the prow of a ship suspended over the valley, and will house a luxury hotel, as well as a residential area and a large central atrium, with accommodation and hospitality facilities,” the company stated.

This is part of the Neom project and, like all the other bits, looks like a snazzy futuristic vision in the architects’ renderings, when in fact it is a deranged climate-destroying hellscape, which even Mohammed bin Salman is struggling to afford. Trojena is supposed to be hosting the Asian Winter Games in 2029, but apparently Riyadh has been sounding out whether another city could step in so they can do it four years later. 

My optimistic prediction is that, in a century’s time, regardless of whether Trojena ever hosts a skiing competition or not, someone will be looking at its ruins and making notes for a sarcastic newsletter about the excesses of this age of inequality. My pessimistic prediction is so depressing it doesn’t bear thinking about.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

China’s crackdown on Uyghurs reaches the Arctic

Isobel Cockerell

China ordered a Uyghur journalist extradited to Xinjiang. His wife has taken to the Istanbul streets to stop it

Natalia Antelava

Threatened, harassed, punished: The Uyghur translators defying China to tell Xinjiang’s story

Oliver Bullough

The post The Bulloughs of Kinloch Castle appeared first on Coda Story.

That concerned me because it encapsulated a mistake that’s often made about why political funding is problematic. It’s often assumed that the only problem is that rich people can buy support for an issue they care about, so it’s therefore often missed – as Klein did – that a far bigger problem is that they define what is considered an issue in the first place.

You could look at the fact that billionaires supported both Republicans and Democrats in last year’s presidential election (although far more money went to Republicans), and conclude that – since both sides got money – it’s not a big deal. Or you could wonder which issues don’t get attention because no one with money is interested in them being discussed.

Five years ago, when I’d just started writing this newsletter, I made a big thing out of the fact that three people owned more than $100 billion. Centi-billionaires were new back then, but they’re old hat these days. Some 18 people have passed that threshold now, and more will be along to join them very soon. Oxfam predicts there will be five trillionaires by the end of the decade, and that was before Donald Trump’s tax cuts were passed by Congress.

Last year, here in the U.K., it looked like Keir Starmer actually understood the importance of protecting politics from the corrupting effect of money, but he’s failed to actually follow through. “Time and again, Labour’s warm words about cleaning up politics have not translated into action. Rather than rebuilding faith in democracy, Starmer’s listlessness risks eroding it even further,” wrote the journalist Peter Geoghegan last week.

Meanwhile, over in France, billionaire wealth has already nosed its way into politics and is helping to raise the profile of the Far Right. 

“Media groups, at the hands of a few powerful men,” wrote one observer late last year, “are actively shaping the political discourse in a way that normalises far-right narratives and talking points. By giving disproportionate airtime to far-right figures and framing their extremist positions as legitimate responses to France’s social and economic challenges, these media outlets are gradually shifting public opinion.”

It's a sign of this shift in opinion that the asset manager Aberdeen (fresh from cancelling a rebrand to ‘abrdn’, which cost an estimated £500,000) has decided to sack the independent board of the Financial Fairness Trust, which has supported organisations researching the effects of inequality. A few years ago, that kind of philanthropy was a cheap way to look like the kind face of capitalism. These days, I’m not sure anyone cares.

Back when I was a cub reporter, an old-timer gave me some advice: “don’t write about process, nobody cares about process, write about results”. It’s good advice for someone trying to write articles, but it’s bad advice more broadly, because process is important. The process of drafting regulation is when laws get defined; the process of crafting the rules that will guide the implementation of laws is when questions get resolved. The power of billionaires is that they can afford to employ people to monitor that process, and to make suggestions. If the rest of us don’t care, the world will be stolen from us without any of us noticing.

And once it’s stolen, it’ll stay stolen. Thanks to impenetrable financial structures like a trust registered in South Dakota, the super-rich can keep their wealth safe in perpetuity. When I first wrote about South Dakotan trusts, back in 2019, there was around $350 billion squirreled away in the Mount Rushmore State. That total has now hit $815 billion, having risen by $100 billion in the last year alone.

“It’s going to go on for—the estimates vary — 10 to 15 more years. But, there’s a huge transfer underway from the boomer generation to the next generation," said Bret Afdahl, the director of the state’s Banking Division.

Sometimes it can be hard to stay optimistic.

The imaginary banker

Here’s a weird story: “meet Barbarat Giuseppe, the world’s most prolific banker. He’s run most of the world’s largest banks … Mr Giuseppe’s spectacular career is spoilt only by the small detail that it’s all fraudulent”.

Guiseppe may not actually exist, but he’s been able to create a series of U.K.-registered companies with the same name as major financial institutions: UBS, Goldman Sachs, and so on. When he’s been caught, he’s just created new familiar-sounding companies, perhaps as part of a money laundering scheme, though it’s not immediately clear how it would help.

“We need to see prosecutions. Skip the hard stuff of finding victims of fraud. Do an “Al Capone” and prosecute the easy offences instead,” writes Dan Neidle’s Tax Policy Associates. Amen to that.

It’s a story that shows that, despite attempted reforms, there are still major problems with many aspects of the U.K.’s company formation system. “The foundations for a successful regime are now in place, however it will take a concerted effort from across the economic crime architecture to deliver results,” wrote Transparency International’s Ben Cowdock.

Russia's blockchain bet

Last week, I wrote about how Russia was moving money via crypto and Kyrgyzstan to evade Western restrictions on its financial sector, and here’s an interesting analysis of the phenomenon. “Russia is building a parallel financial system using blockchain as its backbone,” writes analysts from Astraea. “This network presents a growing challenge for regulators and underscores the urgency of developing coordinated international responses to crypto-based sanctions evasion.” 

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Poor little rich men

Oliver Bullough

Where kleptocrats go house-hunting

Oliver Bullough

Did a Putin ally evade sanctions to pay private school fees?

Oliver Bullough

The post The men who bought the world appeared first on Coda Story.

It was a pretty understandable hope - who wouldn’t want their poor ex-Soviet republic to become as prosperous and stable as Switzerland? – but it was a forlorn one. Both countries are multilingual and mountainous, but have little else in common. In the end, Akayev fled to Russia, his fall precipitated by the Tulip Revolution. He was the first of three presidents to be chased out of office, only for each new government to be every bit as corrupt and incompetent as those that were overthrown. 

But will it be sanctions-dodging that finally brings Kyrgyzstan and Switzerland together? There is already substantial transhipment of physical goods via Kyrgyz companies to help Russians access goods they’re supposedly barred from purchasing, including luxury cars, but the business appears to be becoming more elaborate.

A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY

Back in April, the former Binance CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao (he stepped down after being jailed in the US, but still owns most of the company) announced that he was advising Kyrgyzstan on crypto reforms. “Such initiatives are crucial for the sustainable growth of the economy and the security of virtual assets, ultimately generating new opportunities for businesses and society as a whole,” said current president Sadyr Zhaparov at the time.

In May, we heard that Kyrgyzstan plans to launch a dollar-pegged stablecoin called USDKG which, fascinatingly, will be backed not – as it is at Tether (USDT) or Circle – with dollar assets, but with $500 million worth of gold from the Kyrgyz government.

“Anyone holding USDKG can redeem it for physical gold in Kyrgyzstan, exchange it for crypto like USDT, or withdraw it as fiat through the traditional banking system,” said William Campbell, who is advising the government in Bishkek on the venture. 

Apparently, the aim is for the cryptocurrency to be used for remittances back to Kyrgyzstan from citizens abroad, as well as legal tender inside the country, but it also looks like an open invitation to money laundering and sanctions dodging. If USDKG works the way he says it will, it will be a state-approved backdoor linking the gold market, the traditional financial system, and the crypto world. It would be in short a 21st-century version of what Switzerland used to be for Nazis, dictators, mafiosi, spies and tax-dodgers, before the rest of the world forced it to go straight (ish).

Last week, the FT published a fascinating investigation into how a fugitive Moldovan oligarch and a Russian bank have created a rouble-backed stablecoin called A7A5, which they are trading in Kyrgyzstan, effectively to gain access to USDT, which they lost when the Garantex exchange was shut under U.S. pressure in March.

“(It is a) friendly jurisdiction that is not so subject to sanctions”, said A7A5’s director Leonid Shumakov. “It is no secret that this jurisdiction is currently helping a lot to cope with the pressure [Russia] is under.”

Earlier this year, the United States sanctioned a Kyrgyz bank that it suspected was trying “to create a sanctions evasion hub for Russia to pay for imports and receive payment for exports”. But it’s not clear what it can do about a stablecoin if it has no connection to the U.S. financial system and therefore no reason to fear the Department of the Treasury.

History shows that when a sufficiently large number of rich people or companies become discontented by government restrictions on what they can do with their money, they will find a jurisdiction willing to earn fees by helping them evade those obstacles. This is how places as varied as Hong Kong, Dubai, the Cayman Islands and Delaware earn a living, and it would not be a surprise if Kyrgyzstan were to join them.

SHEDDING LIGHT ON THE DARK ECONOMY

Britain of course is the granddaddy of all the tax havens, so it’s heartening to see evidence that reforms to try to clean up its rotten financial system are starting to have some effect. In 2023, parliament passed a law to prevent British companies from being quite so perfect a vehicle for the committing of financial crimes, and the corporate registry has issued a progress report.

Highlights include the fact that tens of thousands of fraudulent companies have been struck off the register, many other companies have been forced to update their information to make it accurate, and attempts to create companies with false information have been prevented. Applicants are going to have to verify their identity before they file information, but will also have the right to prevent that information becoming public if it would pose a risk to themselves.

It wasn’t long ago that Companies House was the preferred source for cheap, reliable shell companies used in money laundering scandals globally. And it is genuinely brilliant that efforts are being made to prevent that from happening again (although there is still a long way to go).

It’s interesting as well that UK law enforcement agencies are trying to build ties with foreign counterparts in order to tackle corruption and financial crime, not least since they appear to be trying to encourage American agencies not to retreat from the fight. It will of course take more than a few nice words from the Brits to enthuse Donald Trump’s White House about the merits of fighting corruption, particularly considering the number of attorneys tackling investigations under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act appears to have been halved.

While on the subject of international cooperation, here’s an interesting paper about the effect on a bank in the Isle of Man of the automatic exchange of information, which was brought in after the 2007-8 financial crisis to make it harder for people to dodge tax. Its analysis is based on leaked data and only covers one relatively small bank in one relatively small jurisdiction, but appears to reveal some pretty significant flaws in the regulations, which may make them less effective than we’d hoped.

And while on the subject of tax havens, the British Virgin Islands has issued proposals for how it might make its corporate registry less opaque, and they are not great. “Most alarmingly,” said Transparency International’s Margot Mollat, “the policy of notifying company owners when their information is accessed puts journalists and civil society actors at serious risk of retaliation and legal intimidation.” This isn’t transparency, Mollat added, “it’s a system that will frustrate scrutiny and protect dirty money”. 

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Crypto Warfare and a New Gold Standard

Oliver Bullough

How do you solve a problem like the BVI?

Oliver Bullough

Cryptocrats fear regulation will stymie a new crypto era

Oliver Bullough

The post Crypto’s backdoor through Bishkek appeared first on Coda Story.

It’s all coordinated via encrypted messaging apps and, as long as you’re transacting with a major centre like London, Paris or New York, your cash will be ready for collection within a couple of hours. “You can get paid electronically if you have a bank account. You need to be a bit careful about having lots of random payments coming into your account, but otherwise it’s straightforward,” one Iranian told me.

The trick is the same one used at various times and on various continents in Chinese Underground Banking, hawala transfers, or the Black Market Peso Exchange, all of which also exist to provide financial services outside the Western-dominated financial system. Instead of moving money electronically through bank accounts, they transfer value through the trade network, something that Western policy makers really struggle to get a grip of, not least because they often don’t understand what’s going on.

A digital act of war

Cryptocurrencies have really supercharged these networks because, instead of moving value in a shipload of used cars or a container of designer handbags, which take weeks to reach their final destination and are cumbersome to buy, move and sell, they can be shifted quickly, easily and with minimal time delay. Hawaladars can now shift value between countries with their phones, and the sarafis in Tehran are all using Tether, despite the fact they’re not supposed to (I mean, neither are Venezuelans, but that hasn’t stopped the national oil company).

This is why last week’s hack by the Israel-linked group Predatory Sparrow (who are presumably unrelated to calypso king Mighty Sparrow, but I’ll take any excuse to link to this banger) is so interesting. By raiding $90 million from Tehran’s Nobitex crypto exchange it was striking a blow against the informal financial ties between Iranians and the rest of the world. The lost cryptocurrencies included, according to Chainalysis, “Bitcoin, Ethereum, Dogecoin, Ripple, Solana, Tron, and Ton” although the hackers didn’t actually steal them but instead sent them to addresses from which they could not be retrieved, which is a bit like raiding a bank and burning all the currency in its vaults. Elliptic, however, noted that dollar-backed stablecoins may be among the stolen crypto.

Stablecoins are different to other cryptocurrencies in that their value rests on something other than the forces of supply and demand – in Tether’s case, that is the dollar – and the companies that issue them own large stocks of real-world assets to protect the price peg. The strange consequence of this is that while America’s allies use stablecoins to escape the dollar financial system, they are in effect supporting that system by maintaining demand for U.S. Treasuries.

All that glitters is crypto

They are not entirely happy about this, which is why they have been investing so heavily in the other great reserve asset: gold, the price of which has hit high after high after high this year. And this raises the fascinating prospect of a gold-backed stablecoin taking off, giving all the advantages of Tether but without having to support the U.S. government.

“The rise of gold-backed currencies that circumvent the US banking system, coupled with sanctioned regimes’ growing interest in the adoption of alternative currencies and payment systems, could create a massive blind spot for US financial intelligence and sanctions enforcement efforts,” argues the Atlantic Council in an acute analysis. It suggests that Western countries should stop spraying sanctions around like they’re antibiotics on a pig farm, or such a future will come to pass sooner than anyone would think possible.

It's a warning that seems to be falling on deaf ears in Washington, where congresspeople are busy debating ever-higher sanctions, and where businesspeople are busy riding the crypto wave. The latest deal is the appearance of Tron on Nasdaq via a reverse merger, which is good news for the company’s Chinese-born founder Justin Sun. As you may remember, a probe by US regulators into Sun’s activities was paused after he made a $75 million investment into the Trump family’s crypto firm World Liberty Financial last year.

This was not the only Trump dividend from the family partnership with Tron, a blockchain blamed for 58 percent of all illicit activity in the crypto world, since two of the president’s sons in February joined the advisory board of the bank that organised the reverse merger. On top of that, Tron has started minting the Trump family’s own stablecoin USD1, which will help increase the first family’s already large crypto dividend.

In case you’re concerned that the business ties between Sun and the Trump family might lead to a conflict between the president’s personal and public interests, however, there is no need to be. “President Trump is dedicated to making America the crypto capital of the world,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly has said. “His assets are in a trust managed by his children, and there are no conflicts of interest.”  I don’t remember everyone being quite so accepting that Hunter Biden’s business interests were separate to those of his father, but of course that was a very long time ago.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

How Trump is bringing shell companies back onshore

Oliver Bullough

A crypto government for a crypto nation

Oliver Bullough

Cryptocrats fear regulation will stymie a new crypto era

Oliver Bullough

The post Crypto warfare and a new gold standard appeared first on Coda Story.

I shared a stage with Ed Caesar, author and journalist from The New Yorker- magazine, who has written some great pieces on oligarchs (as well as much else), with Paul Caruana Galizia, who made this excellent podcast on Londongrad, and with Hans Gutbrod, whose piece on Georgia’s own Bidzina Ivanishvili is very much worth reading. And if you like surreal, ethereal documentaries, I highly recommend Salome Jashi’s ‘Taming the Garden’, which tackles oligarchy and its implications through the story of Georgian trees. 

The joy of the festival is in the incidental meetings, of which few were more joyful for me than sitting next to Joseph Stiglitz at dinner and getting to hear his views on inequality, oligarchy, and the age of Trump. Where else would I ever get to do that? 

Moral of the story: you too should find time to come to Tbilisi next year for ZEG. If you do, you can also make a side-trip to the market to stock up on one of the world’s best condiments.

SHOW US THE MONEY

Victoria Cleland, the Bank of England’s Chief Cashier, has announced that worried Brits are hoarding cash. “At a time of uncertainty, at a time of crisis people do move to cash. They want to make sure they have literally got something under the mattress,” she said at a conference in London.

This, she said, helps to explain why the value of all the banknotes in circulation keeps going up – indeed, it hit a new all-time high of 85.872 billion pounds this year – despite the fact that people use less cash all the time. The Bank of England has previously estimated that between 20 and 24 percent of banknotes at any one time are being used in transactions, and the rest are unaccounted for (or, according to Cleland, hoarded). 

So, if we do the sums and we accept Cleland’s logic, we can say that around 1,000 pounds worth of banknotes is being hoarded by every single person in the UK, up from around 920 pounds last year. I have to say that, with all due respect to Cleland, I am very dubious about that figure, not least because someone is getting a double share to make up for the fact that I don’t have even a fraction of that.

The most recent survey I can find, which is from 2022, suggests I am not alone. The average Brit had just 113.82 pounds at home back then, and it’s hard to see why that total would have increased ninefold in the last three years.

This is not a UK-specific situation. The last survey conducted for the Federal Reserve shows that the average American had $373 either in their wallet or at home in 2024, down $70 from the year before. So cash hoarding in the US is going down, but the value of banknotes in circulation keeps going up –  indeed, it hit a new all-time high of $2.835 trillion in the most recent data release, which is around $7,000 for every person in the United States. So either Brits and Americans alike are spectacularly under-reporting how much cash they’re keeping at home, or someone else is using all that cash for something else.

Considering that barely a week goes by without news of major money laundering gangs being busted with bags full of banknotes, I personally would like it if central bank officials put a little bit of thought into asking whether the extremely healthy demand for their products is not in fact coming from organised criminals. And if it is, whether central banks ought to do something about that.

Five years ago, the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee scolded the Bank of England for not caring about where its banknotes go. “The Bank needs to get a better handle on the national currency it controls,” its chair, MP Meg Hillier, said. It still does.

TRACKING ‘ENDANGERED’ MILLIONAIRES

Regular readers will know how much I admire the ability of Henley & Partners, the world’s foremost passport vendor, to turn almost any piece of news into an advertisement for buying a new passport and/or visa.

In recent times, the alarm is being sounded by changes to British tax policy which, basically, make it more expensive for very rich people to live and to die in the UK. And Henley responded in the way that it always does – “provisional estimates for 2024 are even more concerning, with a massive net outflow of 9,500 millionaires projected for this year alone,” it reported last year about the “wealth exodus”. All was not lost, however. If only the UK would scrap taxes on capital gains and inheritance and privatise its healthcare system, millionaires might be persuaded to stay.

The ‘research’ was picked up very widely, with few media outlets questioning its methodology, its publisher’s motivations, how representative its purported database of 150,000 people was of the millions of millionaires in the world, or indeed how exactly anyone knows where they’re all going. The Tax Justice Network has now delved into the report, and its findings are worth a read, not least the headline conclusion that there was no exodus. The correct policy response, it argues, would therefore not be tax cuts at all but higher taxes on wealth.

So, what should we think? Are millionaires leaving the sinking ship, or are they clinging on to help rebuild? Should we lower taxes or raise them? The obvious solution is surely to use satellite tags so millionaires can be tracked like wildebeest as they migrate from the watering holes of Chamonix to the rich, grazing pastures of Mayfair via the rutting grounds of St Barts. Only then can we know for sure if they’re being chased into extinction.

CALLING OUT MONACO

The European Union’s regularly updated “list of high-risk jurisdictions presenting strategic deficiencies in their national anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regimes” has done something worthwhile for the first time I can remember by singling out Monaco.

Normally, the list is made up of a random selection of irrelevant places and third-order tax havens. And there’s plenty of the usual on display: why anyone would worry that Côte d'Ivoire, Namibia and Nepal, for example, are supposedly big centres for financial crime, I have no idea. And normally, the list will avoid pointing a finger at any country that is closely allied or aligned with any EU member, which means the U.S. and U.K. never get singled out even though they’re clearly far more problematic than, say, Algeria.

This time, however, the list does single out Monaco. The principality is a major problem, with deep ties to deeply unsavoury people and a fast-developing financial scandal.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Trump’s gift to kleptocrats

Oliver Bullough

The super-rich and their secret worlds

Isobel Cockerell

The Age of Broligarchy

Natalia Antelava

The post The cash hoarders, migrating millionaires, and Monaco mischief appeared first on Coda Story.

The 300,000 or so financial institutions subject to regulations in the United States have to report any suspicions they have about transactions, as well as reports of large cash payments, to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN. The idea is that their reports will alert investigators to crimes while they’re going on, and help the goodies catch the baddies.

DEFUNDING THE COPS

Sadly, however, FinCEN’s computer system is so clunky it’s like, as a former prosecutor once said, trying to plug AI into a Betamax. Investigators often have to create their own programmes to trawl a database that gains more than 25 million entries every year, or else just pick through them in the hope of finding something interesting. It effectively means that this vast and priceless resource is hardly ever used.

And now FinCEN’s budget looks like it will be slashed even further. “The pittance allocated to FinCEN in the current budget has been reduced even further,” wrote compliance expert Jim Richards, with a link to the 1,200-page supplement to the White House’s proposed 2026 budget with details about the cut. The reduction would take spending back to 2023 levels, which is worrying for anyone keen on seeing criminals stopped. And that’s even before you take into account the effect of workforce disillusionment at regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, resulting from the cuts imposed by DOGE.

“I experienced some dark times during my SEC career, including the 2008-09 financial crisis and the Enron and Madoff scandals,” wrote Martin Kimel in a passionate column in Barron’s. “ But morale at the Commission is the worst I have ever seen, by far. No job is secure. Nobody knows what will become of the agency or its independence.” So, he added, “when the SEC offered early retirement and an incentive payment for people to voluntarily resign, I and hundreds of others reluctantly accepted.”

If you lose experienced personnel, and you lack the resources to invest in the latest technology, you will always lose ground against entrepreneurial and skilled financial criminals. That is the inevitable consequence of what is happening in the United States, which will be devastating for the victims of fraudsters, crooks, hackers and more.

THE UK PRECEDENT

There is, however, a cycle to this kind of thing. Governments that are determined to unleash the private sector always cut enforcement of regulations, but then they become embarrassed by the inevitable revelations of corruption, sleaze and incompetence that result. This is what happened in Britain, where years of news headlines about London being the favourite playground of oligarchs finally led to government action.

Three years ago, the British authorities imposed a special levy on financial institutions to fund the bodies that fight crime, and last month it published a report on the first year of spending. More than 40 million pounds has been invested in new technology to tackle Suspicious Activity Reports (so no more Betamax in London), and almost 400 people have been hired to do the work, including some of them finally beginning to try to drain the swamp that is the U.K.’s corporate registry. This is good news. 

It is inevitable that, just like in the U.K., the United States will eventually become so appalled by the rampant criminality that will result from the cuts to FinCEN, the SEC and other bodies, that politicians will start building a decent system to stop it. I just wish everyone would get on with it, so millions of people don’t have to lose out first.

THE EU GETS INTO GEAR?

You can accuse the European Union of many things, but you can’t say that it acts hastily. Several months after the last progress update from the Anti-Money-Laundering Agency (AMLA), it has appointed its four permanent board members. They represent an interesting cross-section of European expertise. 

There’s Simonas Krėpšta who, at the Bank of Lithuania, has overseen the country’s booming fintech sector and, therefore, has a good insight into the country’s booming money laundering sector, which has seen quite a lot of firms get fined, including arguably Europe’s most valuable startup Revolut. 

Then there’s Derville Rowland of the Central Bank of Ireland, who will bring inside knowledge of Europe’s most aggressive tax haven. And Rikke-Louise Ørum Petersen, who joined Denmark’s Financial Supervisory Authority in 2015, just when the money laundering spree by Danske Bank was about to explode into public view. Finally, there’s Juan Manuel Vega Serrano, who was previously head of the Financial Action Task Force, which gives him plenty of experience of working at an ineffective, slow-moving, superficially apolitical, supranational anti-money laundering organisation. 

All told, I’d say this is a pretty perfect group of people for the job. The European Union works slowly, but it works thoroughly. Of course, AMLA won’t actually be doing anything until 2028, and it probably won’t do much after that either. But you can’t have everything.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Making America corrupt again?

Oliver Bullough

Of the corrupt, for the corrupt, by the corrupt

Oliver Bullough

Why the West is failing to fight corruption

Oliver Bullough

The post Creating a culture of corruption appeared first on Coda Story.

This was at the time not a controversial piece of legislation, not least because American politicians – as part of the Financial Action Task Force – have been pressuring other countries to pass similar laws since the late twentieth century. But it has proved messy to implement. FinCEN, the United States’ financial crimes enforcement network, only finished making the necessary rules to file what it calls “beneficial ownership information” last year – just in time for judges in Alabama and Texas to declare them illegal, and then for the second Trump administration to basically ditch them altogether by saying they don’t apply to 99.9 percent of corporations that are registered in the U.S.

The consultation period over this decision to ditch the filing requirement is now over. (So, if you feel strongly but didn’t get round to writing in, I’m sorry to say you’ve missed your chance.) It is now possible to browse through the several-dozen submissions from concerned citizens and organisations, which is an enlightening experience.

MAKING COMPANIES OPAQUE AGAIN

In the pro-rules camp, you can find comments from law enforcement agencies, anti-corruption organisations, environmental campaigners, credit unions and others who are concerned that the Trump administration’s decision to maintain the previous lax standards is damaging and unwise.

“Without this data,” stated the National District Attorneys’ Association, in a fairly typical submission, “prosecutors are left blind when investigating shell companies used by fentanyl and human traffickers, cybercriminals, and corrupt foreign actors.” These, they added, “are not abstract concerns –these are real threats to American families and communities.”

In the other camp are the small business owners, or associations representing them, who are delighted that the requirements to file their details with FinCEN are now history, and want all beneficial ownership information already filed to be deleted. 

“For many of us, the original BOI requirements felt like an unfair assumption of guilt, treating hard working entrepreneurs as potential criminals rather than the backbone of our economy,” wrote Stephen McKissen, the owner of a video production company in Denver, Colorado. Removing the requirement, he argued, “for US companies and US persons to report BOI lifts a significant weight off our shoulders.” 

Ever since the world’s first piece of anti-money laundering legislation was passed in 1970, businesses have complained about the compliance burdens it imposed upon them. Criminals hide by pretending to be legitimate businesspeople, and the only way they can be exposed is by imposing rules on everyone, thus obliging honest folk to undergo paperwork and inconvenience, which is not popular with the honest folk (or, I suppose, the dishonest ones).

It's crucial to the way the legislation is implemented therefore to minimise that inconvenience, to make sure it does not cause so much irritation that it becomes a political issue. This appears to be where the U.S. efforts ran aground. I had a look at the FinCEN portal through which company ownership is registered and which the small businesses were complaining about. It didn’t look too bad to me, but if the registration process is anything like the comment-reading process, I can see why people are annoyed about having to do it.

Every single comment on the proposed rule changes has the same headline, so it’s impossible to tell which are interesting and which are utterly banal, without opening a new page, then opening a new attachment. When you return to the main page, the list of them rearranges itself unexpectedly, so it’s hard to know which ones you’ve already read. It is in short a very poorly designed piece of software, and you’d think a country that created Google, Apple, Facebook and the rest might have been able to find some better programmers.

Back, though, to America’s notoriously lax shell company legislation. It is the result of it being devolved to state level, so that some states – Delaware and Nevada are stand-out examples – end up competing with each other to attract more incorporation, thus sparking a race to the bottom. 

Perhaps there’s nothing that could have been done to make American business owners appreciate the need to file information about beneficial ownership, but the lesson for bureaucrats is that you have to make compliance easy. Having to file information at both state and federal level was never going to be popular, particularly if the web portal involved was also clunky and annoying. 

However, what’s left of the Corporate Transparency Act will nicely align with the White House’s wider agenda, since it now only applies to foreign companies that have registered to do business in the United States. If criminals currently using offshore-incorporated corporations want to avoid having to report their identity to the authorities, they’ll now need to set up a domestic shell company, which will I suppose be a small win for USA Inc.  

It’s too early to say whether Trump’s tariffs and threats will bring businesses and manufacturing back to America, but he is at least making onshore shell companies great again.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

How do you solve a problem like the BVI?

Oliver Bullough

Lawless in Saipan, and Trump pardons crypto bros

Oliver Bullough

Why the future of democracy depends on controlling illicit finance

Oliver Bullough

The post How Trump is bringing shell companies back onshore appeared first on Coda Story.

New Zealand is often touted as the go-to destination for riding out the apocalypse. Vivos has apparently built a 300-place luxury bunker on the South Island, and Rising S Bunkers, an American company that specializes in the building of doomsday shelters, have been busy too. Peter Thiel obtained New Zealand citizenship, though tragically was not able to build his own mega-bunker after he failed to get planning permission. But that has not stopped other billionaires from planning their escapes to the land of the long white cloud.

BILLIONAIRE BOLTHOLES

Politicians in Wellington are only too happy to help. In April, they eased up on the rules around the country’s golden visa programme to attract more of this sweet flight capital, removing a requirement that applicants speak English, and reducing the cost. You now only need to spend 21 days in the country to establish residency, down from three years, which is good news for tech barons keen not to have to pay tax or make friends or stuff like that.

“In the past, the vast majority of applicants were looking for tax havens,” former immigrant minister Stuart Nash told the FT. “Now they’re looking for safe havens.” Nash is a man for the snappy catch phrase. Since leaving government, he has set up Nash Kelly Global, a relocation company, which has the distinctly yuk for an ex-politician but very on-brand tagline: ‘What they don’t tell you about New Zealand. It’s not what you know. It’s who you know.’

But I’m afraid New Zealand is not quite the safe option it’s been cracked up to be. For a start, how safe is New Zealand? Lynas’ deaths table shows that in the event of war, 68 percent of New Zealanders would be dead after two years of nuclear winter. Okay, that’s better than Russia (98 percent), the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany (99 percent) or Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates (100 percent), but it’s still not great. And expensive fortifications wouldn’t help: billionaires would not be able to hide forever from gangs of survivors and would be, Lynas writes, “winkled out of their bunkers and hiding places like fat grubs”. 

So, which countries do offer the best survival prospects in the event of Trump or Putin getting an itchy trigger finger? Iceland, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Haiti and – painfully no doubt for Kiwis – Australia all have a 0 percent death rate. At present, Iceland does not sell visas, and Australia closed its investor visa programme last year, so it’s no good to you even if you have the cash to flash. But there are plenty of options among the others: Uruguay’s is a bit pricey, but Costa Rica will sell you residency for just $150,000, and Argentina is practically giving it away.

I’m surprised no one’s started marketing these countries to rich people worried about nuclear war: ‘If life sends you nuclear winter, enjoy the fresh powder.’ Mr Nash, you can have that one for free.

ESCAPE TO MARS

Of course, everywhere on Earth is going to be impacted a bit by nuclear war, so why not abandon our planet altogether? Elon Musk’s current plan is for a first unmanned mission to take off for Mars next year, with people due to land on the red planet in 2028, and for a self-sustaining colony to exist within 20 years.

SpaceX has released a handy new video simulation of the journey, though I hope for the Muskonauts’ sake that they won’t have to listen to that dreadful music for the entire eight-month trip. If I was as rich as Musk, I’d have licensed Queen’s ‘Don’t Stop Me Now’ at least. The upside to living on Mars of course is that you wouldn’t be on a planet that could be rendered uninhabitable by a nuclear bomb. The downside though would be that you’d be on a planet that’s already uninhabitable. So, perhaps it would be better to focus on securing the future of Earth instead? 

“Surely the best way to protect the human species in coming decades is to focus on resolving the tensions we face at home, from unbridled nuclear proliferation to strategic global competition and realignment,” wrote noted physicist Lawrence Krauss.

Predictably enough, Musk dismissed Strauss’ argument by tagging @IfindRetards in reply (such a hilarious guy!). But Strauss raises an interesting point. Cold War-era treaties, negotiated to prevent an extraterrestrial arms race, declare that there is no sovereign territory or territorial appropriation in space. Yet, according to Starlink’s terms of service, Mars is “a free planet”, and no Earth-based powers have authority there: “Disputes will be settled through self-governing principles, established in good faith, at the time of Martian settlement.” 

That looks a lot like Musk is claiming the right to govern Mars as its settlers see fit. Of course, it’s not impossible that the new settlers (who will have been chosen by Musk, trained by Musk, brought to Mars by Musk’s rocket, and who will be entirely dependent on Musk for future resupply) might set up a genuinely democratic system of self-government. But it’s also possible that Musk might want to claim Mars for himself. That would be in violation of Earth’s treaties, and therefore bad. It would also – considering the havoc wreaked by Musk in his brief stint in government – be a pretty grim prospect on its own terms. 

Of course, you don’t need to go to Mars to set up your own government. Right here on earth we have Eleutheria, which is now aiming to negotiate a 99-year lease for a bit of Tuvalu to build a “free private city”, having given up on the idea of building a state in a Bir Tawil, an isolated, unclaimed bit of desert between Egypt and Sudan. It is indeed easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Poor little rich men

Oliver Bullough

Where kleptocrats go house-hunting

Oliver Bullough

The super-rich and their secret worlds

Isobel Cockerell

The post The oligarch’s guide to sitting out a nuclear winter appeared first on Coda Story.

“Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands (BVI), the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands will have legislation on registers of beneficial ownership approved through their respective legislatures by April 2025, with implementation by June 2025 or earlier,” was the unequivocal deadline in a joint communiqué agreed by the British government and the leaders of these five of its Overseas Territories (OTs) in November last year.

It's now May and, well, that has not come to pass. The deadline has been crossed. So what will happen now that all of them (except the Cayman Islands) have failed to approve laws to open up their corporate registries? Will someone get shot? Or will everyone just shuffle about a bit and hope no one’s noticed?

These five jurisdictions are leftover bits of the British Empire which, for various reasons, never became independent. London wasn’t particularly keen on keeping them, mainly because doing so was expensive, so back in the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s, they were encouraged to find ways to fund themselves, with no one particularly caring how they went about it. 

Each of these territories, to varying extents, discovered that there was profit to be made from helping foreigners to move money, and not asking too many questions about where the money came from. As a result, these places are often referred to as tax havens, but that’s misleading since they offer far more than just tax advantages to their clients. 

Shell companies, particularly those of the BVI, became notorious for hiding money for gangsters, tax dodgers, cartels, kleptocrats and other crooks, and the British government struggled to do anything about it. Then, in 2018, a group of backbench MPs seized on the post-Brexit collapse in political coherence and passed a law forcing the OTs to open up their corporate registries so everyone could see who actually owned their companies.

The law came with a deadline: the end of 2020. But no one obeyed it, so it was extended by the British government to 2023. No one obeyed that deadline either, so it was extended again to April 2025. And now? It’s all just a bit embarrassing.

“We must stop the dither and delay of recent years and pierce the veil of anonymity that protects criminals and kleptocrats,” said Margaret Hodge and Andrew Mitchell, architects of the 2018 legislation, back in November last year. But dither and delay persist.

The debate gets caught up in allegations of ignorance, colonialism, arrogance and so on, but it really comes down to one important point: no one in power in Britain cares enough about stopping corruption to take the political and financial hit of overruling the OTs’ own politicians and paying their bills. More than half of the BVI’s budget comes directly from company incorporation fees. What money do you replace that with, if you change the rules so that no one wants to set up shell companies there anymore?

In the case of Anguilla, a surprising amount of money – around $50 million this year, apparently, which is about a third of all its revenues – comes from its domain name, which is the fortuitous .ai. But that’s not an option open to the other OTs, and if they ask too many questions about who’s doing business with them, that business will go elsewhere.

TETHERED TO EL SALVADOR

One business that already has gone elsewhere is Tether, the crypto company that runs the world’s most popular stablecoin USDT, which has almost $150 billion worth in circulation, and incidentally has a domain name -- .io – derived from yet another random imperial fragment, the British Indian Ocean Territory. Previously registered in the BVI, Tether relocated to El Salvador earlier this year after it obtained a license from President Nayib Bukele’s government.

Bukele, whose in his X bio currently describes himself as a “philosopher king”, is much caressed by the American right, who love him for his willingness to indefinitely lock up not just Salvadorans but anyone the U.S. wants to imprison without bothering first to check if they’re guilty or not. Bukele’s methods, the American right says, has made El Salvador safer. But, thanks to journalists from El Faro, we have yet more evidence that the decline in crime that he boasts of may be at least as much to do with secret negotiations with gangsters as it is to do with arresting them. 

“Gangs turned Bukele into a relevant politician,” said El Faro’s editor-in-chief Óscar Martínez. “It is impossible to understand Bukele’s rise to total power without his association with gangs.”

So how does a man who’s previously called himself the “world’s coolest dictator” respond to press reports like these? By threatening to lock up the journalists involved of course, allegedly with investigations under criminal statutes often used against gangsters.

“Treating journalism as a criminal act deprives Salvadorans of essential information,” said Cristina Zahar, Latin America programme coordinator at the Committee to Protect Journalists. “Prosecutors should abandon these cases now and ensure ‘El Faro’ journalists can safely report on matters of public interest.”

Tether has no problems with El Salvador’s political atmosphere and complexities. It plans to build a 70-storey tower in the capital, San Salvador, which will serve both as its headquarters and as a location for other finance companies. “It is the country of the future,” says Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino. 

The fact that the stablecoin issuer is bedding so comfortably into a place like El Salvador is bad news for people who worry about Tether’s outsized role in enabling global money laundering, but potentially good news for Bukele, who has made crypto a key part of his development plan for his chronically-indebted nation. It’s too early to say whether this has worked – although it’s also too early, no matter what “The Economist” might think, to say that it hasn’t --  but it’s an interesting echo of the British OTs’ twentieth-century model: undercut everyone else’s regulations, enable crime overseas, and make a good living out of it.

It's too much to hope that, as a civilisation, we’d have learned from our mistake sufficiently not to repeat it, but I do hope we’re not still going to be arguing about how to solve the resulting problems in 50 years time.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

Related Articles

Lawless in Saipan, and Trump pardons crypto bros

Oliver Bullough

The super-rich and their secret worlds

Isobel Cockerell

The Age of Broligarchy

Natalia Antelava

The post How do you solve a problem like the BVI? appeared first on Coda Story.