The World Bank Group

Using Anti-Money Laundering Tools in Corruption Cases Financial Crime Analysis Simulation Exercise System (CASES)

Participant’s Handbook  

 

 

Written by: The World Bank CASES Design: Tom Fisher

These training materials were put together by a project team from the Financial Market Integrity unit of the World Bank comprising Yves Aeschlimann, Tom Fisher, Marilyne Goncalves, Bjarne Toender Hansen, Kevin Stephenson and Stuart Yikona.

Acknowledgements

Digital materials and website (www.worldbank.org/amlcft/anticorruption) designed by Liudmila Uvarova, Knowledge Management Analyst at the World Bank. We are grateful to the peer reviewers for the training materials that provided valuable advice and guidance: Jean Pierre Brun, Ruben Carranza, Adrian Fozzard, Heike P. Gramckow, Samuel Maimbo, Deborah Morrisey and Francesca Recanatini. Thanks also to guidance and comments received from our Manager Jean Pesme throughout the drafting stages and to Larissa Gray, Marianne Mathias for being available for the early test run of the simulation case study. As the goal of the training materials was to be as practical as possible in the substance of the materials delivered, a practitioner’s workshop was held in May 2010 in Washington DC, USA with the objective of getting hands on feedback from practitioners in the field. Consequently, many thanks go to the following practitioners with years of experience in this field that participated in the workshop, namely, Muhammad Tanvir Akhtar (Pakistan), Winston Cheng (Singapore), Debra LaPrevotte (United States), Bernardo Mota (Brazil), Mutembo Nchito (Zambia), Jean Fils Ntamack (Cameroon), Federico Di Pasquale (Argentina) and Jason Sharman (Australia). Pilot testers: Stuart Yikona, Emile van Der Does, Yves Aeschlimann, Tom Fisher This project was carried out under the overall guidance of Jean Pesme, Manager for the Financial Market Integrity unit in the Financial and Private Sector Vice Presidency. The task was managed by Stuart Yikona. Criminal case development: Basit Abbasi, Stuart Yikona, Tom Fisher World Bank play testers: Stuart Yikona, Basit Abbasi, Tom Fisher, Kevin Stephenson, Bjarne Hansen, Yves Aeschlimann, Larissa Gray, Marilyne Goncalves, Marianne Mathias Special thanks to the Governments of Zambia and Indonesia for volunteering to be pilot countries for the training materials. Special acknowledgement to Rex Brynen, Professor McGill University, Montreal, Canada, for help in simulation design. CASES v 1, 2011

Participant’s Handbook Map

What is a Simulation? ............................................................................................................ 1 Why the Anti-Corruption CASES Simulation? ................................................................ 1 What is the Difference Between a Simulation and a Case Study? ............................ 2 Who Will Participate? ........................................................................................................... 2 Participant’s responsibilities ............................................................................................. 3 Alkonia ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Running the Simulation........................................................................................................ 5

An Overview of Simulation Levels .................................................................................................. 5 Level I .............................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Level II ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Level III ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Level IV ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Roles................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Level I Roles.............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Levels II & III Roles ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Prosecutors ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Financial Crimes Specialist............................................................................................................................ 7 Anti-Corruption ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Moderators .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Local Realities ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Going Live ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Investigation/Information Requests............................................................................................................... 9 Level 0 General Investigation .......................................................................................................................... 11 Level 1 Investigation ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Level 2 Investigation ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Financial Investigation ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Court Order ............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Level III Simulation Economy .......................................................................................................................... 13

Building and Presenting the Case .................................................................................. 15 Case Building ............................................................................................................................................................ 15 Flow and Link Charting ...................................................................................................................................... 15

Link Charts .............................................................................................................................................................. 16 Flow Charts ............................................................................................................................................................. 17

Final Presentation of the Case ........................................................................................................................ 18 Concluding the Simulation ............................................................................................................................... 18

1

The Simulation - A Guide to the Investigation

What is a Simulation?

A simulation is, simply, an imitation or representation of reality. We use simulation when a real system cannot be engaged, either because it is not accessible, too dangerous, does not exist, or in this case, it is simply not cost-effective to participate in as a training exercise.

Simulation-training exposes personnel to the valuable lessons of fieldwork, while allowing them to make mistakes, and develop best practices in a safe, inexpensive environment. It replaces much “learning on the job” which can be costly, and be potentially damaging, to personnel, cases or others.

Why the Anti-Corruption CASES Simulation?

The Anti-Corruption CASES (Crime Analysis Simulation Exercise System) project was born after participation in the World Bank’s Post-Conflict Peace Building Carana Simulation developed by Gary Milante. Through the course of the Carana simulation there came a realization that a simulation-training approach would be extremely useful in developing the capabilities of World Bank client-countries’ Anti-Corruption Agencies.

The question is, why?

There is an ancient Chinese proverb that states:

This proverb summarizes, perfectly, why simulation-training exercises are so effective. Traditional theoretical lectures provide much information, but retention rates are low. Demonstrations provide students with visuals that make information memorable, but lack the aspect of involving students. Simulations involve students in a low-risk, cost effective, dynamic and memorable scenario, where lessons learned can be immediately applied in the field.

Simulation based training has been used extensively by the military (wargames), healthcare, and aviation (flight simulators), now its benefits are being explored in virtually all fields of endeavor.

Tell me, I will forget. Show me, I will remember. Involve me, I will understand.

2

Throughout this simulation-training, participants will be able to experience the highs and lows of case management, the thrill of following leads, and the various hurdles encountered and frustrations faced while building a criminal case. All without exposing themselves to risk, or expending operational budgets. In short, participants will get on the job training, without expending on the job resources.

The CASES system is also useful in that it is scalable and can be tailored to the needs of the day. Herein we will describe various methods by which moderators can make the simulation more or less involved depending on the time dedicated to training, the personnel involved, the intricacy of training needed or any other variables.

In this CASES Anti-Corruption Simulation, participants will explore a corruption case in the fictional country of ALKONIA. Participants will take on the roles of investigators seeking to bring criminals to justice. Using investigative techniques, participants will gather intelligence and evidence to build their case, and present their findings.

What is the Difference Between a Simulation and a Case Study?

A traditional case study is a one sided affair. We’ve all gone through case studies, whereby we receive all the information up front, and our task is to analyze what we have in front of us, and come to some conclusion whose parameters are usually narrowly defined. The responsibility lies with the trainers to provide us with all we need, and then we can proceed.

The simulation approach is different in that the responsibility for gaining the necessary information rests squarely on the participants’ shoulders. Here, you will be given a starting point, a basic guideline of what you need to accomplish (a list of deliverables), and then you must seek out the information you need in order to deliver what is required, without any idea of what, specifically, that may be, only the form it must take.

Participation in a simulation is much more active than a traditional case study; not only within case teams, but also between participants and moderators who will take on different roles throughout the simulation. Unlike a case study, participants will also get more immediate feedback in the form of information. It will become clear that you are on the right track as you are unveiling more information, conversely, you’ll learn soon enough if you are following an investigative path that leads to a dead end.

Who Will Participate?

This Anti-Corruption CASES simulation is directed toward law enforcement personnel dealing with corruption cases. This includes the police, anti-corruption agencies and other government bodies involved in investigating such cases. Further, Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) personnel, prosecutors, and government auditors, or those who hold information germane to corruption cases can benefit greatly. In fact, it is strongly suggested that these personnel participate in the Anti-Corruption CASES simulation so each

3

body can have an appreciation for the roles they each play in investigating and prosecuting corruption cases, and ultimately, the prevention of corruption.

Trained moderators will guide participants through the simulation, introduce the concepts, and then put participants through the paces. Moderators ensure the smooth running of the simulation, while providing help, and challenges to test participants along their journey.

Prior to the simulation, moderators will also delineate the goals for the simulation training exercise. No training system functions in a vacuum, and the CASES simulation is no exception. After a discussion of theory, perhaps including new concepts, the CASES system will be used to put practices, theories and concepts to the test.

Following, you will find the tools you need to run a CASES simulation, including hints and tips, guidelines, and ideas to tailor the training to meet your own jurisdictional needs.

Participant’s responsibilities

Your responsibilities as a participant are to fully engage in the simulation. We are calling on you to use your imagination, and picture yourselves as members of a real investigative team. You are on the frontline of an anticorruption investigation in the Republic of Alkonia. The more you address this simulation as a real investigation the better the results will be.

Over the following pages, you will find guidelines and rules to follow for the simulation. Additionally, you will find background on the Republic of Alkonia. It is within this country that the investigation will take place. Moderators will guide you through the simulation process, review the rules, and answer any questions you may have about the simulation.

Keep an open mind, engage your imagination, place yourselves in the country of Alkonia, and put your skills to the test.

Alkonia

Rampant corruption among Politically Exposed Person’s (PEPs) and big businesses has become a significant problem in most countries the world over but its gravity in developing countries is more acute. In some cases endemic corruption has virtually impeded the socio economic development of the countries affected. In the realm of corruption, PEPs not only benefit themselves but in almost all corruption scams their associates also make “hay while the sun shines”.

In the Republic of ALKONIA, a developing country with numerous economic challenges, a new government replaced the old government amidst suspicion of corruption amongst the political establishment, after a long struggle. A hope was created that democratic leaders would work in a transparent manner for the socio economic development of the country.

4

However, addressing issues of corruption continues to be a major challenge for the government.

Those involved in such activities adopted various methods to earn illegal money and spend it for personal benefits. Some of the acts they performed for this purpose involved the issuing of licenses and permits in the public sector and in the importation of various commodities. A number of the licenses and permits were awarded without following the proper procedures. For example, single entities and individuals were given exclusive rights to import a particular commodity so that one party can exercise control over markets to amass huge profits.

Moreover, in terms of the privatization of public enterprises, a lot of irregularities in the procedures were committed. State owned enterprises were sold in a manner that was neither transparent nor beneficial to the government from a financial point of view. Information on the privatization of the public entities was not easily accessible.

However, recently the new government that came into office in Alkonia made the issue of good governance in all its facets a central plank of its agenda. As a result, the law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies have been given latitude to address cases of corruption whether reported to the agencies by individuals or through other means. In the words of one senior administration official, the competent authorities should “follow any corruption facts wherever they lead and no cow is to be sacred!” Moreover, the media's watchdog role of intently monitoring the proceedings and giving prominence to the allegations of irregularities, corruption and other abuses of office by private and public officials has only grown since the advent of the new democratic dispensation.

Recently, the Republic of Alkonia was admitted into the Egmont membership. Egmont is an informal organization bringing together financial intelligence units for the purpose of exchanging of financial intelligence related to money laundering and terrorism financing.

The legal system of the Republic of Alkonia consists of a three-tiered judicial system: magistrates' courts; the high court; and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court hears appeals from the High Court in both civil and criminal cases. The High Court has jurisdiction of first instance as well as acting as an appeals court from the magistrates' courts. The system is based on English common law, with influences of the Napoleonic Code, and customary law. Criminal cases are heard in magistrates' courts or the High Court depending on the seriousness of the charge. Normal legal protections are extended to defendants. They include public trials, the right of the accused to be present, and the accused's right to confront witnesses, to appeal, to qualify for bail in most cases, and to be represented by counsel, on a pro bono basis if indigent. Judges remain independent from influence by the executive in spite of occasional government pressure.

The legislative framework concerning the fight against corruption in Alkonia is mostly in place. The institutional framework is in place, with the Anti-Corruption Agency having the leading role in fighting corruption. The number of corruption cases, although very low, has

5

recently increased due to improvements in investigation and wider awareness amongst the public. Indeed, there have been a number of cases of corruption in the higher levels of the administration.

You are at the forefront of the battle against corruption. Over the course of this simulation you will be tasked with uncovering past transgressions of the law, and bringing the corrupt criminals of the past (and perhaps even the present) to justice.

Running the Simulation

Prior to the simulation each participant will receive a starting package that contains these rules, and starting intelligence for the coming investigation.

This simulation can be run in several different ways, denoted by a numbered level (I, II, III & IV). Each level has its own advantages, targets different aspects of training, and requires a different time commitment. Course moderators will choose the level of the simulation based on available time and training goals to be accomplished. You will be made aware of what level of simulation you will run prior to the beginning of the simulation.

An Overview of Simulation Levels

Level I

Purpose: Team building and introduction to simulation.

The Level I Simulation is a time-streamed version of the CASES Corruption investigation simulation, whereby teams investigate a potential criminal offense. Specific, detailed investigative techniques are not exploited in this version of the simulation. The main goal of the Level I Simulation is to introduce the concept of simulation to participants, and focus on teamwork concepts.

Level II

Purpose: Introduce the concept of using Anti-Money Laundering tools in prosecuting Anti-Corruption Cases.

The Level II Simulation is a non-“role specific” version of the CASES, whereby teams investigate a potential criminal offense. Investigators will begin to explore specific investigative techniques and tools in this version of the simulation.

The main goal of the Level II Simulation is to introduce the concept of using anti-money laundering tools in the investigation of corruption cases.

6

Level III

Purpose: Introduce the concept of using Anti-Money Laundering tools in prosecuting Anti-Corruption Cases, and deal with inter-agency cooperation as well as case and resource management.

The Level III Simulation is a role specific version of the CASES investigative simulation, whereby teams investigate a potential criminal offense. Investigators will explore specific investigative techniques and tools in this version of the simulation, and have the added constraint of a limitation on available resources. Investigators will have to plan, and manage their case carefully for fear of running out of resources.

The main goal of the Mode 3 simulation is to use concept of using anti-money laundering tools in the investigation of corruption cases, and introduce the concept of resource management in the investigation and prosecution of corruption or financial crime cases.

Level IV

Purpose: Full simulation of an Anti-Corruption Case.

The Level IV Simulation takes the investigative team through the paces of a full investigation. It can include specific documents, intelligence gathering techniques, interview and interrogation etc. It is beyond the scope of this document, and shall be covered in a future World Bank release, resources permitting.

Moderators will review the information contained in this starting package, detail the way the simulation will be run, and then set out the deliverables that each team must present at the conclusion of the simulation. The participants will also be broken up into their investigative teams, and prepare to go live.

Simulation participants will be broken up into teams of up to five investigators. Each team will be charged with the responsibility of building a corruption case using teamwork, and anti-money laundering tools. The team represents the consolidated efforts of anti-corruption agents, financial crimes specialists, prosecutors and law enforcement agents.

Roles

Depending on the simulation level chosen by moderators, participants may be asked to take on a specific role within the investigative team:

Level I Roles

For the purposes of this Simulation Level the participants will not take on any specific role within their team, rather, they share responsibility for building the

7

case. Only by acting together will the teams have the time to solve the case. You will be forced to act quickly, and build consensus among your team members as you decide what investigative avenues to follow.

Levels II & III Roles

In the level II and III simulation, participants will each take on a specific role within their investigative team:

The titles of the roles involved in the simulation may vary slightly between jurisdictions, but one constant will remain: three separate roles will be represented.

• A Prosecutor, responsible for dealing with the courts, and preparing the case, • A Financial Crimes specialist, responsible for gathering financial intelligence, and • An Anti-Corruption specialist who is responsible for interviews and investigations.

Participants will each receive a role sheet explicitly describing their role within the investigative team, prior to the simulation. The specific roles will be tailored to the jurisdiction based on the realities on the ground. (i.e. the Financial Crimes specialist might be from an FIU, or law enforcement agency, etc.)

Prosecutors

The public prosecutor has to ensure that sufficient and credible evidence has been collected by the Anti-Corruption specialist as well as financial records by the Financial Crimes specialist in a manner that is consistent with the criminal procedures of Alkonia. Throughout the simulation, the prosecutor should be building the team’s case which he or she will present to the group at the end of the simulation. Further, the prosecutor will be the lead in dealing with the courts, securing court orders and subpoenas.

There are two basic types of prosecutors, dependent largely upon the system of law (Common or Civil) being used in the jurisdiction where the course is being held.

Financial Crimes Specialist

The Financial Crimes specialist will, generally, come from one of two sources:

• An enforcement, or hybrid-type FIU, or • A financial crimes unit within an existing law enforcement body

The Financial Crimes role acts as the agent for the anti-corruption investigative team with respect to securing the relevant financial records both locally in Alkonia as well as internationally. Moreover, as a member (or working closely with its administrative-type FIU) of the Egmont group of FIUs it utilizes the contacts it has within the network and the access it has to the secure website to get information

8

from the counterpart FIUs in the United States and elsewhere. In this simulation, a presumption is made that the Financial Crimes role is the designated entity mandated to make requests for all financial records that will assist the investigations of alleged corruption activities.

Anti-Corruption

The Anti-Corruption specialist will, generally, come from one of two sources, as well:

• An independent Anti-Corruption Agency, or • An anti-Corruption unit within an existing law enforcement body.

The Anti-Corruption role has a mandate to conduct all investigations in cases involving corruption. For the purposes of simulation, the anti-corruption agency (or unit) is driving the investigation. They must secure the cooperation of the team members and “keep the eye on the prize”. The anti-corruption agent should focus on investigations into the connections between parties, and keep the team focused on the anti-corruption case.

There is another important role involved in the simulation, which exists outside the participant teams, and across all Simulation Levels.

Moderators Moderators will act as the international counterpart that will engage with Financial Crimes units. In this respect, the moderators will upon request provide the necessary information to the participants. For purposes of this simulation, participants are to presume that in obtaining the financial records and any other evidence outside the Republic of Alkonia, the moderators will do so in accordance with the laws of the United States or any other jurisdiction as the case may be. Consequently, a presumption is made that the information shared by FinCen with the FIU of Alkonia has been obtained in a manner that is consistent with the laws and related procedures of the United States.

One (or more) moderators will also act as Judge throughout the simulation. The judge will act as the final adjudicator of the warrant application process. When participants require a warrant, the team prosecutor will have to present their case to the Judge. The prosecutor must clearly articulate to the judge the logical links, leading to this warrant request. A hunch or a suspicion on the part of the authorized officer is NOT acceptable and is simply NOT

Moderators are also disseminators of general and investigative report information. When an anti-corruption investigation is initiated, the moderators will provide the participants with any reports and intelligence which result from that investigation. Similarly, when participants make a request for general information, the moderators will provide them with whatever information they have on hand.

enough.

9

The moderators have a final role to play. They are the impartial judges and referees of the simulation. They will ensure that the participants have all they need to play the simulation as smoothly and efficiently as possible. They will introduce the simulation to the participants, and answer any questions you may have throughout the simulation.

To summarize: throughout the simulation, moderators will aid the teams and guide the simulation as impartial referees. Further, they will represent judges, international law enforcement or intelligence counterparts to whom you may make information requests, reflecting the requirements of each. Finally, the moderators will be the disseminators of investigative report information. These are the reports that contain the data, clues and information you need to build your case.

Local Realities

The simulation will be tailored, to match the legal and structural realities in the jurisdiction targeted by the training.

Going Live

Once the Moderators have laid out the framework, and teams are divided, the simulation will go live.

Participants will have a set amount of time over which they can conduct their investigations. The amount of time dedicated to the simulation varies based on the simulation level:

• Level I: approximately 3 hours of simulation time • Level: II: approximately 8 hours of simulation time • Level III: approximately 10 hours of simulation time • Level IV: varies, usually days to weeks

After reviewing and discussing the initial intelligence and document packages, teams will find that they need more information to build their case. This information can be obtained from the moderators through the use of request forms.

Investigation/Information Requests

A request form (found in Appendix B) must be completed and handed in to a moderator when teams want more information. Through the course of the simulated investigation, you can ask for intelligence on a legal person, entity (such as a corporation, or business) or bank account. Simulation Levels I, II, and III do not deal with specific documents; instead they deal with consolidated reports concerning a legal entity or bank account. Level IV, being a highly detailed simulation, deals with specific documents and investigative techniques. It shall be discussed in a future World Bank release.

10

Participants should always feel free to ask moderators for further information or clarification at any time.

For each discrete person, entity or account, teams will have to submit a written request to the moderators, indicating who or what is being investigated (Name of person, business, entity, or account number). These requests should be detailed enough so the moderators will easily know whom the teams are investigating. For example, if a team wished to investigate bank account#123456, they should indicate at what institution, and in what jurisdiction this account is held. So, a better request would indicate that the team wishes to investigate bank account #123456, held at the Banque Nationale in Lyon, France.

Further, teams may be required to show causality, and prove they are not on a wild goose chase. Moderators may ask for predicate offenses, or just cause that investigative intelligence should be released. The more complete the information provided by the teams to the moderators in their request, the more likely it will be granted, and the team will receive the relevant intelligence package. Otherwise, the teams will have to make an amendment or draft a new request.

Additionally, through investigation, the teams may discover that some entities or accounts are located in foreign jurisdictions. When this is the case, investigators will have to satisfy those jurisdictions’ legal requirements. Teams should be especially thorough when making a request for an investigation in a foreign country. It is also imperative that the teams indicate, on the request form, in which jurisdiction (domestic, or foreign, including the country name) the investigation will take place. A request to investigate a Swiss bank account made domestically will simply fail, and the request will have to be amended or redrafted.

Note that in Level I Simulations, there is only one request form, but there are still several “levels” of information. As the Level I Simulation is time streamed, and less detailed in scope, all information will be handed over to a teams when an intelligence/information request is granted.

There are four (4) distinct types of investigation requests in the Level II and III Simulation, plus a special request added for prosecutors:

• Level 0 General Information Request (all roles may request) • Level 1 ACA investigation Request (only the ACA role may request) • Level 2 ACA investigation Request (only the ACA role may request • Financial Investigation Request (only the FC role may request) • Court Order Request (only the prosecutor may request)

Each of these requests represents a different type of investigation or action and comes with its own set of requirements.

11

Further, when participating in a Level III simulation, which includes a resource management aspect, participants must provide moderators with resources in order to obtain intelligence. The resource rules are discussed below.

Level 0 General Investigation

Level 0 investigations, or general information requests represent an investigation of the simplest sort. A Google search, a police database search, newspaper search, all of these information sources represent what can be gleaned for intelligence in the Level 0 investigation. It represents the expenditure of few resources, and will yield only the most basic information, but the information acquired herein is absolutely imperative in order to pursue other investigative avenues.

All investigations into a person or legal entity (business, organization, etc.) should start with a Level 0 Investigation. For the most part, you will not be able to ask for further information or investigations unless you have already conducted a Level 0 Investigation.

The requirement for releasing Level 0 information is quite low. A name is generally sufficient, but make sure that name is spelled correctly!

All roles represented in the simulation may make a General Information Request.

Level III, only: There is no resource cost associated with this type of request.

Level 1 Investigation

This level of investigation embodies those non-invasive investigative techniques that do not require a court order or subpoena. Simple interviews with willing participants, social network analyses, public surveillance are all investigative techniques covered by this type of request. This represents an expenditure of resources but can be accomplished without involving the courts.

The requirement for releasing Level 1 information is higher than that needed for Level 1. Name, address, identifiers, or even some explanation (predicate offense, supporting evidence, etc.) will be demanded by the moderators in order to release Level 1 Investigation Reports. Of course, with this higher requirement, generally, comes a greater reward. The information included in a Level 1 Report begins to give many clues into the entity being investigated. This should be the next step when investigating a legal entity.

The Anti-Corruption Agent, and only the Anti-Corruption Agent, will make a request and present it to the moderators. If the request sheet is properly completed with all the (correct) required information, the moderator will hand over an investigation report.

12

Level III only: Domestic Level 1 investigations incur a cost of one (1) resource from the Anti-Corruption Agent’s resource pool. A Level 1 Investigation request made for a foreign jurisdiction incurs a cost of two (2) resources.

Level 2 Investigation

A Level 2 Investigation yields the most information available about a legal entity in the simulation. However, it also demands the highest level of detail in the request from the team. A Level 2 Investigation represents the full gambit of investigative techniques, including those that require court orders or subpoenas. Wiretaps, search and seizure, subpoenaed interviews, all techniques that yield the most intelligence or evidence.

This level of detail demands that the teams draft their request with complete information, including predicate offenses, and clear, specific evidence that leads the investigators to this level of scrutiny into the entity in question. Investigators should think of their preparation of a Level 2 Investigation request as a request for a court order. It must be very specific, and leave no room for doubt. Moderators will scrutinize these Level 2 requests and may question the investigators, so be prepared to answer.

Further, in order to obtain a Level 2 Intelligence Report, the team’s prosecutor will have to obtain a court order authorizing the investigation. (See Court Order, below)

Level III only: Domestic Level 2 investigations incur a cost of two (2) resources from the Anti-Corruption Agent’s resource pool. A Level 2 Investigation request made for a foreign jurisdiction incurs a cost of three (3) resources.

Financial Investigation

A request for Financial Investigation is, effectively, a subset of a Level 2 Investigation, except, instead of dealing with a legal entity, the Financial Investigation deals with requests about bank accounts, or accounts held in private financial firms. Opening up financial records is, generally, a right to privacy issue, and thus the investigators will have to meet a high standard when drafting their requests. Much like a Level 2 request, investigators should prepare their Financial Investigation request as if it were a request for a court order. It must be very complete and clearly delineate the reasons the account should be investigated, and a Financial Intelligence Report delivered to the team.

Level III only: Domestic Financial investigations incur a cost of two (2) resources from the Financial Agent’s resource pool. A Financial Investigation request made for a foreign jurisdiction incurs a cost of three (3) resources.

In some instances, particularly shrewd investigators may be able to present a request that would allow them to obtain a Level 2 report without having obtained the Level 1 report for the same entity. Consider this to be excellent investigating, but the standard for obtaining Level 2 information will be quite high, so this

13

Further, in order to obtain a Financial Intelligence Report, the team’s prosecutor will have to obtain a court order authorizing the investigation. (See Court Order, below)

Court Order

Level 2 Investigation Requests and Financial Investigation request have a high threshold to meet before they may be granted. Prosecutors must argue their case before a judge-moderator in order to be granted the authority to proceed. Procedurally, the team will draft an applicable request, and the prosecutor will present this request to the Judge-Moderator including the required resource. Here, the prosecutor will have a very limited amount of time to present the case for a court order, approximately 5 minutes.

Level III only: Domestic court order requests incur a cost of one (1) resource from the Prosecutor’s resource pool. Foreign requests incur a two (2) resource cost.

Level III Simulation Economy

The request procedure in a Level III Simulation is slightly different, in that Level III introduces the concept of resource management to the investigation.

Investigative resources are not unlimited. Whether it is manpower, equipment, logistics, there are limitations on how much an investigation can accomplish in a given time. To represent this level of case management, the Mode 3 Simulation introduces an economic factor that has to be taken into account. Each team member will have an allotment of resource points (representing dollars/political favour/manpower/logistics etc.) each round to spend on their requests for information or investigation. Each request will, in turn, have an associated cost. It will be up to the participants, working as a team to focus their energies on the relevant information, and manage their budgets accordingly.

Each participant will receive an allotment of resources, represented by budget tokens or tickets at the beginning of every round, based on their role. Individual team members will have to expend these resource tokens in order to make request from the moderators. The cost of each request is clearly indicated on the request forms. Resources are limited, and participants will have to carefully manage their budgets or be unable to make requests until the following round.

Resources cannot be shared between team members. The prosecutor’s resource pool may only be spent on Court Order Requests. The Anti-Corruption Agent’s resource pool may only be spent on Level 1 and Level 2 investigation requests. Finally, the Financial Crimes Agent’s resources may only be spent on Financial Investigation requests.

14

Unspent resource dollars will not carry over into the following rounds! So, spend wisely, and use up your budgets within the time limit.

Request Procedure

When performing an action, the correct participant (as indicated on the request form, and/or described above) must present a completed action sheet (describing in writing the information requested) to moderators. If any information is missing from the card, then the moderator will refuse to reveal any information to participants. In this case, participants must gather the correct information, and complete the action sheet.

Keep in mind, while preparing any request, the more information teams provide, the better the teams’ chance of success. Later in this document we will introduce flow and link charts as tools essential to efficiently build and present a case. It will be extremely beneficial to the teams to present simple charts with their requests, as they will clearly demonstrate the basis for the request in a visual manner, along with the textual description required. It cannot be stressed enough, the more complete and clear your request, the greater the likelihood of success.

Level III only: Additionally, the team member must submit to the moderator the required number of resource point tokens. If there are no more tokens available for the round, then the request cannot be made until the following simulation round.

The request sheets are provided as a guideline, and participants should not feel limited to only these requests. Teams are encouraged to think “outside the box” and use all the tools at their disposal. Moderators will be the final adjudicators to decide what is possible, and how the investigation can proceed. The theme will remain, however, that investigators will need to submit requests in writing before any information is handed over. If investigators wish to use a strategy not specifically covered by the action sheets, they should make the request to moderators for a guideline to use in writing their request.

Level II and III only: Each level of investigation will reveal all the information included in lower level investigations. That is, a level 2 investigation will reveal all information available. Level 1 will reveal level 1 and Level-0 information, but not any level 2 information. This will be important when deciding which information you seek, and where you spend your time drafting requests, and resources from your resource pool (described below). In some cases, it will be enough to obtain Level-1 information. In other cases, you will need Level-1 information in order to apply for court orders to obtain Level-2 information.

Following the “live” portion of the simulation, teams will have some time to prepare final cases for presentation to the group.

15

Building and Presenting the Case

As the teams receive information, the case will begin to unfold. Based on the reports and intelligence, new avenues of investigation will open and beg to be explored. It is up to the teams to decide what to seek out.

Case Building

Certain paths will yield more relevant information than others. Teams will have to focus, and through teamwork decide where their time and effort will produce the best results.

While building the investigation, a very powerful tool should be used: Flow and Link Charting. Further, Flow and Link charting must

Keep in mind that a criminal case is like a puzzle. Piece by piece, as evidence begins to fit together you will form a picture. Your goal is to communicate that picture as clearly as possible. Regardless of any missing pieces of the puzzle, you can still form some picture of what has occurred.

be used to present the case during the team’s presentation at the end of the live simulation. The earlier teams start to develop these, the better, as they not only communicate the case visually, but also very powerfully show the teams further avenues of investigation.

Flow and Link Charting

Flowcharts and link charts are used to map complex relationships in a simplified, graphical form. Using this visual language, teams can more quickly build cases, as it will become clear where pieces of the investigative puzzle are missing. Further, when communicating the results of the investigation, this visual language efficiently communicates many facts of the case, in a compelling and immediately understandable way.

As a tool for clarifying intelligence, flow and link charts are particularly useful in a team environment. As the teams create their flow and link charts, it will become infinitely easier to develop a common understanding of the case, since time will likely not permit each investigator to review all of the gathered intelligence.

Flowcharts are used not only to present final evidence to courts, but also to better understand the links and flow of corruption and laundered funds when building the case.

The flow and link chart format we will use derives from the World Bank’s “Intelligence and Analysis” presentation by Martin Comley.

We will focus on two distinct types of charts:

• The link chart and, • The flow chart

16

A link chart demonstrates the links between individuals, companies and other legal entities, whereas a flow chart describes flows of power, funds and/or influence.

The symbol standard set out in “Intelligence and Analysis” is as follows:

A Link chart graphically represents the links between persons or entities, demonstrating how individuals know each other, and possibly where they reside or work. Consider the following statement:

Link Charts

“John’s cousin, Sally, works with Tom at ACME Inc., which is a subsidiary of BIG Corp. John and Tom may know each other.” We would represent this, as shown in the figure below.

John, Sally and Tom are represented by circles, and the companies ACME Inc. and Big Corp. are represented by rectangles.

The “Intelligence and Analysis” Standard

A SOLID Line ALWAYS represents a PROVEN connection

A BROKEN or DASHED line ALWAYS represents a suspected connection, or a connection that cannot be proven

A Circle ALWAYS

represents a PERSON

A Rectangle or Square ALWAYS represents either a COMPANY or ADDRESS

Big Corp.

ACME Inc.

John

Sally Tom

Cousins

Co-Workers

17

Sally and Tom are clearly represented in the ACME box, denoting they are employed by the company. The ACME box is nested within the Big Corp. box, denoting ACME is owned by Big.

The relationships between Tom and Sally and John and Sally can be clearly demonstrated, so are shown as solid lines, while the relationship between Tom and John is merely suspected, hence a dashed line is used. To further clarify relationships, the nature of the relationship is written along the line between parties.

Where a Link chart shows static links between entities, a flow chart denotes a dynamic, directional flow between entities. What is flowing denotes the type of flow chart more than anything else. For the purposes of this training simulation, participants should focus on the flows of monies, and possibly the flows of power.

Flow Charts

Let us consider the flowing statement: “Tom transferred 100$ from his account 123, at FIRST Bank, to Sally’s account 456 at NATIONAL Bank. Sally then withdrew the money and

it is suspected she gave it to John.”

You can see the subtle differences between the link chart and the flow chart.

Foremost, is the use of arrows, clearly showing the direction of flow of money. Next, we can clearly see the use of rectangles representing the bank accounts, owners of said

accounts and their location (name of bank).

Using these simple guidelines and examples, investigators should be able to expand on these ideas to create functional charts to guide their investigation, and present their case.

As the investigative teams develop the various link and flow charts, certain entities will appear to be more important than others, as the true criminals are uncovered. Any flowchart describing the case should show important suspects in a prominent position, in order to best illustrate their significance.

As these charts are such a powerful communication medium, their use during the course of the simulation should not be ignored. When making requests of moderators for information, an accompanying chart can do much to ensure a team’s success.

John Sally

TOM Account 123FIRST Bank

Sally Account 456NATIONAL Bank

100$

100$

100$

18

Final Presentation of the Case

Following the Live portion of the simulation, the moderators will give the teams some time to prepare their final cases for presentation to the group of simulation participants. Teams should choose one member to present the following deliverables:

1. An Oral description of the case 2. One or charts, visually describing the:

a. Flow of monies b. Relationships between suspects, their accomplices and witnesses

3. Reveal the identity of potential suspects, and the associated charges to be brought against them

4. Provide reasons to prosecute or not prosecute 5. Identify good state witnesses

Teams will have a limited amount of time to present their entire cases. This will depend on time allowances for each training session, but teams should not go over 10 minutes. At this time, moderators and other teams should freely exchange ideas, and ask questions of the presenter.

Concluding the Simulation

Following the teams’ presentation of their cases, the moderators will reveal the case, describing in some detail what transpired.

There should be an open discussion and debrief where the moderators can guide and direct investigators, providing insight into where they might have gone wrong, or highlight particularly effective strategies.

In the discussion, participants will be able to learn from each other’s mistakes and best strategies to develop best practices in dealing with anti-corruption cases.

19

Appendix A