Good to see somebody writing well about this subject. POCA and asset seizure did in fact hit a high and has dwindled. There doesn’t seem to be the stomach for funding the training, capacity building and the time taken to follow the money doesn’t fit the threat harm and risk model. If it doesn’t fit it doesn’t get the resources it deserves.
I really liked this reply. I cannot fault the logic of the argument. I would add, I suppose, that the person paying cash to the tradesman generally believes that they are in a conspiracy to split the tax evaded by the tradesman. Refining our knowledge about criminality might have unexpected consequences, but they don’t have to be negative, they might inform a sensible discussion about what our priorities should be. In fact we have just started a sensible conversation based on better information!
Determining the number of criminals out there may have unexpected and negative consequences. If it is uncovered that certain types of criminality is so widespread does it become acceptable to ‘ordinary people’.
An example being tax evasion by self-employed tradesmen (and women) when they work at the weekend for cash that is off-books. A little Cressey-style rationalisation and they (and everyone connected to them) believe that it is acceptable. 1. Everyone is doing it! 2. I’m not hurting anyone! 3. I pay enough tax!
They even call it ‘doing a fiddle’ at the weekend in general conversation. But surely this is ‘being a criminal’. It is continuous and profitable to the individual.
A quick way to make yourself unpopular in the pub is to draw the link with underfunded public services and the old person on a trolley in A&E.
Good to see somebody writing well about this subject. POCA and asset seizure did in fact hit a high and has dwindled. There doesn’t seem to be the stomach for funding the training, capacity building and the time taken to follow the money doesn’t fit the threat harm and risk model. If it doesn’t fit it doesn’t get the resources it deserves.
Thank you for commenting so positively. It is nice to know someone is out there!
I really liked this reply. I cannot fault the logic of the argument. I would add, I suppose, that the person paying cash to the tradesman generally believes that they are in a conspiracy to split the tax evaded by the tradesman. Refining our knowledge about criminality might have unexpected consequences, but they don’t have to be negative, they might inform a sensible discussion about what our priorities should be. In fact we have just started a sensible conversation based on better information!
Determining the number of criminals out there may have unexpected and negative consequences. If it is uncovered that certain types of criminality is so widespread does it become acceptable to ‘ordinary people’.
An example being tax evasion by self-employed tradesmen (and women) when they work at the weekend for cash that is off-books. A little Cressey-style rationalisation and they (and everyone connected to them) believe that it is acceptable. 1. Everyone is doing it! 2. I’m not hurting anyone! 3. I pay enough tax!
They even call it ‘doing a fiddle’ at the weekend in general conversation. But surely this is ‘being a criminal’. It is continuous and profitable to the individual.
A quick way to make yourself unpopular in the pub is to draw the link with underfunded public services and the old person on a trolley in A&E.