The world footbal championship in Qatar is finished but let’s look at some of the Financial Crime Compliance related topics that emerged in the wake of the event. If only to highlight that financial crime is everywhere and always.
First and foremost there were the rumors – or well, maybe more than rumors – about how FIFA and clubs in Europe were bought by Qatar to win the bid to host the worldcup in the first place. Sports in general and FIFA in particular have been rife with corruption scandals so this can hardly be a surprise. For those of  you interest; the German ZDF made a nice documentary about it all which you can find here https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/zdfzeit/zdfzeit-geheimsache-katar-100.html
Secondly there’s the question where all this Qatari money comes from… from oil of course but to a certain extent also from underpaying and badly treating foreign labor. Officially the kafala system was abolished by Qatar but in practice it still exists. Like in Singapore and other countries. Not only were the people building the facilities and making the worldcup possible, nothing more than modern slaves, labor conditions were often so poor that workers died. Moreover, the reaction from local officials was often disappointing, see this article for instance https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/08/qatar-launches-investigation-after-reported-death-of-worker-at-world-cup-site
Then there was the claim of match fitching the game between Ecuador and Qatar https://www.foxsports.com.au/football/world-cup/match-fixing-bribery-claim-rocks-opening-world-cup-game-between-qatar-and-ecuador/news-story/7841f4999328b7df79fd9cd7594691a0. Probably the tip of the iceberg only?!
Not all these incidents lead to convictions or fines, but where smoke is, is fire…. it just proves again that money corrupts and when and where there is (lots of) money there will be (suspicions of) financial crime. Another point that is interesting is that financial institutions are hardly mentioned in any of these stories. Maybe all banks and payment service providers didn’t make any mistakes in AML or KYC, but it’s more likely that faults have not been detected and – perhaps more importantly – money has found different ways; think of the expensive watches that some officials were given… Maybe a watch worth 200k euro is a normal gift in Qatar but in most ABC policies tresholds are typically more to be in the order of 20 or 50 euro….
There are also no reports on regulators issueing fines, no surprise audits, no arrests or indictments.
So what does that all teach us? First, all these stories imply that many companies and people are involved in activities bordering on financial crime. In other words: there’s a lot going on and we’re only aware of a fraction.
Second, regulations set the tone and give direction but that doesn’t stop many individuals from violating rules or at least testing the boundaries.
Finally, awareness and what’s more, a sense of ‘righteousness’ and integrity are absent in many people and organisations. The tone from the top and awareness on AML/CFT and Financial Crime in general will need more work – and training – for years to come.

​A recent article in the Financial Times urged ‘HR to go back to basics’ (this is the link but the article sits behind a paywall… https://www.ft.com/content/d43972a9-fc98-4c4c-a424-7c48dd8df5a6), arguing that one of the key tasks of HR is to recruit and retain. And that HR functions globally should go back to these core tasks and do them well (again). In the same period we see Elon Musk violating all sorts of best practises in – human resource - management and shooting from the hip at his newly acquired Twitter. The FIFA football worldcup is almost over and the ruckus about forced labor, modern slavery and poor working conditions have died out while the struggle for equal rights (and pay) of female employees is far from over as this article indicates https://hrmasia.com/the-philippines-moves-to-eliminate-discrimination-against-female-employees/.
There is lots going on in the world that is linked to work, labour and HR, so what trends do we see in HR-land from our humble perspective at Cadena?

• We see larger companies picking up their regional expansion and looking to ensure their HR practise follows suit. That sounds logical and it is. Of course. If your staff size is increasing, if you have to comply with different local labor laws and other regulations it is of utmost importance to ensure you – as business owner or line manager – have a sound administration of all your people and can rely on the adequacy of controls, completeness of metrics and correctness of salary calculations.
• In line with the FT article, HR needs to go back to basics. It is really useless to implement 9-boxes, 360-reviews and other sophisticated practises if you can’t pay your salaries accurate  and on-time, if you have no clue at what time and where your staff is working and have your rostering, scheduling and time-and-attendance not under control and if you have no grip on your overtime. So, we see many companies taking their prime responsibilities serious and get these common aspects of the HR function properly and efficiently organised.
• Last but not least, let’s not forget that most of the ‘HR work’ is done by linemanagers. As we all know, staff join a company or job but leave a (bad) manager. Linemanagers need to work closely with their staff and ensure they are and stay engaged to perform to the best of their abilities. However, if it is a hassle to keep track of employees’ whereabouts, if rostering is a chore, if approving overtime or leave is cumbersome and tardy…. then linemanagers will be spending precious time on administrative tasks while they should be spending time with their teams. So… dear HR heads, CEOs, COOs and CFOs, make sure you enable your  linemanagers with a solid HR system.

In an attempt to defend itself against criticism about the laws on drug use and related to that the death penalty in Singapore, the city state has – as a publicity stunt? – invited Richard Branson to discuss his views as summarized in the Straits Times. Or more likely: to explain to him and to the citizens of Singapore the views of the government 
 
This seems to be a futile attempt because of 2 reasons:

• the underlying view of the 2 opponents on the world and the view on role of government are completely different. Singapore values control and power of the state over the right of an individual and as a government – like many totalitarian regimes – believes in command and control. Mister Branson – like most people in European democracies values human rights over and above the power of the government;
• secondly there is a difference in views on what drives somebody to criminal acts and what is more important: punishment because that is what a government should do to deter indivuals from straying or kindly offer someone a way to better himself. I think Richard Branson believes less in the stick and more in the carrot, while the Singapore government is of the opinion that the stick is a better option. Don’t forget that also caning (at home, in school or in prison) is still  allowed and widely used in Singapore.

 
I’m keen to see the outcome of the talks and keen to hear your views.

​​Het onderstaande plaatje zegt meer dan 1000 woorden. Laten we wel wezen: de Nederlandse boer niet bestaat. Maar de protesterende boeren, de terreurboeren hameren er vooral op dat er ‘zonder boeren geen eten’ is. Dat klopt, maar heel veel van dat eten wordt geexporteerd tegen goed geld waar de boeren van profiteren, terwijl wij – alle inwoners van Nederland – opgezadeld zitten met de stikstof. En dat kan niet zo blijven, dat weten we al 30 jaar maar de meeste boeren zijn gewoon doorgegaan op de weg van de intensieve veeteelt en landbouw gesteund door subsidies, banken en bedrijven. Om dan nu moord en brand te schreeuwen is niet netjes en niet eerlijk.
Maar de consument – wij allen dus – zijn ook niet vrij van schuld want we blijven dingen kopen die niet goed voor ons en niet goed voor het milieu zijn. Laten we nou gewoon minder vlees eten, minder ‘processed foods’, meer zelf koken met ingredienten die in het seizoen en dichtbij geproduceerd zijn.
Zo simpel kan toch niet moeilijk zijn?

 
Dit artikel https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2022/07/07/verzet-in-bernheze-tegen-windmolens-hoger-dan-de-euromast-a4135839 toont weer eens aan dat de besluitvorming rond maatregelen die goed zijn voor het land toch niet worden genomen… Waarom niet?
a) inspraak is goed, naar de mening van belanghebbenden moet geluisterd worden en er moet rekening met gerechtvaardigde zorgen worden gehouden. Maar inspraak mag niet betekenen dat plannen worden gestopt waardoor vertraging wordt opgelopen die niet meer kan worden ingehaald. Iets ‘wegstemmen’ waardoor instanties weer helemaal opnieuw moeten beginnen zou niet mogelijk moeten zijn. Niets doen is geen optie; de besluitvorming zou dusdanig moeten worden ingericht dat alle plannen op tafel komen en dat er een keus wordt gemaakt uit de verschillende mogelijkheden. Nu ligt er 1 plan op tafel dat wordt weggestemd en vervolgens gebeurt er dus niets. Alternatieven worden volgordelijk gepresenteerd, terwijl ze gelijktijdig aan de orde zouden moeten komen met een duidelijke beslistermijn; in de trand van “voor 1 januari 2023 moet er een keuze zijn gemaakt die de gestelde doelen haalt”. Nu ligt alles weer stil en we hebben de luxe niet rustig de tijd te nemen voor dit soort gekeuvel.
b) alle belanghebbenden moeten een stem krijgen en niet alleen de omwonenden. Het probleem is groter dan de eigen achtertuin en omwonenden zouden geen onevenredig grote stem in het kapittel mogen hebben. Het gaat om de energievoorziening van heel Nederland (of Europa zo je wilt) en nimby-ism is dan niet op zijn plaats, niet wenselijk en niet acceptabel. Snelwegen worden aangelegd, vliegvelden worden uitgebreid en dijken worden verhoogd. Wat als een dijkbewoner een dijkverhoging zou kunnen tegenhouden waardoor de achtergelegen stad niet goed beschermd zou worden? Natuurlijk is het niet prettig een hoge windmolen in het uitzicht vanaf je dakterras te krijgen maar als dat tot gevolg heeft dat de hele stad of provincie klimaatdoelen niet haalt mag dat eigenbelang niet in de weg staan van het gemeenschapsbelang. Als we 100 jaar geleden de komst van hoogspanningsleidingen aan dezelfde inspraakprocessen hadden blootgesteld hadden we nooit electriciteit in onze huizen gekregen.
Dus: richt het beslisprocess rond klimaatmaatregelen anders in en geeft alle belanghebbenden een stem.
Simpel.