I wish this was a link to the original Oxfam audit. It's strange to me that an audit would say that there's somewhere between $23 and $41 billion missing. If the audit really knew what it was doing, wouldn't it have a more precise number What is unaccounted for?
That said, it's high-time for organizations like the World Bank to have fully transparent finances. Like, I should be able to go to a website and see where every single dollar is being spent. I say this as someone who's a citizen of a country who contributes heavily to the org And therefore, I think I have a right to know where my money's going.
> It's strange to me that an audit would say that there's somewhere between $23 and $41 billion missing.
Audits have degrees of certainty; an opinion may be unqualified, meaning the records are spotless, qualified, meaning there are issues but the records are trustworthy, and adversarial, meaning the records are inaccurate and do not represent the actual financial status.
If the records are questionable, it will usually take much more investigation than a standard audit to track down every money unit and produce a clean accounting of the money. Hence, it is possible to identify that records are wrong, but knowing exactly whether the money is still present but unaccounted for versus the money is actually gone from the organizations control without a record of the transaction isn't yet determined.
The DOD itself hasn't passed an audit ever. Money comes and goes without accounting meeting financial standards. That does not strictly mean that the money has been embezzled, only that the DOD and World Bank are unable to demonstrate that it hasn't been.
> Money comes and goes without accounting meeting financial standards. That does not strictly mean that the money has been embezzled, only that the DOD and World Bank are unable to demonstrate that it hasn't been.
Can you think of a better place to embezzle? Its risk-free without any accounting standards. 100% that embezzling is taking place and at a large scale.
It's hard to identify. I audited a Sheriff's account once because there was constant chatter that the funds were being misused. Out of an entire year I could only find one line item that was questionable (it was still a police item, but it should have come from a different fund).
What isn't clear is this: if say the Sheriff buys 100 riot shields from Company X, does his cousin own Company X and there is a kickback or a favor? I couldn't answer those questions because they would require a whole new level of investigation.
1. The cash doesn't have to be withdrawn all at once, it can happen over the course of months
2. The cash can come from earlier cash transactions, not withdrawal
3. Payment can be indirect: CEO donates to a non-profit that hires sheriffs family
4. Instead of kickback the CEO can repay the sheriff with another favor at future time
I hope we're not planning to outlaw cash and implement total invigilation of every transaction just to make corruption slightly more inconvenient.
The 770,000 number for the DOD is just the civilian employee count. It becomes the "largest" when you also include the 2.1 million active service members of the military. I definitely could have worded that better.
Because you can't convict someone for embezzlement if you can't prove it. And you can't prove it if there are no records. This is the purpose of proper financial record-keeping standards - to know where the money is and where it came from and where it goes.
I'm not sure what that could be, but a general answer would be that neither faction wants too much scrutiny. They would therefore have mutual self-interest in maintaining a system where they can keep crappy records (or none) while still keeping mountains of money.
I mean maybe. They probably are doing everything they can do maximize their own budgets, but not so hard that they might expose themselves to more oversight or regulation which means the no real change to how the system operates.
>Money comes and goes without accounting meeting financial standards. That does not strictly mean that the money has been embezzled
Coincidentally, the Liberal Democrat Party in Japan just lost their majority (and subsequently very likely the government) today due to widespread embezzlement and tax evasion.
Always argue for absolute transparency of public monies, there is no justifiable reason public monies have to be kept secret.
>wouldn't it have a more precise number What is unaccounted for?
The audit likely uncovered conflicting information and records. The range represents the high and low bounds of possible interpretations of that conflicting information.
It links to a report which seems to be the main publication, but frankly is very light on details of their audit. Also a lot of the claims are very strangely phrased which makes it difficult to figure out if the criticisms are legitimate or overblown.
The World Bank is an international organization, accountable to its shareholder governments, themselves accountable to their respective people, as all but China, Russia and Saudi Arabia are democracies.
Yes, and those govts can demand accountability. Its citizens cannot see the spending of other govts just because they feel entitled. No country funded the entire operation.
Your govt likely received foreign aid spent on citizens. Does this entitle citizens of that foreign govt to peer into your personal finances because part of them were mixed with foreign money? No, it doesn’t. Just because your govt put money somewhere that was mixed with other actor money doesn’t entitle you to seeing all financials of that entity.
If your standard is something even partially touched by tax money needs its finances made fully public, then you’ll need to include citizens making their finances made fully public. This is stupid, right?
Instead, if you do what all first world countries do, have your govt disclose where it spent money, then that is your accountability. Demanding what you want here isn’t good policy; it’s targeted outrage without thinking of its results.
> I’d guess you’re American based on your entitlement.
Probably. Only Americans demand accountability from governments and publicly funded international organizations. The rest of us have learned to shut up and keep our heads down, and continue to worship our masters.
That said, it's high-time for organizations like the World Bank to have fully transparent finances. Like, I should be able to go to a website and see where every single dollar is being spent. I say this as someone who's a citizen of a country who contributes heavily to the org And therefore, I think I have a right to know where my money's going.