Symbiotic interfaces Sample Clauses
Symbiotic interfaces. Reciprocity Reciprocity aims at a relationship that falls between synergy (where one of the two parties is unaware of the illegal nature of their transaction) and outsourcing or collaboration (where both parties are not only informed but also actively engaged in the criminal activities). Many auction houses or dealers who trade in antiquities from for example China, Cambodia, or Italy, will know or assume that the objects involved are often, or may often be, stolen, illicitly excavated, or smuggled.183 In that case, a relationship of reciprocity connects these participants in the antiquities trade. 183 For China see ▇.▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ (1999) ‘Off with their heads – the antiquities market is destroying China’s Buddhist statuary’ Archaeology, online features, ▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇; ‘Japanese agree to return a stolen statue to China’ Museum Security Network Report, April 18th 2001, ▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, J. (1997) ‘Exodus of Chinese art from Hong Kong’ The New York Times, June 13th; for Cambodia see ▇.▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, T. (2003) ´Cambodia´s crusaders of lost art´ International Herald Tribune, August 30th; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2002); ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2001a); and for Italy: ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2003); ▇▇▇▇ (2001); ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (1998). It depends upon the circumstances of a particular case whether there is a relationship of reciprocity between the actors involved, or some other interface. As far as the antiquities trade is concerned, the same problem can be found as in the illicit art trade. Rather small differences in relationships between actors will make the difference whether one interface or another covers the relationship. The files from the Inspectorate in the Netherlands showed some examples, or potential examples, of the reciprocity interface in the illicit antiquities trade. In some cases, dealers directly obtained items in source countries that were probably stolen and not allowed to leave these countries without export permits. In case of theft, the dealers and their suppliers are connected by reciprocity. However, in case the objects were not stolen but were bought from legitimate owners and subsequently taken out of the country without permits, it is only the dealer that commits a crime. Nevertheless, as soon as this dealer sells the items to customers or other dealers in the Netherlands, who know that the objects have been smuggled, a situation of reciprocity can be said to exist between the actors involved. However, one could argue that the dealer is a legitimate actor and not ...
Symbiotic interfaces. Outsourcing “Outsourcing refers to a division of labour between legal and illegal actors, where one party offers specialized services to the other. This mainly covers cases where the ‘dirty work’ is done by ‘criminals’, while the main benefit is reaped by a legal actor. It can be a one-off or a continuous relationship between a client and a provider. The dirty work may be delegated to actors outside an organization or agency for reasons of convenience, efficiency or plausible deniability. The blame is thus externalised, if the misdeed or the offenders are ever discovered (e.g. Iran-Contra and other intelligence-related activities, such as the use of death squad by the Turkish government against Kurd nationalists (Bovenkerk & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1998); use of agents or subsidiaries to bribe foreign officials in order to avoid scrutiny under the law). In the above cases, legal actors are the clients. The reverse, however, is also possible. Legal actors may provide financial or other support to criminal groups. It is possible that only one of the parties is aware of the quasi-contractual relationship. The Abu Nidal organization, for example, has used a network of legitimate companies whose proceeds financed terrorist activities without the knowledge of the managers and workers of these companies” (▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2003:25). This interface involves a relationship between legal and illegal actors that can be found very frequently in studies of transnational crime. It is analytically clear. Besides the examples mentioned above, numerous other examples can be found in the field of intelligence organizations and the international arms trade as well as the transnational trade in, and disposal of, toxic waste. One can also imagine examples of legal actors providing specialized services to criminals. The trafficking of human beings from China to the US depends largely on the services of state officials, delivering passports and exit permits (▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1996; Ghosh, 1998). The last example mentioned by ▇▇▇▇▇▇ does not seem to fit the definition of this interface. In case of legitimate companies used to raise funds in a legitimate way although for a terrorist organization this can hardly be seen as ‘dirty work’ that is outsourced. This example can probably better be interpreted as an example of the funding interface that will be discussed hereafter.