{"id":33514,"date":"2026-04-08T22:55:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-08T22:55:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/?p=33514"},"modified":"2026-04-24T00:44:49","modified_gmt":"2026-04-24T00:44:49","slug":"whole-of-economy-approach","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/expertises\/ifcrm\/integrated-approaches\/markets-value-chains-and-financial-integrity\/whole-of-economy-approach\/","title":{"rendered":"Whole-of-Economy Approach"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management through a Whole-of-Economy approach presupposes a fundamentally different way of understanding the relationship between the economy, market ordering, institutional responsibility, and financial-economic integrity. In a conventional approach, financial crime is often treated as a compliance issue resting primarily on the shoulders of banks, payment institutions, insurers, trust offices, and a limited number of other regulated gatekeepers, with the implicit assumption that the wider economy is neutral in principle and that risks manifest themselves chiefly where money formally enters the financial system, is moved within it, or exits it. A Whole-of-Economy approach breaks decisively with that assumption. It proceeds from the recognition that financial crime is not a bounded incident occurring at the margins of the lawful economy, but a structural form of economic parasitism capable of penetrating the entire market environment through ownership, contracts, trade, logistics, corporate structures, investment vehicles, platform infrastructures, advisory relationships, value chains, and public allocation mechanisms. In that sense, the concept of Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management itself is transformed. It no longer concerns only the detection of suspicious transactions or compliance with sector-specific obligations, but the design of an integrity architecture that prevents illegal, corrupt, sanctioned, or otherwise destabilizing capital from embedding itself durably within the lawful economy, acquiring assets, distorting competitive conditions, purchasing institutional legitimacy, and thereby corrupting the allocative logic of the legitimate market sphere.<\/p>

That shift carries far-reaching implications for the way economic resilience must be understood. In a mature model of Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management, the economy is not merely the setting in which risks arise, but both the carrier of resilience and, at the same time, the principal target of abuse. The durability of financial crime does not arise from the mere existence of discrete unlawful transactions, but from its capacity to attach itself to lawful markets, ordinary infrastructures, reputable service providers, standard contractual forms, and socially accepted routes of value transfer and wealth storage. Once that capacity exists, the struggle against financial crime is no longer confined to reporting chains, transaction monitoring, or customer due diligence, but extends into real estate markets, trade corridors, supply chains, procurement channels, subsidy programs, ownership registers, digital platforms, and professional chains of legitimacy. From that perspective, Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management is not an isolated supervisory technique, but a form of economic ordering. The central question is no longer merely how individual institutions can identify suspicious signals, but how markets, chains, ownership structures, and institutional access points can be designed in such a way that financial-economic abuse becomes less scalable, less profitable, less opaque, and less institutionally credible. Where that broader architecture is absent, discrete controls may still exist, but the economy remains available as a fragmented terrain in which illicit capital can continuously discover new routes between sectors, each of which may believe that it has adequately addressed its own share of the risk, while the systemic porosity of the whole remains untouched.<\/p>

<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The Economy as Both Carrier and Target of Financial Crime<\/h4>

A Whole-of-Economy approach within Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management requires, first and foremost, recognition of the fact that the economy itself is not only abused by financial crime, but also constitutes the institutional space within which such abuse can be discouraged, made visible, or, under conditions of poor ordering, facilitated. That premise means that economic structures can no longer be regarded as merely neutral market forms upon which supervision is exercised after the fact. Markets embody expectations concerning transparency, ownership, price, legitimacy, contractability, and access. When criminal or corrupt capital infiltrates those expectations, what changes is not only the risk profile of individual transactions, but also the reliability of the economy as an ordering mechanism. Real estate can then no longer be viewed solely as an asset class, but also as a channel for wealth storage and status acquisition. Trade can no longer be understood merely as the exchange of goods and services, but also as a vehicle for value shifting, sanctions evasion, and documentarily disguised capital transfer. Professional services can no longer be conceived solely as support for legitimate economic activity, but equally as a source of legitimacy for structures whose plausibility is derived from technical refinement and institutional respectability. Seen in that light, the economy is revealed not merely as the stage upon which financial-economic abuse occurs, but as the material substance from which the durability of that abuse is constructed.<\/p>

That observation has important normative consequences for the place of Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management within the broader economic order. If the economy is understood as a carrier of trust, ownership, and allocation, then financial crime constitutes not merely a threat to legal compliance, but a threat to the conditions under which markets can still emit reliable signals regarding value, scarcity, quality, and productivity. Illicit capital does not have to submit to the cost structures, reputational risks, governance requirements, or tax burdens to which bona fide market participants are subject. As a result, it can inflate prices, absorb assets, artificially finance enterprises, sustain losses that would be untenable under normal market conditions, and acquire strategic positions not grounded in legitimate economic performance. An economy that fails adequately to recognize this dynamic risks reducing financial crime to an enforcement problem, when in reality what is at stake is an allocative distortion that affects the market order itself. Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management must therefore also be understood as protecting the economic conditions under which legitimate entrepreneurship can function without being structurally displaced by capital that evades the rules of the lawful order.<\/p>

It follows from this that, within a Whole-of-Economy approach, the economy is not seen solely as an object of protection, but also as an instrument of protection. That demands a much deeper degree of institutional maturity than traditional compliance architectures ordinarily assume. Sectors, chains, and markets must then be assessed according to their ability to absorb, expose, or repel abuse. Not every form of economic openness can, in that context, be treated as an unquestioned virtue, and not every form of complexity can automatically be regarded as legitimate. There is a need for a more refined distinction between complexity that is economically explicable and complexity that serves primarily to obscure ownership, origin, control, pricing logic, or transactional purpose. Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management thereby acquires a broader constitutional function within the economy: it contributes to the preservation of a market order in which trust is not naive, access is not unconditional, and freedom of contract is not conceived so absolutely that it undermines the institutional conditions for fair competition and legitimate wealth formation. In that approach, the economy is both protected against financial-economic subversion and called upon to confront its own role in preventing it.<\/p>

Gateways, Nodes, and Value Chains<\/h4>

Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management loses effectiveness when risk is projected primarily onto individual institutions or isolated transactional moments, while financial-economic abuse in practice often takes place across the boundaries of sectors, legal forms, and functional roles. A Whole-of-Economy approach therefore requires an analytical framework that reads the economy as a network of gateways, nodes, and value chains. Gateways are the access points through which illicit or destabilizing capital seeks entry into lawful markets, whether through real estate transactions, trade structures, digital accounts, investment vehicles, subsidy channels, or professional services. Nodes are the points at which information flows, value flows, and legitimacy structures converge, such as banks, notaries, accountants, logistics hubs, platform operators, or corporate service providers. Value chains are the broader sequences of acts and relationships within which assets are acquired, priced, moved, repackaged, and ultimately normalized within the legitimate economy. This perspective is essential because financial-economic abuse is rarely linear. It manifests instead as a layered pattern in which individual acts may appear plausible in isolation, while the chain as a whole functions as a vehicle for money laundering, fraud, corruption, sanctions evasion, or concealed accumulations of control.<\/p>

A transactional approach without a chain perspective inevitably produces institutional blindness. A bank may see a payment, a notary a transfer, an accountant a set of accounts, a logistics provider a route, a technology platform a user, an investor a fund structure, and a contracting authority a bid, while the underlying coherence among those elements remains out of view. That problem is not merely operational, but conceptual. So long as responsibility is defined in terms of individual interactions with a client or file, it remains possible for a chain that appears fully compliant to function, in substance, as an infrastructure of abuse. Each link can formally satisfy its own minimum obligations and yet still contribute to a system in which illicit capital moves through the economy with little meaningful resistance. Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management must therefore address not only the quality of the individual control, but also the integrity quality of the route as a whole. That implies a much stronger emphasis on chain logic, pattern recognition, typology development, data linkage, and cross-sector risk interpretation.<\/p>

Within that broader approach, the meaning of intervention also changes. The question is no longer confined to stopping a risky act at the moment it becomes visible, but extends to identifying structural weaknesses in the connecting points between sectors. Trade flows may, for example, appear economically plausible so long as one looks only at individual invoices, while an analysis of the overall chain reveals that pricing, route selection, ownership relations, and documentation patterns collectively point to systematic value shifting. Real estate acquisitions may appear legitimate in isolation, while a broader reconstruction of financing sources, intermediaries, security arrangements, and beneficial ownership indicates wealth storage and influence acquisition. Platform services may operate in contractual compliance, while the combination of account structures, payment flows, access layers, and identity fragmentation enables scalable fraud or laundering patterns. A Whole-of-Economy approach within Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management therefore requires a movement from isolated control to connected integrity analysis, in which the economic significance of nodes and the coherence of value chains become central.<\/p>

Ownership and UBO Transparency<\/h4>

An economy-wide approach to Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management cannot function credibly without robust ownership and UBO transparency, because ownership is the place where economic power, control, return, risk-bearing, and legitimacy converge. So long as it cannot be established with sufficient reliability who ultimately exercises control over companies, assets, real estate, investment vehicles, holdings, or contractual structures, the economy remains vulnerable to a form of institutional false assurance. Formal legal entities can then operate as respectable shells for interests that remain materially concealed. That problem reaches far beyond customer due diligence in the financial sector alone. It affects the ability to assess market power, evaluate competitive conditions, enforce sanctions regimes, protect tax integrity, identify corruption risks, and shield public allocations against front structures. Ownership and UBO transparency is, in that respect, not a technical register issue, but a constitutive element of economic reliability.<\/p>

Its significance becomes particularly acute in sectors where assets do not merely represent financial value, but also confer access to social influence, political proximity, scarce space, or strategic infrastructure. Real estate, energy, logistics, technology, defense-related supply chains, data centers, critical raw materials, and enterprises holding public contracts or permits are clear examples. When the ownership layer in such contexts is opaque, an economic system emerges in which formal transactions may be visible, while material power relations are concealed from view. That not only makes enforcement more difficult, but also corrupts the informational value of the market itself. A purchase, investment, joint venture, or acquisition can no longer be interpreted straightforwardly as an economic decision based on price and strategy, because it remains unclear whose interests lie behind it, what capital supports the transaction, and what broader objectives the structure is meant to serve. Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management therefore requires an ownership infrastructure that does more than record formal names; it must render material control, indirect influence, nominee arrangements, chain ownership, and cross-border interconnectedness sufficiently visible that economic participation no longer automatically suggests legitimacy.<\/p>

That requires an approach in which UBO transparency is not reduced to a box-ticking obligation, but is embedded within a broader architecture of verification, data quality, timeliness, accessibility, and risk-based analysis. Registers that formally exist but are materially insufficiently reliable, insufficiently current, or insufficiently linkable to other risk sources make only a limited contribution to Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management. The core question is whether ownership information is actually usable to identify patterns of abuse, expose inconsistencies, and reconstruct economically relevant control relationships. That requires a closer connection between corporate data, real estate data, trade data, procurement data, sanctions information, insolvency information, and, where appropriate, tax and customs-related data. Only then can ownership and UBO transparency develop into a genuine integrity infrastructure rather than a formal layer of apparent visibility. Within a Whole-of-Economy approach, transparent ownership is not an administrative luxury, but a precondition for the functioning of a market order that seeks to prevent concealed influence, disguised wealth, and institutionally masked control from becoming durably embedded in the economy.<\/p>

Trade, Invoice, and Supply Chain Data as Integrity Infrastructure<\/h4>

Within an economy-wide architecture of Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management, trade, invoice, and supply chain data must be understood as essential integrity infrastructure, because a significant portion of financial-economic abuse does not manifest itself as openly illegal movement of money, but rather as seemingly regular trade, plausible services, administratively acceptable pricing, or contractually orderly delivery. Trade-based financial crime derives its resilience from the capacity to conceal value in documentation, routing choices, volume discrepancies, pricing anomalies, quality descriptions, intermediary trade, recurring counterparties, and fragmented delivery structures. Where trade and invoice data are used only for operational, tax, or logistical purposes, a substantial part of the integrity-relevant information remains economically underutilized. A Whole-of-Economy approach therefore requires that such data be treated not merely as records to be stored or checked for discrete compliance purposes, but as strategic sources for identifying patterns of value shifting, sanctions circumvention, supply chain manipulation, phantom trade, and disguised wealth mobilization.<\/p>

The core of this insight is that financial-economic abuse often takes root in the gap between what appears normal and what is materially unexplained. A single invoice with an unusual price may, standing alone, be explainable. A single route change may be operationally necessary. A single intermediary holding company may seem defensible from a corporate law perspective. But when pricing anomalies, route patterns, counterparty structures, ownership linkages, delivery ambiguities, and payment behavior are examined together, a pattern may emerge that remained hidden at the isolated level. That makes trade, invoice, and supply chain data far more than administrative by-products of economic activity. They form a window into whether the claimed economic logic of a transaction genuinely corresponds to the material reality of goods, services, ownership, and value. Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management must therefore invest in the capacity to read such data as carriers of economic meaning. That requires not only technological capability, but also sector-specific knowledge, understanding of value chains, insight into commercial practices, and an institutional framework in which anomalies are not merely flagged technically, but interpreted economically.<\/p>

It follows that a robust integrity architecture cannot rest on the isolated collection of large quantities of data without coherent linkage among sources, actors, and risk perspectives. Trade data without linkage to ownership data remains limited. Invoice data without relation to logistics data remains fragmentary. Supply chain information without visibility into contractual structures, subsidies, financing, or UBO relationships remains analytically incomplete. A Whole-of-Economy approach within Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management therefore requires a much stronger emphasis on interoperability, data quality, semantic consistency, and institutionally legitimate analytical capacity. The objective is not an economy of permanent suspicion, but an economy in which the documents and data streams that accompany value creation also contribute to protecting the integrity of that value creation. Where trade, invoice, and supply chain data are treated merely administratively, they remain an archive of missed signals. Where they are developed into integrity infrastructure, a considerably stronger capacity emerges to detect economic abuse before it has been fully normalized within the legitimate economy.<\/p>

Procurement, Subsidies, and Investment Flows<\/h4>

Public and semi-public allocation mechanisms occupy a distinctive place within a Whole-of-Economy approach to Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management because they do not merely distribute economic value, but also confer institutional legitimacy. Procurement, subsidies, and investment flows are not neutral channels of money; they select market participants, create access to public resources, support scale, confirm reputation, and can position enterprises as trustworthy participants in the formal economy. That makes these domains especially attractive to actors who seek not only financial return, but also normalization, influence, market access, or entrenchment within strategic sectors. Front structures, nominee companies, collusive networks, concealed UBO relationships, and manipulative consortium arrangements can use public allocations to legitimize illegal or destabilizing capital, distort competition, and purchase institutional proximity. Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management must confront that reality and regard public allocation systems as highly relevant integrity nodes.<\/p>

The vulnerability of procurement and subsidy flows lies not only in obvious fraud or corruption, but also in more subtle forms of economic infiltration. A bidder may formally satisfy eligibility criteria while being materially supported by concealed interests. A subsidy-eligible structure may legally consist of proper entities and contracts, while the ultimate economic outcome amounts to the transfer of value to actors who ought to remain outside the field of legitimacy. An investment chain may appear lawful on paper, while in reality functioning as a route for influence, dependency creation, or access to strategic assets. In all such cases, the danger is not confined to the loss of public funds. The larger risk is that the state or a semi-public institution may inadvertently act as a legitimating force for structures that undermine the market order. Once an actor acquires an aura of reliability through procurement awards, subsidies, or investment vehicles, further economic participation becomes easier, critical scrutiny often becomes less intensive, and the likelihood increases that financial-economic abuse will spread into other sectors. Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management therefore requires that the integrity of public allocation processes be protected with close attention to ownership, connected parties, chain risk, pricing logic, implementation capacity, and the broader economic context of the applicant or contractor.<\/p>

A mature Whole-of-Economy approach therefore implies that procurement, subsidies, and investment flows are not treated merely as matters of procurement law, subsidy administration, or financial management, but as full components of the national integrity architecture. That demands more than incidental screening or standard exclusion grounds. What is required is an integrated model in which ownership information, UBO data, performance history, sanctions indicators, chain relationships, financing sources, and delivery reality are weighed in combination. Equally important is that assessment remain proportionate and intelligent: rigorous where structural vulnerability, strategic importance, or abuse potential is high, nuanced where legitimate complexity predominates and unnecessary economic exclusion must be avoided. Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management reaches its highest level of maturity in this domain when public allocation is not merely protected against formal violations, but is actively designed as a barrier against the institutional normalization of subversive capital. In that setting, procurement, subsidies, and investment flows no longer function as open corridors for abuse, but as selective access points in which economic legitimacy is once again tied to transparency, traceability, and participation in the market on an integrity-based footing.<\/p>

Preventing De-Risking and Economic Exclusion<\/h4>

A Whole-of-Economy approach within Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management can only be developed in a durably credible manner if it is not directed solely toward increasing detection capacity and tightening mechanisms of exclusion, but also toward preventing the integrity architecture itself from inadvertently generating new systemic risks in the form of de-risking, financial marginalization, and economic exclusion. Where financial crime is approached as a systemic phenomenon moving throughout the entire economy, the impulse understandably arises to shield access points, service relationships, and market interfaces ever more strictly. That instinct is explicable from a risk perspective, but it becomes problematic when it leads legitimate clients, sectors, regions, or business models to be avoided on generic grounds, not because a concrete integrity assessment requires it, but because the institutional incentive structure makes risk avoidance more attractive than refined risk management. In such a case, Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management changes from a system of intelligent resilience into a regime of defensive retreat, with the result that transparent access to financial and economic infrastructure diminishes precisely for those parties that would benefit most from formal inclusion, traceability, and institutional guidance. From an integrity perspective, that is not neutral. An economy in which legitimate activity is pushed out of formal channels creates not less but potentially more room for informal networks, unregulated alternatives, shadow structures, and parallel circuits of value.<\/p>

That danger is particularly acute in sectors or client groups already characterized by cross-border money flows, complex legal structures, intensive cash use, fragile margins, humanitarian settings, migration-related transfers, innovative technology, or trade routes that, in themselves, already appear to carry an elevated risk profile. When such characteristics are converted into generic exclusion without adequate differentiation, the underlying objective of Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management is undermined. Not only are bona fide businesses and individuals then disproportionately affected, but the formal economy also loses its capacity to keep risky activity within visible, assessable, and governable frameworks. A Whole-of-Economy approach presupposes, after all, that the economy as a whole must be made resilient against abuse. That objective is not achieved by simply pushing parts of the economy out of formal infrastructure as soon as they become more difficult to assess. A system that responds to risk complexity systematically with contract termination, cessation of services, or market withdrawal reduces its own visibility over the economy and relocates integrity issues to domains where oversight, data quality, and corrective capacity are weaker. De-risking is therefore not merely a side effect of strict compliance; it is an autonomous systemic vulnerability that must be explicitly recognized in a mature integrity architecture.<\/p>

It follows that a Whole-of-Economy approach within Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management requires the development of a normative and operational framework in which proportionality, sensitivity to differentiation, and access to legitimate economic infrastructure form an integral part of integrity governance. That does not mean that high-risk activity should simply be accepted or that institutions should be obliged to continue every relationship regardless of the facts and circumstances. It does mean, however, that decision-making must not be dominated by abstracting risk categories that fail to do justice to concrete economic reality. What is needed is an architecture in which elevated risk is met with better information, sector-specific expertise, clearer guidance, shared typologies, improved public-private coordination, and, where appropriate, supplementary mitigating measures rather than automatic exclusion. Only under those conditions can Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management be both robust and legitimate. An economy-wide approach that seeks to protect integrity must not only prevent illicit capital from embedding itself in the legitimate economy, but must also ensure that legitimate actors are not pushed out of the formal economy by excessive risk reflexes. Where that balance is absent, a paradoxical situation emerges in which the struggle against financial-economic abuse leads to a narrowing of transparency, an impoverishment of economic participation, and an increase in the blind spots that a Whole-of-Economy approach is intended to reduce.<\/p>

Shared Standards and Sectoral Coalitions<\/h4>

A Whole-of-Economy approach within Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management cannot function on the basis of isolated norm-setting by sector alone, because financial-economic abuse in practice moves along the transitions between sectors, systems, and professional domains where divergent standards, definitions, and risk concepts do not naturally align. When each sector develops its own terminology, thresholds, documentation expectations, and interpretive frameworks without sufficient convergence with adjacent parts of the economy, what emerges is not a robust integrity architecture but a patchwork of partial defenses. That fragmentation works to the advantage of actors who skillfully exploit institutional asymmetry. They do not necessarily need to mislead one actor completely; it is often enough that different actors each see only part of the picture, interpret different signals differently, and lack a shared language or infrastructure for connecting their findings. Against that background, shared standards are not a technocratic luxury, but an essential component of economic resilience. They create the conditions under which integrity information becomes transferable, risk signals become comparable, and governance expectations align sufficiently to render cross-sector patterns recognizable.<\/p>

The importance of sectoral coalitions follows directly from this. Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management cannot be sustained over time by a model in which public authorities set norms, financial institutions monitor, and the rest of the economy reacts mainly when a legal obligation explicitly requires it. A Whole-of-Economy approach requires that industry associations, professional bodies, infrastructure players, technology providers, logistics networks, investors, real estate professionals, platform operators, and other economically relevant actors be involved in the development of risk understanding, typologies, and practical mitigating measures. Such coalitions do not serve a merely communicative function; they have epistemic and institutional significance. They make it possible to translate sector-specific realities into a shared integrity framework without losing the necessary nuance. They also enable parties jointly to distinguish between legitimate complexity and abuse-sensitive structures, between normal market practices and patterns of deviation that are risky when viewed from a chain perspective, and between mitigating measures that are proportionate and interventions that would have economically disruptive effects. Shared standards that are not shaped in part by the practice of different sectors quickly risk becoming either too abstract, too rigid, or too limited. Sectoral coalitions offer the means to avoid those pitfalls.<\/p>

That said, shared standards and sectoral coalitions have value only when they are institutionally designed with seriousness and do not degenerate into voluntary consultation structures lacking normative depth or operational consequence. A mature Whole-of-Economy approach within Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management requires that such forms of cooperation be used to formulate common definitions, quality expectations, escalation logic, data standards, red-flag indicators, proportionality frameworks, and governance principles applicable across multiple sectors. In this context, it is important that uniformity not be confused with simplification. The strength of a shared standards framework does not lie in eliminating sector-specific differences, but in creating sufficient coherence to reduce friction, interpretive divergence, and information loss at the boundaries between sectors. Where that coherence is absent, Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management remains dependent on the strength of individual actors, and the economy as a whole remains vulnerable to structuring techniques that exploit normative inconsistency. Where shared standards and sectoral coalitions are developed in a mature way, an architecture emerges in which integrity governance is no longer fragmented, but extends across the economic space in which financial-economic abuse actually operates.<\/p>

Banks as Nodes, but Not as the Only Gatekeepers<\/h4>

Within almost every serious discussion of Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management, banks occupy a central position, and to a large extent that is justified. Banks sit at unique nodes of the economy where payment traffic, account relationships, lending, wealth accumulation, international transfers, corporate structures, and client behavior converge. They possess significant lines of sight into financial movements and, in many legal systems, are charged with far-reaching obligations in the areas of customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, reporting, and risk assessment. In that sense, banks undeniably remain crucial carriers of the integrity architecture. A Whole-of-Economy approach does not deny that central role, but it reframes it. Banks are nodes of exceptional importance, but they can no longer be conceived as the exclusive or near-exclusive gatekeepers of the system. Such a reduction fails to grasp the economic reality in which financial-economic abuse does not materialize solely in formal payment traffic, but takes shape much earlier in ownership structures, trade models, real estate positions, contractual relationships, platform interactions, logistics movements, and professional chains of legitimacy.<\/p>

The overestimation of banks as the sole decisive defense mechanism also creates a structural risk of policy and societal self-deception. If the broader economy is implicitly treated as an environment that mainly delivers risk to banks, attention shifts toward detection at the end of the chain rather than toward prevention, friction, and structural resilience across the entire economic cycle. Banks are then expected to identify patterns built elsewhere: in the formation of complex structures, in the acquisition of assets, in the manipulation of trade documentation, in the creation of front companies, in the institutional appearance of legitimacy organized through intermediaries, and in public or private access points where economic trust is obtained without sufficient substantive scrutiny. This imposes not only a disproportionate burden on banks, but also generates expectations that they cannot meet through their own efforts alone. A bank may be able to signal a flow of funds, but it cannot, without more, reconstruct the full economic meaning of a chain running through real estate, goods trade, digital infrastructure, and advisory relationships across multiple jurisdictions. Where other sectors fail sufficiently to develop their own integrity responsibilities, the bank becomes the last visible control point in a system that has already become significantly porous upstream.<\/p>

A Whole-of-Economy approach within Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management therefore calls for a nuanced repositioning of banks. Their role remains weighty and systemically significant, but they must be embedded in a broader network of responsible actors, information nodes, and sector-specific control mechanisms. That means not only that banks must be better able to connect with information from other parts of the economy, but also that other sectors must institutionalize their own detection, verification, and escalation responsibilities far more seriously. Real estate professionals, notaries, accountants, trust service providers, investment advisers, technology platforms, logistics actors, and public allocation bodies all represent points at which abuse may become visible before the financial flow reaches the bank, or after the bank transaction, taken in isolation, offers insufficient explanatory value. The maturity of Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management is then measured not by whether banks must see ever more, but by whether the entire economic system is organized in such a way that banks can perform their central function within a context of broader shared resilience. Only then can it be avoided that banks remain simultaneously overburdened, overexposed, and unavoidably underinformed within an architecture that expects too much of them and too little of the rest of the economy.<\/p>

Integrity-by-Design in Markets and Chains<\/h4>

One of the most significant implications of a Whole-of-Economy approach is that Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management cannot be confined to ex post control of economic activity, but must evolve into a model in which markets, chains, and institutional access points are designed in such a way that abuse becomes harder to scale, less lucrative, and more rapidly visible. In that context, the idea of integrity-by-design assumes a central place. This does not merely mean that rules should be clear in advance or that compliance requirements should be embedded early in processes. Its deeper meaning is that market structures, contractual architectures, data flows, verification mechanisms, platform functions, ownership registration, access criteria, and chain responsibilities are considered from the design stage onward also in light of their potential to facilitate or restrain financial-economic abuse. This requires a substantial conceptual shift. Integrity is then no longer merely a layer of control imposed on top of an existing economic reality, but a co-determining principle in the structuring of that reality itself.<\/p>

That idea is particularly relevant in sectors and infrastructures where scale, speed, automation, and cross-border interconnectedness place traditional possibilities of ex post control under strain. Digital platforms can enable enormous volumes of interactions, transactions, or account creation in environments where identity, geographic origin, economic purpose, and underlying ownership are only fragmentarily visible. Supply chains may be globally branched, with multiple layers of suppliers, intermediaries, transformations of origin, and contractual shielding. Real estate markets may combine high value density with legal complexity and social legitimacy. Investment structures may pool capital in a way that makes economic participation attractive while simultaneously diluting the visibility of ultimate control. In each of these contexts, it is insufficient to attempt solely to identify suspicious patterns after the fact. Integrity-by-design requires that thought be given, already in the configuration of systems and markets, to verification requirements, transparency points, auditability, accountability structures, data architecture, escalation logic, and the question whether certain forms of anonymity, intermediation, or contractual fragmentation are economically necessary or primarily increase abuse potential. Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management thereby acquires a preventive depth often lacking in conventional compliance.<\/p>

At the same time, it is important that integrity-by-design not degenerate into a dogma of maximum friction or total visibility. A mature Whole-of-Economy approach recognizes that legitimate economic activity may require a certain degree of speed, scalability, confidentiality, and legal refinement. The objective, therefore, is not to suffocate the economy with distrust, but to reassess critically those design choices that facilitate abuse disproportionately. This requires an approach in which technical architecture, legal design, and economic rationality are read together. Where a system is designed in such a way that ownership can easily be concealed, responsibility remains diffuse, transactional purposes are difficult to reconstruct, and chain transitions structurally lead to information loss, it is not enough merely to observe that abuse is a matter of enforcement. In such a case, there is a design flaw in the integrity architecture itself. Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management through integrity-by-design therefore means that economic systems are assessed not only on efficiency, accessibility, and scalability, but also on their capacity systematically to restrict the conditions under which illicit or destabilizing capital flourishes. In that approach, integrity becomes a structuring principle of market ordering, not merely a corrective response to incidents.<\/p>

Whole-of-Economy as an Economic Protection Architecture<\/h4>

Ultimately, a Whole-of-Economy approach within Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management unfolds as an economic protection architecture that extends beyond traditional notions of compliance, supervision, or sectoral enforcement. It rests on the insight that financial crime is not an external residue that occasionally penetrates the formal economy, but a durable form of parasitism deriving its strength from access to lawful markets, institutional credibility, ownership vehicles, logistics corridors, professional legitimacy, and public or private allocation systems. Once that premise is fully accepted, the mandate of Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management changes in a fundamental way. It no longer concerns only the identification of deviations within existing economic processes, but the protection of the conditions under which the economy as a whole can function reliably as a system of trust, competition, price formation, investment, and legitimate wealth creation. In that sense, what is at stake is not only the combating of individual norm violations, but the preservation of the economic constitution itself against destabilizing capital flows and concealed accumulations of power.<\/p>

Such a protection architecture must necessarily be multilayered. It requires strong banks, but not banks alone. It requires ownership and beneficial ownership transparency, but not registers alone. It requires high-quality trade, invoice, and chain data, but not data storage alone. It requires resilient procurement and subsidy regimes, but not ex ante exclusion grounds alone. It requires sector-specific responsibilities, shared standards, institutional coalitions, proportionate access protection, and a design approach in which integrity is taken into account from the outset in markets and infrastructures. The coherence between these elements is decisive. An economy may possess powerful individual controls and nevertheless remain structurally vulnerable when those controls are not embedded in a coherent model of economic resilience. A Whole-of-Economy approach therefore signifies more than breadth. It signifies integration, the recognition that financial-economic abuse draws its opportunities from the spaces between institutions, between datasets, between sectoral mandates, and between legal form and material reality. A protection architecture that fails to address those spaces will inevitably remain behind the facts.<\/p>

The strength of a Whole-of-Economy approach as an economic protection architecture ultimately lies in its capacity to shift the focus from incidental detection to structural resistance. This is not an argument for an economy of generalized suspicion, nor for a uniform regime of severity that no longer distinguishes between sectors, actors, and contexts. On the contrary, the durability of this approach depends on its economic intelligence: strict where structural vulnerability and abuse potential are high, careful where legitimate complexity is substantial, and coherent where markets, chains, and institutions intersect. Only under those conditions can Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management develop into a credible ordering model that does not merely react to symptoms, but attacks the breeding ground of financial-economic subversion itself. Where that transformation succeeds, an economy emerges in which illicit capital can less easily conceal ownership, less convincingly purchase legitimacy, less effortlessly build market power, and less durably free-ride on the institutions of the legitimate world. Where it does not, the system remains dependent on fragmented controls that may each appear rational in themselves, but collectively fail to prevent subversive financial flows from continuing to move through the openings of an economy that has not yet fully accepted its own integrity conditions as a core element of its ordering.<\/p>

<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n
\n\n\n
\n\n

Holistic Services<\/span><\/span><\/h2> \n<\/div>\n\n\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n
\r\n \r\n
\r\n \r\n \n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Prevention\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Detection\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Investigation\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Response\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Advising\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Litigating\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Negotiating\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article> \r\n \r\n <\/div>\r\n \r\n \r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n \t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n
\n\n\n
\n\n

Practice Areas<\/span><\/span><\/h2> \n<\/div>\n\n\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n
\r\n \r\n
\r\n \r\n \n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Criminal Law, Regulatory Enforcement & Corporate Accountability\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n White Collar Crime Defence & Investigations\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Cybercrime, Incident Response & Digital Risk\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Privacy, Data Governance & Cybersecurity Risk Mitigation\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Forensic Services & Complex Corporate Investigations\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Specialized Advisory Services & Strategic Risk Consulting\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Technology, Digital Transformation & Emerging Risk Advisory\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Financial Crime, FinTech Regulation & Enforcement Strategy\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Corporate Governance, Ethics Oversight & Compliance Management\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n ESG Compliance, Investigations & Sustainability Risk Management\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Negative BKR Coding in the Netherlands: Your Options to Dispute, Correct or Delete\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Dispute Resolution & Litigation\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article> \r\n \r\n <\/div>\r\n \r\n \r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n \t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n
\n\n\n
\n\n

Industries<\/span><\/span><\/h2> \n<\/div>\n\n\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n
\r\n \r\n
\r\n \r\n \n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Agriculture Sector\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Art & culture\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Automotive\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Aviation, aerospace & defense\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Banks, financial institutions & fintech\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Chemicals\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Consulting & professional services\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Consumer goods & retail\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Digital economy\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Energy & natural resources\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Family-owned business & wealth management\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Food & beverage\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Government entities & public sector\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Healthcare, life sciences & phamaceuticals\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Hotels, Hospitality & Leisure\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Insurance\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Media, entertainment & sports\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Private equity & venture capital\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Real estate & construction\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Startup & scale-up\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Telecommunications\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n
\n\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n Transport, mobility & infrastructure\r\n <\/a>\r\n<\/h2><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n<\/article> \r\n \r\n <\/div>\r\n \r\n \r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n \t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Integrated Financial Crime Risk Management through a Whole-of-Economy approach presupposes a fundamentally different way of understanding the relationship between the economy, market ordering, institutional responsibility, and financial-economic integrity. In a conventional approach, financial crime is often treated as a compliance issue resting primarily on the shoulders of banks, payment institutions, insurers, trust offices, and a limited number of other regulated gatekeepers, with the implicit assumption that the wider economy is neutral in principle and that risks manifest themselves chiefly where money formally enters the financial system, is moved within it, or exits it. A Whole-of-Economy approach breaks decisively with that<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":33684,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[896],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33514","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-markets-value-chains-and-financial-integrity"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33514","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33514"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33514\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33520,"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33514\/revisions\/33520"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/33684"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33514"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33514"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vanleeuwenlawfirm.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33514"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}