3 ms·

Some context, Oxfam isn't a perfect organization. They struggle with fraud and graft. This is a part of their ongoing effort to reduce it, and sometimes yes tha

Some context, Oxfam isn't a perfect organization. They struggle with fraud and graft. This is a part of their ongoing effort to reduce it, and sometimes yes that does mean pointing the finger past themselves too.

c0brac0bra 2y ago
Remind me what happens to a US citizen if our personal finances "struggle with fraud" and unaccountability to the tune of 40% when it comes to the IRS?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- iudqnolq 2y ago
  The money is not actually missing*. Oxfam attempted to add up all the numbers in various PDFs linked on the World Bank's website and got a total that's less than the headline figure in the World Bank's press releases. (See the actual report at https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621658/bp-climate-finance-unchecked-241017-en.pdf?sequence=6 https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...) Some of that is probably missing data and some of it reflects that headlines like "USA donates 1 billion" don't actually always result in the US making a bank transfer for a billion dollars. For example sometimes it's a simplification of a complicated loan. Your comment reflects a common misconception about audits. When the books don't add up that doesn't show that money is actually missing. I don't love analogies to personal finance but a better one would be to suppose you asked a random US citizen what they spent money on last month and then compared it to their bank account. They'd probably be wrong, and you probably wouldn't have enough information to know exactly how wrong they were because they didn't save all their receipts and so on. *edit: this report provides no evidence money is missing. to be fair it doesn't disprove missing money either
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    Great comment. On one hand I like what Oxfam has done, which is to show that the World Bank has poor financial controls and should do a much better job tracking where funds are actually spent. On the other hand I don't like how this is reported/interpreted (and Oxfam I think deserves some blame for how their investigation is characterized) as "there is a ton of fraud at the World Bank". That's simply not accurate, and your edit sums up the situation very well
  - esperent 2y ago
    > they didn't save all their receipts and so on This analogy explains well but it's missing the important bit: private citizens don't have any requirement to save receipts. Charities and businesses do have that requirement.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  While I'm continually frustrated by the complexity and opaqueness of the US tax code, your analogy doesn't make any sense to me. If your personal finances "struggle with fraud", it means you committed fraud. So yeah, of course you should be held directly responsible. That's very different from a large organization doling out money for tons of various complex projects, and those 3rd parties (or 3rd parties down the chain) commit fraud. Heck, if you give money to someone and they commit fraud and abscond with your money, you get to take a tax write-off for the stolen funds.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > you get to take a tax write-off for the stolen funds. At least for US federal taxes, that changed with a very partisan ~2017 law, where Republicans stripped it down to only cover federally declared unique disaster situations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      Thanks, I was unaware of that change. Note that limit largely just applies to personal property: "For tax years 2018 through 2025, individual taxpayers with theft losses are allowed a deduction if the loss is due to theft related to a transaction entered into for profit.", https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc515#:~:text=For%20tax%20years%202018%20through%202025%2C%20individual%20taxpayers%20with%20theft%20losses%20are%20allowed%20a%20deduction%20if%20the%20loss%20is%20due%20to%20theft%20related%20to%20a%20transaction%20entered%20into%20for%20profit https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc515#:~:text=For%20tax%20year.... E.g. for financial fraud crimes, you much more than likely would still be able to take the loss.
situationista 2y ago
I don't read this as a problem of fraud within Oxfam. They audited the World Bank and found there was fraud in the bank. Or am I missing something?
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  They didn't find that there was fraud. They just found that the World Bank has poor financial controls and a lack of transparency in determining where funds are spent. Of course, a lack of financial controls makes it easier for people to actually commit fraud, but the Oxfam report didn't go to that next level and look for specific evidence of fraud.
  - drexlspivey 2y ago
    > They just found that the World Bank has poor financial controls and a lack of transparency in determining where funds are spent. You mean like a certain crypto exchange CEO that recently went to jail for it?
    - pyrale 2y ago
      Pretty sure that CEO was not just bad at accounting. In fact, he was pretty good at it, since all the "mistakes" were designed to benefit him.
  - orwin 2y ago
    I have an uncle who actually audited a large org and found evidence of fraud. Each time something weird was found, he investigated, and alsmot each time fraud of some sort was involved. Pressure increased as the time passed, from all side (especially below, as he was near the top of that bank, but from the side too). He and his team were physically threatened and had to have bodyguards (actually, it was cops, but they acted as bodyguards). In the early 2000s he decided to call it quit, after 8 years. He told us that the weirdest fraud of all was money laundering, as it was at the same time the easiest and the hardest to prove, depending on who did it. All that to say actually finding fraud is hard, proving it is even harder, and can be dangerous even for lower orgs, so i won't criticize Oxfam for letting it rest where it is.
edm0nd 2y ago
Seems like they are based in Kenya and fraud/corruption is rampant in some of these African nations. Really sad but its seemingly been like this for so long which is why many of the countries there are in constant civil wars, coups, and their populations poor/starving. If hundreds of billions of dollars in aide over 2 decades isn't fixing these nations, what will?
- candiddevmike 2y ago
  Is there overlap between what you think needs to be fixed vs what the folks in those African countries think needs to be fixed?
- dosinga 2y ago
  Kenya is not a rich country, but hardly suffers from "civil wars, coups, and a starving population". Not all African countries do.
  - ianeigorndua 2y ago
    If you really believe that, you should take a look at the Wikipedia page of Kenya, especially the history section.
    - normie3000 2y ago
      Which part of it?!
      - Fuzzwah 2y ago
        Probably the 1982 coup and 1988 elections.
        ianeigorndua 2y ago
        Recent years have also seen rigged elections and attempts to change the 2010 constitution.
  - 2y ago

c0brac0bra 2y ago

Remind me what happens to a US citizen if our personal finances "struggle with fraud" and unaccountability to the tune of 40% when it comes to the IRS?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
iudqnolq 2y ago
The money is not actually missing*. Oxfam attempted to add up all the numbers in various PDFs linked on the World Bank's website and got a total that's less than the headline figure in the World Bank's press releases. (See the actual report at https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621658/bp-climate-finance-unchecked-241017-en.pdf?sequence=6 https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...) Some of that is probably missing data and some of it reflects that headlines like "USA donates 1 billion" don't actually always result in the US making a bank transfer for a billion dollars. For example sometimes it's a simplification of a complicated loan. Your comment reflects a common misconception about audits. When the books don't add up that doesn't show that money is actually missing. I don't love analogies to personal finance but a better one would be to suppose you asked a random US citizen what they spent money on last month and then compared it to their bank account. They'd probably be wrong, and you probably wouldn't have enough information to know exactly how wrong they were because they didn't save all their receipts and so on. *edit: this report provides no evidence money is missing. to be fair it doesn't disprove missing money either
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Great comment. On one hand I like what Oxfam has done, which is to show that the World Bank has poor financial controls and should do a much better job tracking where funds are actually spent. On the other hand I don't like how this is reported/interpreted (and Oxfam I think deserves some blame for how their investigation is characterized) as "there is a ton of fraud at the World Bank". That's simply not accurate, and your edit sums up the situation very well
- esperent 2y ago
  > they didn't save all their receipts and so on This analogy explains well but it's missing the important bit: private citizens don't have any requirement to save receipts. Charities and businesses do have that requirement.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
While I'm continually frustrated by the complexity and opaqueness of the US tax code, your analogy doesn't make any sense to me. If your personal finances "struggle with fraud", it means you committed fraud. So yeah, of course you should be held directly responsible. That's very different from a large organization doling out money for tons of various complex projects, and those 3rd parties (or 3rd parties down the chain) commit fraud. Heck, if you give money to someone and they commit fraud and abscond with your money, you get to take a tax write-off for the stolen funds.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > you get to take a tax write-off for the stolen funds. At least for US federal taxes, that changed with a very partisan ~2017 law, where Republicans stripped it down to only cover federally declared unique disaster situations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    Thanks, I was unaware of that change. Note that limit largely just applies to personal property: "For tax years 2018 through 2025, individual taxpayers with theft losses are allowed a deduction if the loss is due to theft related to a transaction entered into for profit.", https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc515#:~:text=For%20tax%20years%202018%20through%202025%2C%20individual%20taxpayers%20with%20theft%20losses%20are%20allowed%20a%20deduction%20if%20the%20loss%20is%20due%20to%20theft%20related%20to%20a%20transaction%20entered%20into%20for%20profit https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc515#:~:text=For%20tax%20year.... E.g. for financial fraud crimes, you much more than likely would still be able to take the loss.

situationista 2y ago

I don't read this as a problem of fraud within Oxfam. They audited the World Bank and found there was fraud in the bank. Or am I missing something?

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
They didn't find that there was fraud. They just found that the World Bank has poor financial controls and a lack of transparency in determining where funds are spent. Of course, a lack of financial controls makes it easier for people to actually commit fraud, but the Oxfam report didn't go to that next level and look for specific evidence of fraud.
- drexlspivey 2y ago
  > They just found that the World Bank has poor financial controls and a lack of transparency in determining where funds are spent. You mean like a certain crypto exchange CEO that recently went to jail for it?
  - pyrale 2y ago
    Pretty sure that CEO was not just bad at accounting. In fact, he was pretty good at it, since all the "mistakes" were designed to benefit him.
- orwin 2y ago
  I have an uncle who actually audited a large org and found evidence of fraud. Each time something weird was found, he investigated, and alsmot each time fraud of some sort was involved. Pressure increased as the time passed, from all side (especially below, as he was near the top of that bank, but from the side too). He and his team were physically threatened and had to have bodyguards (actually, it was cops, but they acted as bodyguards). In the early 2000s he decided to call it quit, after 8 years. He told us that the weirdest fraud of all was money laundering, as it was at the same time the easiest and the hardest to prove, depending on who did it. All that to say actually finding fraud is hard, proving it is even harder, and can be dangerous even for lower orgs, so i won't criticize Oxfam for letting it rest where it is.

edm0nd 2y ago

Seems like they are based in Kenya and fraud/corruption is rampant in some of these African nations. Really sad but its seemingly been like this for so long which is why many of the countries there are in constant civil wars, coups, and their populations poor/starving. If hundreds of billions of dollars in aide over 2 decades isn't fixing these nations, what will?

candiddevmike 2y ago
Is there overlap between what you think needs to be fixed vs what the folks in those African countries think needs to be fixed?
dosinga 2y ago
Kenya is not a rich country, but hardly suffers from "civil wars, coups, and a starving population". Not all African countries do.
- ianeigorndua 2y ago
  If you really believe that, you should take a look at the Wikipedia page of Kenya, especially the history section.
  - normie3000 2y ago
    Which part of it?!
    - Fuzzwah 2y ago
      Probably the 1982 coup and 1988 elections.
      - ianeigorndua 2y ago
        Recent years have also seen rigged elections and attempts to change the 2010 constitution.
- 2y ago