Imagine that you are a Police chief interviewing applicants to head a “Financial Crime Taskforce” announced by a politician recently elected on a promise to crush organized crime. To hit them where it hurts. To starve criminals’ flow of funds, confiscate illicit assets, and prove that crime does not pay. (You know the sort of thing).
Or imagine that you are an investigator considering the next stage in your career towards such a role.
In either case, answers to three questions could make all the difference between “the usual” promises having “the usual” impact, or something different.
These questions help test what I call a propensity for outcomes science, or as a police chief described it, “good old-fashioned modern policing”.
Anecdotally, people best able to answer these seemingly simple questions fall mostly into three groups.
First, police chiefs. Unsurprisingly, such leaders often typify policing excellence. Second, rookies and seasoned investigators alike with little or no specialist anti-money laundering (AML) training. Third, investigators and analysts with AML training who treat expert narratives with the same cynicism as suspects’ stories. Needing to “see the evidence”, they listen intently and question every assumption until proven facts remain.
Curiously, perhaps, some of the most highly credentialed AML experts failed every question.
So, who should be appointed to the role?
And who might become the next police chief?
You be the judge.
Before reading the suggested answers and rationale, you might wish to consider how you would respond to each question.