Post on 25-Aug-2020
Model UN Aldebaran 2019
Simulation
Background Guide
Diego Atuan and Jose Salinas
UNLC United Nations Legal Committee
1
Dear Delegates,
Aldebaran Model United Nations Simulation - UNLC
Diego & Jose, UNLC Committee Chairs.
We would like to give you a warm welcome to UNLC Committee! We are honored
to be chairs and directors to one of the Committees in the United Nations that
addresses the problems biggest regarding crime and legal flaws all around the
world.
Given the importance of this committee we have the highest of expectations of
this delegates and their work. You will be evaluated individually but as a team
player who addresses the best interests of its country. It is important for you to
read this background guide for you to understand the topics and how your
country will be positioned during this committee. We would like to inform you
that this is one of the most controversial committee in the whole un, so we will
expect of you to give reasonable arguments and coherent to your parties and
countries position . You will have to work as a team and ally with the most
powerful delegates whose proposals benefit not only the un but as well as your
country. This will mean that you will have to find solutions as a team. But never
stop fighting for your countries interest.
Good luck, we wait for you in the Committee Room!
2
Table of Contents:
UNLC……………………………………………………………………….................4
Introduction…..………….………………………………………………………..4
Mission……………………………………………………………………………….5
Topicview…………………………………………………………………………
..6
Topic A:………………………..…………………………………………………………7
Introduction……………………………………………………………………..7
Importance………………………………….…….……………………………10
History……………………………………….……………………………………10
BlocPosition………………………………………………………………
…….10
Topic B:………………………..………………………………………………………15
Introduction…………………….……………………………………………..15
Importance………………………………….…….……………………………17
3
History……………………………………….……………………………………18
BlocPosition………………………………………………………………
…….20
Building a PP:………………..………………………………………………………21
Key Terms.……………………………………………………………………………22
INTRODUCTION
The United Nations General Assembly Sixth Committee the (Legal Committee) is
the last of the six main committees of the United Nations General Assembly. The
Sixth Committee is the primary forum for the consideration of legal questions in
the General Assembly.
The Sixth Committee has universal membership, that is, all member states of
the United Nations are de jure members of the Sixth committee. Non member
states with observer status in the General Assembly such as Switzerland before
its ascension to the UN, and the Holy See may attend and participate in the
discussions. The Sixth Committee is led by a chairperson assisted by three vice-
chairs and a rapporteur. The chairperson must conduct the formal meetings,
propose the program of work, and solve any procedural hurdles that may rise.
4
The Bureau seeks to ensure that the negotiations conclude with a positive
outcome.
The Sixth Committee meets every year from late September to late November,
in parallel with the General Assembly’s annual session. At the beginning of the
session, the General Assembly assigns to the Sixth Committee a list of agenda
items to be discussed. Those items usually include the annual reports of the
International Law Commission, the United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law, the Ad Hoc Committee established by Resolution 51/210 of 17
December 1996 on Terrorism, the Special Committee on the Charter of the
United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization and the
Host Country Committee, as well as the item Measures to Eliminate
International terrorism. Following a formal discussion and the negotiation of any
proposals, any recommendation adopted by the Sixth Committee is then
submitted to the Plenary of the General Assembly for its final adoption. If a
particular issue is of great technical complexity, the Sixth Committee may refer
it to the International Law Commission or it may create a special subsidiary
body to discuss it. The Sixth Committee follows a "mixed decision-making rule,
where consensus is preferred but where a vote is still possible," that is, that
while the Committee may take its decisions by voting, most resolutions are
adopted though without a formal vote, by acclamation, unanimity, or consensus.
MISSION STATEMENT
The UN General Assembly has an express mandate to promote the progressive
development of public international law. Article 13 of the UN Charter
establishes, in particular, that the “General Assembly shall initiate studies and
make recommendations for the purpose of encouraging the progressive
development of international law and its codification. Subsequent practice has
interpreted this provision as a broad authorization to elaborate new treaties on
the widest range of issues, to adopt them, and to recommend them to states for
their subsequent signature, ratification, and accession/.While international law-
5
making negotiations take place in a variety of specialized bodies of the United
Nations, depending on their actual subject-matter, those negotiations related to
general international law are usually held at the Sixth Committee.
OVERVIEW OF THE TOPICS
TOPIC A: Establishing methods to increase bank transparency to limit
offshore and cross-border money laundering and tax evasion
Tax avoidance, tax evasion and money laundering by multinational companies
and wealthy individuals, criminal organisations undermine the rule of law and
the equality before the law. Moreover it widens the social inequalities and
6
endangers the public services. It is an assault to fundamental principles of
equality, tax justice, democracy and the rule of law if tax obligations are not
followed by all. Done on a global, systemic level, this is an unacceptable attack
on the European welfare states and our society at large, as well as on
developing countries that do not get their fair share of profits made by
multinational companies exploiting the resources of those countries.
Topic B enforcing application of international law to cyber warfare and cyber
crime
In the not-so-distant future, a concerted ‘Cyber Attack’, effectuated via the
Internet, could cause massive destruction to any society dependent on
computer networks, especially in key target fields of transport, energy supply
and communication infrastructures, leading to human casualties and serious
destruction of property – reproducing the same, if not more, damage that would
be caused by conventional armed attacks.
Despite last decade’s abundant legal literature on the subject, not only is a clear
and unambiguous international consensus regarding the legal status of Cyber
Warfare Operations hitherto nonexistent, but also the views of international law
scholars present a peculiarly high level of heterogeneity. Are Cyber Attacks
prohibited under the non-use of force doctrine or permitted within the concept
of self-defence? Are they even subject to the Law of War? In order to find
answers to questions such as the aforementioned, various aspects of
International Law will be applied, underlining the need for a reform of notions
such as armed conflict, use of force and attack.
Introduction topic A:
Money laundering is the process of concealing the origins of money obtained
illegally by passing it through a complex sequence of banking transfers or
7
commercial transactions. The overall scheme of this process returns the money
to the launderer in an obscure and indirect way.[1]
One problem of criminal activities is accounting for the proceeds without raising
the suspicion of law enforcement agencies. Considerable time and effort may be
put into strategies which enable the safe use of those proceeds without raising
unwanted suspicion. Implementing such strategies is generally called money
laundering. After money has been laundered, it can be used for legitimate
purposes. Law enforcement agencies of many jurisdictions have set up
sophisticated systems in an effort to detect suspicious transactions or activities,
and many have set up international cooperative arrangements to assist each
other in these endeavors.
In a number of legal and regulatory systems, the term "money laundering" has
become conflated with other forms of financial and business crime, and is
sometimes used more generally to include misuse of the financial system
(involving things such as securities, digital currencies, credit cards, and
traditional currency), including terrorism financing and evasion of international
sanctions.[2] Most anti-money laundering laws openly conflate money laundering
(which is concerned with source of funds) with terrorism financing (which is
concerned with destination of funds) when regulating the financial system.[3]
Some countries treat obfuscation of sources of money as also constituting
money laundering, whether it is intentional or by merely using financial systems
or services that do not identify or track sources or destinations. Other countries
define money laundering in such a way as to include money from activity
that would have been a crime in that country, even if the activity was legal
where the actual conduct occurred.
In Latin America, money laundering is mainly linked to drug trafficking activities
and to having connections with criminal activity, such as crimes that have to do
with arms trafficking, human trafficking, extortion, blackmail, smuggling, and
acts of corruption of people linked to governments, such as bribery, which are
more common in Latin American countries. There is a relationship between
8
corruption and money laundering in developing countries. The economic power
of Latin America increases rapidly and without support, these fortunes being of
illicit origin having the appearance of legally acquired profits. With regard to
money laundering, the ultimate goal of the process is to integrate illicit capital
into the general economy and transform it into licit goods and services.
The money laundering practice uses various channels to legalize everything
achieved through illegal practices. As such, it has different techniques
depending on the country where this illegal operation is going to be carried out:
In Colombia, the laundering of billions of dollars, which come from drug
trafficking, is carried out through imports of contraband from the parallel
exchange market.
In Central American countries such as Guatemala and Honduras, money
laundering continues to increase in the absence of adequate legislation and
regulations in these countries. Money laundering activities in Costa Rica have
experienced substantial growth, especially using large-scale currency
smuggling and investments of drug cartels in real estate, within the tourism
sector. Furthermore, the Colon Free Zone in Panama, continues to be the
area of operations for money laundering where cash is exchanged for
products of different nature that are then put up for sale at prices below
those of production for a return fast of the capital.
In Mexico, the preferred techniques continue to be the smuggling of
currency abroad, in addition to electronic transfers, bank drafts with Mexican
banks and operations in the parallel exchange market.
Money Laundering in the Caribbean countries continues to be a serious
problem that seems to be very dangerous. Specifically, in Antigua, the
Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Citizens of
the Dominican Republic who have been involved in money laundering in the
United States, use companies that are dedicated to transferring funds sent to
the Dominican Republic in amounts of less than $10,000 under the use of
false names. Moreover, in Jamaica, multimillion-dollar asset laundering cases
9
were discovered through telephone betting operations abroad. Thousands of
suspicious transactions have been detected in French overseas territories.
Free trade zones such as Aruba, meanwhile, remain the preferred areas for
money laundering. The offshore banking centers, the secret bank accounts
and the tourist complexes are the channels through which the launderers
whiten the proceeds of the illicit money.
Casinos continue to attract organizations that deal with money laundering.
Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, the Cayman Islands, Colombia, Mexico,
Panama and Venezuela are considered high priority countries in the region, due
to the strategies used by the washers.
10
Importance:
We welcome the fact that the European Parliament, often pushed forward by the
Green Group in the European Parliament, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe (PACE) have been active to reign in tax dodging and we will
work to create a strong cooperation between the European Parliament, PACE
and national parliaments in this regard. A common system for taxing financial
transactions has to be developed and generalised to all member states. On the
international level, we call on the UN to create a Tax Body with adequate
resources in order to secure inclusive decision-making on tax justice. Globally,
over the past two decades, there has been increasing sensitivity around tax
evasion and facilitation thereof by financial institutions (FIs). This eventually led
to the categorization of tax evasion as a money laundering predicate offense by
the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in 2012. This white paper first traces the
development of regulations governing FIs in respect to countering tax evasion. It
then studies the model validation methodology that can be used by internal
audit to review the AML controls framework. This white paper discusses the
various elements involved in model validation, the primary objective of which is
to provide assurance that the model risk management framework is able to
address the risk of errors in model construction and incorrect or inappropriate
use of a model
11
History of the Issue:
In 1968, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker first theorized the economics of
crime, on the basis of which authors M.G. Allingham and A. Sandmo produced,
in 1972, an economic model of tax evasion. This model deals with the evasion of
income tax, the main source of tax revenue in developed countries. According to
the authors, the level of evasion of income tax depends on the detection
probability and the level of punishment provided by law.
The literature's theoretical models are elegant in their effort to identify the
variables likely to affect non-compliance. Alternative specifications, however,
yield conflicting results concerning both the signs and magnitudes of variables
believed to affect tax evasion. Empirical work is required to resolve the
theoretical ambiguities. Income tax evasion appears to be positively influenced
by the tax rate, the unemployment rate, the level of income and dissatisfaction
with government. The U.S. Tax Reform Act of 1986 appears to have reduced tax
evasion in the United States.
In a 2017 study Alstadsæter et al. concluded based on random stratified audits
and leaked data that occurrence of tax evasion rises sharply as amount of
wealth rises and that the very richest are about 10 times more likely than
average people to engage in tax evasion.
Laws against money laundering were created to use against organized crime
during the period of Prohibition in the United States during the 1930s. Organized
crime received a major boost from Prohibition and a large source of new funds
that were obtained from illegal sales of alcohol. The successful prosecution of Al
Capone on tax evasion brought in a new emphasis by the state and law
enforcement agencies to track and confiscate money, but existing laws against
tax evasion could not be used once gangsters started paying their taxes.
12
In the 1980s, the war on drugs led governments again to turn to money-
laundering rules in an attempt to seize proceeds of drug crimes in order to catch
the organizers and individuals running drug empires. It also had the benefit from
a law enforcement point of view of turning rules of evidence upside-down. Law
enforcers normally have to prove an individual is guilty to get a conviction but
with money laundering laws money can be confiscated. It is up to the individual
to prove that the source of funds is legitimate if they want the funds back. This
makes it much easier for law enforcement agencies and provides for much
lower burdens of proof.
The September 11 attacks in 2001, which led to the Patriot Act in the U.S. and
similar legislation worldwide, led to a new emphasis on money laundering laws
to combat terrorism financing.[5] The Group of Seven (G7)nations used
the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering to put pressure on
governments around the world to increase surveillance and monitoring of
financial transactions and share this information between countries. Starting in
2002, governments around the world upgraded money laundering laws and
surveillance and monitoring systems of financial transactions. Anti-money
laundering regulations have become a much larger burden for financial
institutions and enforcement has stepped up significantly. During 2011–2015 a
number of major banks faced ever-increasing fines for breaches of money
laundering regulations. This included HSBC, which was fined $1.9 billion in
December 2012, and BNP Paribas, which was fined $8.9 billion in July 2014 by
the U.S. government.[6] Many countries introduced or strengthened border
controls on the amount of cash that can be carried and introduced central
transaction reporting systems where all financial institutions have to report all
financial transactions electronically. For example, in 2006, Australia set up
the AUSTRACsystem and required the reporting of all financial transactions
13
Bloc Positions:USA: The United States Department of the Treasury is fully dedicated to
combating all aspects of money laundering at home and abroad, through the
mission of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI). TFI utilizes the
Department's many assets - including a diverse range of legal authorities, core
financial expertise, operational resources, and expansive relationships with the
private sector, interagency and international communities - to identify and
attack money laundering vulnerabilities and networks across the domestic and
international financial systems."
Sweden: Swedbank AB reportedly handled more than $10 billion in suspicious
flows tied to the Danske Bank A/S Estonian laundering scandal. The case
became public knowledge only this year, but according to Swedish media
reports, employees at the Financial Supervisory Authority warned their bosses in
2018 that something was awry at Swedbank and recommended sanctions. None
were imposed.
Switzerland:
the Swiss will exchange information with rich countries if they have to, but will
continue offering citizens of poorer countries the opportunity to evade their
14
taxpaying responsibilities. These factors, along with ongoing aggressive pursuit
of financial sector whistleblowers (resorting at times to what appear to be non-
legal methods) are ongoing reminders of why Switzerland remains the most
important secrecy jurisdiction in the world today.
Panama: The so-called “Panama Papers” show how the law firm, Mossack
Fonseca, handled the assets of many heads of state who are accused of
laundering money, evading tax, and avoiding sanctions, according the
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, who obtained the 11m
documents.
U.K.:
Money laundering is a major threat in the United Kingdom, one some watchdogs
say is not being taken seriously enough. As a major player in cross-border
banking and global finance, the country doesn’t just need to combat domestic
financial crimes: It is also at risk of becoming a hub for transmitting and
investing criminal funds obtained overseas.
Russia :
Times have changed, and Russia is third in the global billionaire league (after
the USA and China), with Moscow having more billionaire residents than any
other city in the world. However, in a recent interview with the ‘Vedomosti’
newspaper, Sergei Ignatyev, outgoing head of Russia’s Central Bank (CB),
revealed that money laundering schemes are as widespread as ever. According
to Ignatyev, $49 billion (£32 bn) was lost to the economy in 2012 in this way:
‘this could include payments for drugs or other goods which may not be legally
15
imported into Russia’, and he sees an all out war on tax evasion and money
laundering as a priority for his successor Elvira Nabiullina.
Topic B: enforcing application of
international law to cyber warfare
and cyber crime
INTRODUCTION:
In the not-so-distant future, a concerted ‘Cyber Attack’, effectuated via the
Internet, could cause massive destruction to any society dependent on
computer networks, especially in key target fields of transport, energy supply
and communication infrastructures, leading to human casualties and serious
destruction of property – reproducing the same, if not more, damage that would
be caused by conventional armed attacks.
Despite last decade’s abundant legal literature on the subject, not only is a clear
and unambiguous international consensus regarding the legal status of Cyber
16
Warfare Operations hitherto nonexistent, but also the views of international law
scholars present a peculiarly high level of heterogeneity. Are Cyber Attacks
prohibited under the non-use of force doctrine or permitted within the concept
of self- defence? Are they even subject to the Law of War? In order to find
answers to questions such as the a forementioned, various aspects of
International Law will be applied, underlining the need for a reform of notions
such as armed conflict, use of force and attack.
This paper will attempt to ‘navigate’ through the ‘sea’ of multitudinous and
farraginous papers written by lawyers from military, humanitarian and academic
backgrounds, by dividing its corpus into the following distinct sections.
In the first part, a delineation of the terms Cyberspace and Cyber Warfare
Operations will be attempted, coupled with an examination of the various
hacking techniques and the typology of potential attacks.
Secondly, the jus ad bellum will be applied in Cyber Attacks with the goal of
classifying them under the existing ‘costumes’ of ‘use of force’ and/or
‘aggression’. Their relationship with the concept of self- defence will be
examined in a two-fold way. Is a Cyber Attack tantamount to an ‘armed attack’,
in order to trigger the lawful right of self-defence, according to UN Charter
article 51? And vice-versa, is it possible for self-defence to be waged in the form
of a Cyber Attack? State responsibility will be subsequently addressed, using as
a ‘compass’ the 2001 Draft Articles on State Responsibility and the relative
jurisprudence by international tribunals.
Thirdly, certain bedrock rules of the jus in bello will be applied in Cyber Attacks,
concluding that the cardinal principles of distinction, humanity and
proportionality are outdated albeit essential.
Lastly, this paper will address the existing international treaty systems in the
quest of determining a satisfactory framework under which Cyber Attacks can
be regulated. Separate emphasis is to be laid upon on the need for the creation
of a jus novum, specifically tailored to modulate this novel and multifaceted
method of warfare.
17
Importance
One of the most significant hurdles is the problem of attribution. For a nation
state to be held responsible under international law for a particular act, that act
must be attributable to that state. There are varieties of ways this can occur. For
example, the conduct of state organs (such as government departments and
officials) will usually be attributable to the state.
But here’s a key problem: in the case of cyber attacks, states don’t generally
operate through formal state bodies. Instead, they tend to use non-state actors
who are less visible, more removed and offer plausible deniability. This creates
problems of both factual and legal attribution.
18
The factual problem is that it is often extremely difficult to accurately identify
the origin of a cyber attack. The lack of boundaries and anonymity that are
characteristic of cyberspace make it hard for states to identify exactly who is
responsible for a specific cyber attack.
Perpetrators are becoming increasingly effective at masking their true identities
and locations. They may even deliberately make it look as though innocent third
parties are responsible for an attack.
The legal problem of attribution arises from the fact that international law does
not generally hold states responsible for the actions of non-state actors.
Responsibility will only be attributed if the state either acknowledges and adopts
the conduct of the non-state actor as its own, or the state directs or controls the
non-state actor.
History
The malicious association with hacking became evident in the 1970s when early
computerized phone systems became a target. Technologically savvy
individuals, called “phreakers” discovered the correct codes and tones that
would result in free long distance service. They impersonated operators, dug
through Bell Telephone company garbage to find secret information, and
performed countless experiments on early telephone hardware in order to learn
how to exploit the system. They were hackers in every sense of the word, using
19
their resourcefulness to modify hardware and software to steal long distance
telephone time.
This innovative type of crime was a difficult issue for law enforcement, due in
part to lack of legislation to aid in criminal prosecution, and a shortage of
investigators skilled in the technology that was being hacked. It was clear that
computer systems were open to criminal activity, and as more complex
communications became available to the consumer, more opportunities for
cyber crime developed.
In 1986 the systems administrator at the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, Clifford Stoll, noted certain irregularities in accounting data.
Inventing the first digital forensic techniques, he determined that an
unauthorized user was hacking into his computer network. Stoll used what is
called a “honey pot tactic,” which lures a hacker back into a network until
enough data can be collected to track the intrusion to its source. Stoll’s effort
paid off with the eventual arrest of Markus Hess and a number of others located
in West Germany, who were stealing and selling military information, passwords
and other data to the KGB.
The Berkeley lab intrusion was soon followed by the discovery of the Morris
worm virus, created by Robert Morris, a Cornell University student. This worm
damaged more than 6,000 computers and resulted in estimated damages of
$98 million. More incidents began to follow in a continuous, steady stream.
Congress responded by passing its first hacking-related legislation, the Federal
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, in 1986. The act made computer tampering a
felony crime punishable by significant jail time and monetary fines.
In 1990, during a project dubbed Operation Sundevil, FBI agents confiscated 42
computers and over 20,000 floppy disks that were allegedly being used by
criminals for illegal credit card use and telephone services. This two-year effort
involved 150 agents. Despite the low number of indictments, the operation was
seen as a successful public relations effort by law enforcement officials. Garry M.
Jenkins, the Assistant Director of the U.S. Secret Service, explained at a press
conference that this activity sent a message to criminals that, “they were on the
20
watch everywhere, even in those sleazy and secretive dens of cybernetic vice,
the underground boards.”
While largely effective, the decisions and activities of law enforcement with
regard to investigating cyber crime are not always perfect. If law enforcement
makes a mistake, law abiding citizens might suffer. The Steve Jackson Games
publishing company was nearly forced out of business after being accused of
possessing an illegally copied document. The Secret Service believed this
document was in Jackson’s possession, and confiscated the computers used in
his business. When the equipment was not returned in a timely manner, he was
forced to lay off employees, miss deadlines and his business was nearly ruined.
When the computers were returned, Jackson discovered that company emails
had been accessed and customer data was deleted. The Secret Service never
pressed charges for any crime.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) formed in 1990 as a response to threats
on civil liberties that can occur through overzealous activities and mistakes
made by law enforcement personnel who are investigating cyber crime and
related matters. It is a collection of technologists, lawyers and other
professionals who act to defend and protect consumers from unlawful
prosecution.
Crime and cyber crime will continue to be present in our society, regardless of
the best efforts of the criminal justice system. The public and private sector
need highly skilled individuals to combat this threat and help prevent the
prosecution of innocent people. Talented individuals who want to pursue a
cybersecurity career in criminal justice must have proficiency with
communication technology, understand regulatory concerns and be familiar with
homeland security law. Cybersecurity is an exciting field for people with a
curious nature and who never tire of learning new things while balancing
complex social and technological concerns.
21
Bloc Positions
U.S.
According to Sophos, the U.S. remains the top-spamming country and the
source of about one-fifth of the world's spam. Since fighting cybercrime involves
great amount of sophisticated legal and other measures, only milestones rather
than full texts are provided here.
China
In January 2009, China was ranked No.3 spam-producing country in the world,
according to data compiled by security vendor Sophos. Sophos now ranks China
as spam producer No.20, right behind Spain.
China's underground economy is booming with estimated 10 billion RMB in
2009. Hacking, malware and spam are immensely popular. With patriotic
hacktivism, people hack to defend the country.
European Union
The coat of arms of the European Cybercrime Centre
In 2001, the European Commission published a communication titled "Creating a
Safer Information Society by Improving the Security of Information
Infrastructures and Combating Computer-related Crime".
In 2002, EU presented a proposal for a “Framework Decision on Attacks against
Information Systems”. The Framework Decision takes note of Convention on
Cybercrime, but concentrates on the harmonization of substantive criminal law
provisions that are designed to protect infrastructure elements.
22
WRITING A POSITION PAPER:A Position Paper is a one-page document that consists of three paragraphs that
summarize:
1. The background of the topic under discussion.
2. The policies and statements of your country regarding the topic.
3. The possible solutions your country proposes to solve the issue based on its
policies.
It is required that delegates present on position paper for each or their
Committee Topics. To be considered for an award, you must present your
position papers on time. For a detailed description of a position paper, please
refer to the MUN Aldebaran Website. Good luck!
If you have any questions or concerns, do not doubt to contact us! Submit your
position papers to these e-mail addresses:
diego.atuan@aldebaran.edu.hn
jose.salinas@aldebaran.edu.hn
23
KEY TERMS
Tax: a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government onworkers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods,services, and transactions.
Secrecy: the action of keeping something secret or the state of being keptsecret.
Law of War: refers to the component of international law that regulates theconditions for war (jus ad bellum) and the conduct of warring parties (jus inbello). Laws of war define sovereignty and nationhood, states and territories,occupation, and other critical terms of international law.
money laundering: the concealment of the origins of illegally obtained money,typically by means of transfers involving foreign banks or legitimate businesses.
Tax evasion: the illegal non-payment or underpayment of tax.
Cyber-attack: an attempt by hackers to damage or destroy a computernetwork or system.
Cyber Warfare Operations: Cyber Warfare Operations Specialty Summary.Personnel in the Cyber Warfare Operations specialty perform duties to develop,sustain, and enhance cyberspace capabilities
Heterogeneity: the quality or state of being diverse in character or content.
24