Paper chase - Economist Intelligence Unitgraphics.eiu.com/upload/IntegraScreen.pdf · 2007. 10....

Paper chaseDocument fraud in the immigration process

An Economist Intelligence Unit briefing paperSponsored by IntegraScreen

LONDON15 Regent StreetLondonSW1Y 4LRUnited KingdomTel: (44.20) 7830 1000Fax: (44.20) 7499 9767E-mail: [email protected]

NEW YORK111 West 57th StreetNew YorkNY 10019United StatesTel: (1.212) 554 0600Fax: (1.212) 586 1181/2E-mail: [email protected]

HONG KONG6001, Central Plaza18 Harbour RoadWanchaiHong KongTel: (852) 2585 3888Fax: (852) 2802 7638E-mail: [email protected]

Paper size: 210mm x 270mm

© The Economist Intelligence Unit 2007 1


Contents

3 Preface

4 Executive summary

6 Chapter 1: The global boom in migrationWhy people want to moveThe debate intensifiesMigration: not always a good thing?

11 Chapter 2: The scale and implications of document fraudThe spread of fake academic documentsPoints-based immigration systems

National security implicationsA scam for all seasons

Links to organised crime

17 Chapter 3: Verifying the factsAn increasing workloadDeepening immigration screeningDatabases and background checksEndorsing degrees in China

22 Conclusions

2 © The Economist Intelligence Unit 2007


© 2007 Economist Intelligence Unit. All rightsreserved. All information in this report is verifiedto the best of the author’s and the publisher’sability. However, the Economist Intelligence Unitdoes not accept responsibility for any loss arisingfrom reliance on it.

Neither this publication nor any part of it maybe reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, ortransmitted in any form or by an means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recordingor otherwise, without the prior permission of theEconomist Intelligence Unit.



Preface

Paper chase: Document fraud in the immigrationprocess is an Economist Intelligence Unit briefingpaper, sponsored by IntegraScreen. The EconomistIntelligence Unit's editorial team conducted allresearch and interviews and wrote the report. Theopinions expressed herein do not necessarilyreflect the views of the sponsor. The report waswritten by Bina Jang and Graham Richardson. Theeditors were David Line and Claire Beatty. Thecover image was designed by Steven Carroll. Ourthanks are due to all interviewees for their timeand insights.

September 2007



Executive summary

The steadily increasing propensity of people tomigrate from one part of the world to another isseen as a necessary and desirable trend. At thesame time, however, it is a thorny and emotiveproblem. The developed world is set to witness aninflux of over 100m people between 2005 and2050. Ageing populations and skills shortagescreate a demand for workers that the developingworld can supply. But it is not just people fromdeveloping countries who are migrating; globalmobility is a trend seen in all countries and at allskill levels. The challenge of smoothingimmigration procedures for qualified migrantswhile keeping the doors closed to less desirableentrants means many governments have beenforced to put immigration and border protection atthe top of their agendas.

To cope with these pressures, governments arebolstering their immigration-screening practices.Measures include capturing biometric data,adopting objective points-based screening systems,extending their networks into source-countryinstitutions, and international bordercollaboration. However, these efforts are directlythreatened by the proliferation of fraudulentdocumentation. To take one example, in the fiscalyear 2005, US Customs and Border Protectionapprehended 84,000 individuals entering the USwith fraudulent documentation. Despite the scale ofthe problem, there are no standardisedinternational procedures for document verification.

Paper chase: Document fraud in the immigrationprocess examines the rising trend of globalmigration, the extent of the challenge posed byfake documentation in policing this migration,and the merits of establishing internationalprocedures for controlling migration and verifyingdocuments. The report was researched and written

by the Economist Intelligence Unit and wassponsored by IntegraScreen. The key findingsinclude:

• Labour mobility is a global and increasinglywidespread trend. The volume ofinternational migration is likely to remain highover the next few decades. People willcontinue to want to move for several reasons-including wage gaps and the desire to re-unitewith family already abroad. But the issue ispolitically sensitive, and the debate over thepros and cons of immigration in host countriesis likely to intensify.

• Governments see the economic benefit ofallowing inwards migration. Skilled labour isbecoming increasingly mobile, and with skillsshortages and slow population growth in thedeveloped world, governments recognise theimportance of allowing free flows of labour.Although incentives to let in migrants from thedeveloping world are therefore rising, there islittle international consensus on howmigration should be managed.

• The demand for fake documents is growing.The need for particular skills is promptinggovernments to implement more “objective”systems to grade potential immigrants. Points-based or similar systems—whereby immigrantsare prioritised according to education and skilllevels, amongst other factors—seem likely tobecome more popular. In turn, however, thiswill increase the incentive to forge documentssupporting educational or skill-level claims.The proliferation of fake academic certificatesis a particular problem.



• The risks posed by fraudulent documents areincreasingly serious. Companies may fretabout migrant employees providing bogusreferences, but recent terrorist attacks haveillustrated the danger to national securityposed by the spread of fraudulent documents.Criminals and terrorists are more likely to usefake papers (or identities stolen in toto) in anapplication for a genuine visa or passport thanto go to the trouble of forging the latterthemselves. Few immigration authorities havestandardised procedures to verify supportingdocumentation.

• The forged-documents industry links directlyto people-smuggling and organised crime.The false-document industry is not simply anovelty-degree business. Those who produceforged identity documentation are frequentlypart of a global criminal fraternity of peoplesmugglers and traffickers whose victims aresome of the world's most vulnerable people.

• Border controls are strained when balancingvigilance with volume. Increasing migrantnumbers have put a great strain on immigrationscreening systems, which must cope with anoverwhelming number of applicants and varietyof documentation. The monotony of the work

and the absence of international systems toscreen supporting documentation mean someapplications based on fraudulent claims will slipthrough the net.

• Immigration controls are being deepened.The response of many host countries to thesechallenges has been to “deepen” their systemsand to try to institute more checks in amigrant's country of origin. But a large numberof visa applications will be based on fraudulentdocumentation. Screening this is a hugelytime- and labour-intensive process, and onethat governments seem ill-equipped to handleat the moment.

• Technology on its own cannot solve theproblem. A greater reliance on technology,such as the use of biometric information inpassports and visas, is becoming common,making conventional travel documents harderto forge. But such technology can only fix aparticular identity, not prove whether theidentity itself is valid or based on fraudulentdocumentation. Background checks onsupporting documents are becomingincreasingly important, although there arecurrently few global mechanisms forperforming such checks.



Chapter 1: The global boom in migrationMigration numbers will continue to increase—as a necessary, and desirable, part of globalisation. Butscreening qualified migrants, particularly ensuring that immigrant workers have the skills they claim, willremain difficult. Public debate on immigration is already leading to a desire for more highly targetedcontrols—but there is a lack of any consensus on how to proceed.

International migration has exploded.Globalisation, growing trade integration andbetter transportation have facilitated themovement of people across the world in

recent decades, and large flows of people are likelyto continue. The UN’s World Population Prospects:The 2006 Revision reports that the net number ofmigrants to developed countries is set to grow byup to 103m between 2005 and 2050, or by 2.2mpeople annually, rising to 2.3m a year after 2010.Most of these migrants will be coming from Asia—over 1m a year, with rather smaller numbers fromLatin America and the Caribbean, and Africa. Thebig draw—as ever—is North America, which will

take over 1.3m new migrants a year. But nearly 1mwill go to Europe each year too, according to theUN.

Current data from the OECD also suggestacceleration in immigration in recent years.According to International Migration Outlook(2006 edition)2, the UK saw its inflow of migrantsclimb from 228,000 in 1995 to 379,300 in 2000and then to 494,100 in 2004. North Americarecorded an inflow of almost 1.07m permanentsettlers in 2000, growing to 1.18m in 2004. Inaddition, 1.25m temporary migrants entered theUS in 2000, and their numbers increased to a littlebelow 1.3m in 2004. As the OECD data make clear,

Migration flows('000 people, annual averages)

1980-11990 1990-22000 2000-22010 2010-22020 2020-22030 2030-22040 2040-22050

More developed regions 1,530 2,493 2,902 2,268 2,269 2,272 2,272

Less developed regions -1,530 -2,493 -2,902 -2,268 -2,269 -2,272 -2,272

Least developed countries -788 -37 -29 -277 -373 -375 -375

Other less developed countries -742 -2,456 -2,873 -1,991 -1,896 -1,897 -1,897

Africa -267 -310 -416 -377 -395 -393 -393

Asia -451 -1,340 -1,311 -1,210 -1,221 -1,222 -1,222

Europe 441 1,051 1,271 799 805 808 808

Latin America and the Caribbean -781 -775 -1,108 -616 -590 -595 -595

Northern America 972 1,277 1,453 1,305 1,300 1,300 1,300

Oceania 86 96 111 99 101 102 102

Source: UN, World Population Prospects: the 2006 revision.1

1 World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision, Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United NationsSecretariat (2007). Available at http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/wpp2006.htm2 Available at http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_2825_494553_38060354_1_1_1_1,00.html



this is not an issue that just affects the affluentcountries of North America and Western Europe. Ofthe other OECD members, South Korea took closeto 190,000 migrants in 2004 and Turkey over155,000.

The OECD is careful to point out that methodsfor collecting immigration data vary, as do thecategories of individual that they cover (forinstance, they may or may not include asylumseekers). But, even so, it is interesting to note theextremely large discrepancy between UN and OECDdata regarding past immigration into EU

countries. The implication is that this is not just aproblem of data consistency—but that nobodyreally knows what is going on.

Why people want to moveThere are other reasons to believe that the UN’sforecast of 2.3m migrants a year until 2050 may beerring on the low side. In fact, annual globalmigration exceeded this level in the 1990s, and islikely to do so again in the first decade of thismillennium. The reasons behind this growth arenot hard to identify. The World Bank identifies

Population inflows for selected OECD countries ('000 people)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Inflow data based on population registers:

Germany 648.8 685.3 658.3 601.8 602.2

Japan 345.8 351.2 343.8 373.9 372.0

Netherlands 91.4 94.5 86.6 73.6 65.1

Spain 330.9 394.0 443.1 429.5 645.8

Inflow data based on residence permits or on other sources:

Australia

Permanent inflows 114.6 138.3 119.8 130.2 150.7

Temporary inflows 224.0 245.1 340.2 244.7 261.6

Canada

Permanent inflows 227.3 250.5 229.1 221.4 235.8

Temporary inflows 262.9 283.7 263.5 244.7 245.7

France 93.0 107.6 124.8 135.1 140.1

Italy 271.5 232.8 388.1 Unavail 319.3

South Korea 185.4 172.5 170.9 178.3 188.8

Turkey 168.1 161.2 157.6 152.2 155.5

UK 379.3 373.3 418.2 406.8 494.1

US

Permanent inflows 849.8 1,064.3 1,063.7 705.8 946.1

Temporary inflows 1,249.4 1,375.1 1,282.6 1,233.4 1,299.3

EU + Norway and Switzerland (as of 2004, 2,232.3 2,471.5 2,694.1 2,478.9 2,814.5excluding Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Slovenia)

North America (permanent) 1,077.2 1,314.8 1,292.8 927.2 1,182.0

Source: OECD, International Migration Outlook, 2006 edition



three push-pull factors:• the wage gap between developing and

developed nations;• existing migrant populations in developed

nations pushing to re-unite with family andfriends (the UN estimates that, in 2005, 3% ofthe global population was foreign born,compared to 2.2% in 1980);3

• ageing populations and slowing growth ofindigenous workforces in developed countries.

But this is not just poor labourers in search of acrust. “What is clear is that people are movingacross the globe at all skill levels—there is mobilitynot just of people of lower skill levels but also ofthe highly skilled and the highly educated,” saysDeborah Meyers, a senior policy analyst at theMigration Policy Institute, a US-based think-tank.And host countries may increasingly want migrantworkers—if their skills match the country’s needs.

Securing the Border, a March 2007 strategypaper from the UK Home Office,4 acknowledgesthat the country’s economy continues to benefitfrom globalisation, and that “continued growthhas come from international trade andinvestment, and from the ability of Britishbusiness to fill gaps in the labour market thatcannot be filled from our own workforce.Engineers, teachers and other experts from abroadfill these gaps, making important contributions tothe UK through tax and revenue, as well asdeveloping our links with foreign countries.”

International students not only bring revenuein terms of tuition fees, but also in terms ofspending on goods and services. Similar benefitsaccrue to the US, which is the world’s premierdestination for international students. For its part,

Canada has over the past decade welcomededucated migrants with flexible skills, and as aresult has seen its stock of foreign-born residentsclimb from 4.8m, or 16.6% of the total populationin 1995, to 5.7m or 18.0% of the total in 2004.5

The debate intensifiesImmigration is already subject to many controlsacross the world. Such controls seem more likelyto be extended than reduced in coming years.There are a variety of reasons for this, both socialand economic. There seems to be a growing beliefin the populations of many countries that they are“full up” and unable to accommodate further largenumbers of migrants; domestic political pressuresto put the brakes on immigration are thereforeincreasing. At the same time, there is a morereasoned debate going on about the overallbenefits and risks of immigration. Is the arrival oflarge numbers of migrant workers simplydisplacing existing populations? Or is the flow ofskilled labour from the developing to developedworld irreversibly damaging the former’sprospects?

There are many unanswered but importantquestions, and some developed countries find itdifficult to discuss them, let alone answer them.The issue is so highly political that it has oftenbeen kept off the agenda for public policy debate.

Few would disagree with Deborah Meyers’ viewthat this “is a phenomenon that is beyond thecontrol of any single government. It is aphenomenon that needs to be managed.” Butgetting a multilateral accord on migration flowslooks difficult—movement of people, unlike tradein goods and services, is something that remains

3 Trends in Global Migrant Stock: The 2005 Revision, Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United NationsSecretariat (2007). Available at http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/UN_Migrant_Stock_Documentation_2005.pdf 4 Securing the Border, United Kingdom Home Office (March 2007). Available athttp://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/aboutus/ourplans/securingtheukborder5 OECD, Migration Outlook Edition 2006, op cit.



largely unregulated. The current legal framework is feeble. Existing

international law provides a basic, but imperfect,structure for immigration controls. Whilst stateshave the broad authority to regulate the flow ofnationals across their borders, this authority islimited by the rights given to individuals byinternational law. There are internationalconventions regarding the status of refugees,migrant worker rights and people trafficking,amongst others. But some of these conventionshave been ratified by only a few states. (Only 27states have signed up to the migrant workers’

convention, for example, and none of these aremajor destination countries for migrants.) Theweak institutional and legal framework means thatany shift to a more rigorous multilateral regimewill be difficult.

As importantly, different countries have wildlydifferent needs and problems in immigrationcontrol. This is a problem—and an opportunity—that countries are going to have to manage ontheir own. Host countries have responded to thecurrent inconsistencies with different regimes. Asthe UN’s Global Commission on InternationalMigration (GCIM)6 pointed out, in Asia many

6 Migration in an Interconnected World: New Directions for Action, Global Commission on International Migration (2005). Available athttp://www.gcim.org/attachements/gcim-complete-report-2005.pdf7 United Kingdom Home Office (2007), Controlling our borders: Making migration work for Britain. http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm64/6472/6472.pdf8 Migration Research Unit, University College London (2007). http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/mru/publications.htm

Most developed-country leaders acknowledge thatmigration is inevitable—indeed vital—to keep theireconomies humming. Tony Blair, then primeminister of the UK, in a foreword to a February2005 five-year strategy paper entitled Controllingour borders: Making migration work for Britain7

noted: “Managed migration is not just good for thiscountry. It is essential for our continuedprosperity.”

According to Mr Blair, visitors from outside theEU spent over £6bn (US$12bn) annually in the UK,and those from within the EU billions more;overseas students spent a further £2.7bn on goodsand services and £2.3bn on tuition fees. He addedthat the country’s vital public services dependedupon skilled staff from overseas: foreign-bornnurses and doctors for the expanding NationalHealth Service, for example, or the expertise of ITand finance professionals from India, the US andthe EU to maintain London as one of the world’sforemost financial centres.

But the effects of immigration are morecomplex than a politician can easily admit. Studiesby academics such as Professor John Salt, of theMigration Research Unit at University CollegeLondon, point out that mass immigration impliesprofound changes to the social infrastructure of acountry—for example, to the skills levels of theexisting population, to the demand for housing incities and so on.8 The conclusions of such studiescan be unwelcome—particularly if they imply thatimmigration reduces incentives for the indigenouspopulation to obtain certain skills, or if it isdepressing local wages.

Such issues cannot be overlooked, particularlyif they are connected to wider anti-globalisationprotests. The perception that immigration serves towiden social inequalities (through reducing thecost of services for the rich, whilst driving downwages for manual labour) is likely to be particularlypersistent.

Migration: not always a good thing?



migrants move on the basis of temporary labourcontracts, whilst in parts of the Americas andAfrica, migration is largely irregular. Traditionaldestination countries such as New Zealand,Australia, Canada and the US continue to acceptmigrants for permanent settlement andcitizenship, adds the report, while nations in theMiddle East tend to permit migrants within theirborders only for fixed periods.

But none of these regimes are perfect, andimmigrants remain desperate to get in. This hasthe unfortunate effect of encouraging a resort tocriminality. The UK Home Office estimates that up

to three-quarters of illegal entry to the UK—suchas human trafficking and people smuggling—isfacilitated by organised crime (see Chapter 2). Butit also recognises another growing headache.

“False documents submitted in support ofapplications are a huge problem whendetermining if someone should come to the UK; insome countries fraudulent documents areendemic,” the Home Office's strategy paper notes.Anecdotal evidence from the visa offices of otherattractive destination-countries such as the USand Australia seems to support the opinion of theUK authorities.



Chapter 2: The scale and implications of document fraud

As host countries tighten up immigration requirements and introduce more objective systems for vettingimmigrants, there will be a greater emphasis on documentation to prove workers’ skills and status. Oneside-effect of this is a greater demand for fake documents from those without the necessary skills orconnections to gain entrance to the destination country of their choice. The scale of the problem ispotentially overwhelming for immigration authorities, yet given the implications for national security (andthe links to organised crime) governments cannot afford to get it wrong.

Immigration is politically sensitive, and ashuman mobility has increased, so too hasthe complexity of the legal andadministrative processes by which it is

monitored and controlled. In recent years, the linkbetween migration and security has become anissue of even greater concern—particularly withthe perceived greater risk of terrorism. Yet thepublic and the state’s growing fearfulness ofinternational migration has made the corporatesector restive. Humans, skilled and unskilled, arenot being allowed to move as freely across mostborders as are services, capital and information.

For many businesses, the inability to recruit athome the best skilled or unskilled workersthreatens their competitive edge, and they maydecide to relocate operations to countries thatprovide easier access to the required skills. Othersmay remain at home, but turn a blind eye to theauthenticity or thoroughness of thedocumentation that permits their workers to entertheir countries. Some may not even realise thattheir workers’ papers are not in order.

Closer matching of immigrants’ skills with theneeds of the host economy should help maximisethe economic benefits of labour migration, andmany countries have decided to adopt increasinglyselective immigration controls as a result.Restricted inflows may also help reduce thepolitical backlash against immigration, if lower-

skilled migrants are kept out (although this maybackfire). Targeted, perhaps points-basedschemes such as that long used in Australia alsoappear to offer some relief to immigrationagencies, if they allow current subjective schemesfor issuing visas—open often to challenge, orabuse—to be replaced by a more “objective”approach.

But there is a problem with the objective,possibly points-based approach. It puts a premiumon the veracity of the supporting documentationneeded for a visa—particularly those documentsrelating to educational qualifications or workhistory. Meanwhile, migrants moving en famillemust obtain suitable documents proving theirrelationships, as entry is often restricted to aworker’s immediate family members. And whilehost countries’ systems may get better and betterat detecting false passports, checks on supportingdocuments, although increasing, are stillinadequate given the increasing flow of migrantsworldwide—and the increasing dangers of gettingit wrong.

The spread of fake academic documentsThe legitimacy of employment documentation,particularly that purporting to prove academicqualifications, is particularly difficult to ascertain.Counterfeit documentation can come in different



AustraliaVarious categories for workers, studentsand other migrants, each with differentrequirements. For general skilled labourvisas, applicants must be under 45 yearsold, have suitable English ability and post-secondary education (in most cases).Skills must fit those on lists of certainoccupations.

Points are scored against followingcriteria: skill, age, English ability, workexperience and qualifications in Australianinstitutions. Other factors, such as havingan occupation in demand or making capitalinvestments in Australia (buyinggovernment bonds, for example) earnbonus points. (Certain “skill-matching”visas, for applications in certainoccupations nominated by a state orterritory government or employer, are notpoints-tested.) Pass marks for points-based applications vary but are around 120points for independent (non-sponsored)visas. Point scores of between 40 and 60are awarded for different occupations, with20 points available for English fluency and10-15 for having completed apostgraduate course at an Australianinstitution. Sponsorship by a relative whois already an Australian permanentresident or citizen earns 15 points.(Various revisions were introduced onSeptember 1st 2007.)

Age requirement and relative

sponsorship require certified copies ofbirth certificates or family registers, othercriteria require “documentary evidence”and are subject to unspecified backgroundchecks.

CanadaVarious categories for workers, studentsand other migrants, each with differentrequirements. Points-based system forskilled workers (in occupations as definedon the Canadian National OccupationalClassification list), based on six selectioncriteria: education, ability in English orFrench, experience, age, sponsorship byemployer in Canada and “adaptability”(that is, whether applicant has relatives inCanada or previous work or study experi-ence there). Migrants must also have suffi-cient funds to maintain themselves andtheir families.

The pass mark for skilled workers andprofessionals is 67 points; of whicheducation provides up to 25, languageability up to 24, experience up to 21 andother criteria up to 10 each.

Valid supporting documentation forapplications includes “educationdocuments or other certificates attestingto the educational level, employmentletters confirming work experience,language test results, police certificates,birth and marriage certificates, and bankstatements confirming the applicant’sfunds”. No description is given of checks

made on such documents.

UKPoints-based Highly Skilled Migrant Pro-gramme (HSMP) in place since 2002.Beginning 2008, new comprehensivepoints-based system to be introduced,replacing more than 80 types of entry con-dition with five tiers: “highly skilled”,“skilled”, “low-skilled”, students, andtemporary (or non-economic) migrants.

Points are scored against followingcriteria: qualifications, previous earnings,prior experience as a student or employee,age and participation in an MBA scheme.For example, for the new HSMPrequirements, applicants must score 75points (plus have suitable Englishlanguage skills) for acceptance, where aPhD scores 50 points, a Masters degree 35and a Bachelor’s degree 30.

The guidance states: “Points will onlybe awarded where specified evidence isprovided to show that you have beenawarded the relevant academic orprofessional qualification from anaccredited institution.” Such qualificationsneed approval from relevant UK bodies toqualify as evidence. With regard to the agerequirement, points are granted only tothose under 32; an original birthcertificate or driving licence is required asevidence. For the MBA provision, pointsare only awarded to graduates from a listof recognised institutions.

Points-based immigration systems

Sources: Australian Government Department of Immigration and Citizenship website, www.immi.gov.au; General Skilled Migration guidance booklet, available at

http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/booklets/1119.pdf; Citizenship and Immigration Canada website, http://www.cic.gc.ca; Regulatory Impact Assessment—A Points-Based System: Making Migration Work

for Britain, available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ria-making-migration-work-070306?view=Binary;UK Border & Immigration Agency, Highly Skilled Migrant Programme Guidance for

Applicants, available at http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/11406/49552/hsmp1guidance



forms: fake examination results, a degree from afake school, or even a fake degree from a realschool (see box, below).

John Bear, a US-based expert on “diplomamills”, recounts buying a medical degree fromHarvard University for US$50 from a counterfeit-degree seller. “There are a great many of these.Just type ‘counterfeit diploma’ into a Googlesearch box,” he says. “This accounts for a lot of theimmigration fraud, I believe. Someone says theyhave an Oxford University MBA, and shows a veryrealistic-looking diploma, and people are fooled.”

So what can immigration authorities do?Curtailing the entry of overseas students, whooften use their resident status to seek employmentonce their academic career ends, is not really anoption. Foreign students are a lucrative source offees for universities. Jacques Hallak and MurielPoisson in their 2005 paper titled Academic fraudand quality assurance: facing the challenge ofinternationalisation of higher education9, writtenfor UNESCO’s International Institute forEducational Planning, note that foreignundergraduates constitute less than 10% of thetotal student population in UK universities, butcontribute more to their financing than do Britishand EU students combined. In Australia, 100,000overseas students are estimated to contributeA$2.5bn (US$2bn) annually, or up to two-fifths ofthe budgets of some universities.

Immigration authorities do not have manyoptions, as the current situation stands. “Becauseof the existence of hundreds of fake schools, plusall the counterfeiters, it is a very difficult and time-consuming process for immigration authorities tocheck up on people, so I think many of them don’tdo it,” notes Mr Bear. It doesn't help that thecounterfeit schools sometimes use names the same

as, or similar to, real schools, he adds. Forexample, LaSalle University run out of Louisiana isfake (the real LaSalle University is inPennsylvania), and Stamford University is fake(but Stanford University isn’t).

National security implications The potential dangers of accepting fakedocuments as valid go beyond employingunqualified staff (although in the medicalprofession this itself can be life-threatening) ordenying job opportunities to local-born workers.With the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001in New York and Washington, March 11th 2004 inMadrid, July 7th 2005 in London, and June 30th2007 at Glasgow airport, securing borders againstthe ingress of potential terrorists has become thehighest priority of the most popular migrant-destination countries. Notwithstanding the factthat in at least one of these instances (London)the bombers in question were local-born, the needto track the movement of suspected terroristsacross borders and to pinpoint their identities hasbecome pressing.

Faking complicated identity documents such aspassports and ID cards has always been a costlyoperation; consequently experts consider itunlikely that this kind of fake documentation willspread rapidly. There is a greater danger thatwould-be terrorists will use fradulent documentsin order to obtain a passport, entry visa or otherform of identification. The growing problem of“identity theft” means that supporting documentsmay in fact refer to a real person—just not the oneusing them. Currently, few governmentimmigration services have standardisedprocedures in place to check supportingdocumentation. Even if the risk of fake visas or ID

9 Available at http://www.unesco.org/iiep/eng/research/highered/polforum/Papers/Day2/HallakPoisson.pdf



documents is relatively low, there are risks ifdocuments used to obtain these are themselves ofdubious provenance.

To take one example, a CNN report on diplomamills and terrorism that aired on December 15th2005 showed how a fake advanced degree couldhelp to get a coveted H-1B visa to work in the US,which terrorists could use to their advantage. Thereport cited a US Secret Service operation in whichan agent calling himself Mohammed Syed-and

claiming to be a Syrian army expert-was notifiedby “James Monroe University”, a degree mill, thatit would award him three bogus degrees inadvanced engineering and chemistry for a littleover US$1,000.

Recognising the severity of the situation, inApril 2006 the US Department of HomelandSecurity (DHS) established special task forces totarget fraud involving the manufacturing, sale anduse of counterfeit identity documents in 10 of

Are the people who “subscribe” to fakedegree/diploma mills themselves victimsof an academic abuse, or are they know-ingly warping academic rules? “This is avery important question, and no oneknows,” says John Bear, a US-basedexpert on diploma mills. “When people arecaught, they always say that they werefooled…but my belief is that most peopleknow what they are doing, and hope tofool others.”

However, Mr Bear adds that some veryclever diploma mills also have fakeaccreditation (there are over 200 fakeaccrediting agencies), and that reassurespeople who have read that they should becareful and only deal with accreditedschools. They don’t know that there arealso fake accreditors.

Mr Bear, who has written several bookson distance learning as well as one titledDegree mills: the billion-dollar industry thathas sold more than a million fake degrees10,believes that the incidence ofdegree/diploma mills is likely to keepgrowing. Not too long ago, the three

biggest problems of a diploma mill werethe cost of advertising, the cost ofpostage, and the need for anonymity or alow profile. Enter the Internet. “[It] istheir fondest dream come true,” notes MrBear. “It easily solves all three problemsfor them. And as long as people want theirproduct, they will grow and thrive.”

His opinion is echoed by Jacques Hallakand Muriel Poisson in their 2005 papertitled Academic fraud and qualityassurance: facing the challenge ofinternationalisation of higher education,11

written for UNESCO’s InternationalInstitute for Educational Planning.Extensive developments in information-communication technology in recentyears, they argue, have immenselywidened the scope for fraud in academia,at the same introducing innovativemethods of malpractice.

“The Internet is now arguably theleading vehicle for fraudulent [academic]practices”, they write, and among otherthings has facilitated the practice ofselling fake degrees “sometimes even from

reputable colleges and institutions such asHarvard and Yale”. There are numerouswebsites from which to choose, some withnames that say blatantly what theirbusiness is all about:www.fakedegrees.com,www.cheathouse.com,www.diplomasforless.com, www.Degrees-R-Us.com—the list is long.

Fake-degree mills are prolific becausethey make money, and lots of it, for thepeople who operate them. The one-man-operation of yesteryear hasmetamorphosed into a multimillion-dollarglobal business in fake degrees. Accordingto Mr Bear, when Columbia StateUniversity was investigated in the 1990s,evidence of US$72m in sales was found; inthe case of LaSalle University in Louisiana,there was evidence of making US$35m infour years; and in the case of the UniversityDegree Program, run out of Romania andIsrael, the FBI estimated that more thanUS$500m had been raked in from selling500,000 degrees worldwide.

A scam for all seasons

10 with Allen Ezell; Prometheus Books, 2005, ISBN: 1-59102-238-X11 Op cit



America’s largest cities, to complement the effortsof Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)officers. (ICE was established in March 2003 as thelargest investigative arm of the DHS.) The schemewas expanded to 17 cities in April 2007. ICE alsohas a forensic document laboratory which providestraining and technical assistance to law-enforcement bodies in the detection of fraudulentdocuments. But such efforts, considering theinternational scope and sheer volume ofimmigration documents that require screening,can only act as a palliative rather than a cure.

Links to organised crimeAside from the national-security implications,document forgery is also a form of organised crimefrequently associated with the illegal trade ofsmuggling and trafficking human beings. AmnestyInternational estimates that 4m people aresmuggled or trafficked across internationalborders each year.12 Forged documents often playa role in one stage of the process.

The distinction between smuggling andtrafficking is whether or not the individual haschosen to embark on the journey. Tragically, thisdistinction is often immaterial; regardless of howthe journey starts, it often ends in exploitationand suffering for the victims. Crime rings trap theircharges with insurmountable debts, violence andintimidation to force them into working indangerous, unregulated conditions or within thesex industry. One well-known horror story is thedeath of 23 Chinese cockle-pickers who drowned inFebruary 2004 after being abandoned by theirgang-masters on UK mudflats as the tide rushed inaround them. They were being paid just US$2 fornine hours’ hard labour.

Amnesty International estimates that people-

smuggling and trafficking has a commercial valueof about US$10bn per year. In pursuit of theseprofits, the now sophisticated industry has seen agrowing trend towards collaboration betweenorganised crime syndicates. In addition, a highlydeveloped sub-economy of agents or facilitatorswho provide legal, financial, IT andcommunications expertise, corrupt access,production facilities and forged documents hasemerged. With computers and the Internet as theirprimary tools, these criminals are able to providesmugglers with state-of-the-art forgeries.

In the US, the Castorena Family Organisation(CFO) is a large-scale crime syndicate thatoperates from Mexico with local hubs in ten UScities. It specialises in forged documents such aspassports, birth certificates, work permits,marriage certificates and driving licenses. WhenUS authorities raided CFO facilities in Los Angelesin the late 1990s, they seized documents with astreet value of US$20m.

The Global Commission on InternationalMigration (GCIM) advocates that source-countriestake stronger action in prosecuting those whorecruit or harbour illegal migrants as well asconfiscating their assets. It also calls forgovernments to take action against thequestionable recruitment agencies with shadydealings in forged visas. There have been somepositive steps and, more generally, the developingworld is waking up to its human-rightsresponsibilities. For example, Pakistan’s FederalInvestigation Agency has launched a majorcountry-wide offensive against people-smugglingrings and took action against 115 illegal overseas-employment bureaus between 2003 and 2005.13

The European Commission is establishing aEuropean image-archiving system for false and

12 Available at http://www.amnesty.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/77198/People_smuggling.pdf13 Data available at http://www.fia.gov.pk/oep.htm



authentic documents (FADO) to combat illegalimmigration and organised crime. FADO aims tofacilitate the fast and simple exchange betweenmember states of information concerning genuineand false documents. The FADO database willcontain images of false and forged documents,

genuine documents, and information on forgeryand security techniques.14 While this will help indetermining fraudulent documentation, it will notidentify or enable the sharing of informationabout specific individuals.

14 http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/freetravel/documents/wai/fsj_freetravel_documents_en.htm



The task faced by immigration authorities inscreening potential immigrants is vast.Developed countries’ consulates in popularmigrant source towns may process

thousands of visa applications a week-of which asubstantial number will be rejected. The UK alonereceived almost 2.75m visa applications in2006/07, of which 81% were accepted.15

As well as issuing visas, receiving countries formigrants have to check that their passports andsupporting documentation are correct at the pointof entry-no mean feat, if one considers the numberof people coming through airports and ports. TheUK Home Office notes that in 2006 more than4,000 forged or counterfeit documents weredetected at UK ports; many more presumablyslipped through the net.16

An increasing workloadThe situation is similarly stressful for USimmigration officials and is highlighted in anarticle published by the Center for ImmigrationStudies (CIS) in the US.17 The CIS reports that theUS Consulate in Mexico City conducts anunrealistically high number of daily interviews ofvisa applicants, with each US consular officerhandling 150-200 applicants in a span of five to

seven hours. This means an average of about twominutes per application, during which theconsular officer has to review documents, askquestions in Spanish, determine whether theapplicant qualifies for a non-immigrant visa, andfill out the requisite paperwork.

The high volume of interviews means that aconsular officer hears the same stories repeatedfrequently, and the “desensitising monotony” ofthis endless flood of applications is not conduciveto quality screening, says the CIS. It adds that forthe applicant using fraudulent documentation toenter a country, it is easier to mislead a tiredconsular officer than to take the hazardous—anddecidedly more expensive—alternative of anillegal border-crossing facilitated by peoplesmugglers. This story should perhaps be takenwith a grain of salt since the CIS has a conservativeanti-immigration agenda, but the pressure onconsular officials is confirmed by anecdotalevidence and interviews conducted for this paper.Moreover, the US Department of HomelandSecurity admits that on arrival to the US, travellerspresent over 8,000 different types ofdocumentation and that this number must belimited in order to help officers zero in on theforgeries.

Chapter 3: Verifying the factsHost countries are developing immigration screening programmes, as increasing migrant numbers threatento overwhelm traditional monitoring systems. Their response has been twofold: to try to “deepen” thescreening process so that it starts in the migrant’s home country, and to introduce more objective systemsfor immigration control. Both types of evaluation require massive investments in labour and technology(eg, biometric passports) and cannot provide an easy solution. Deeper immigration screening may alsorequire increased co-operation between the host government’s own systems and outside agencies.

15 United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UKvisas Annual Report 2006/07. Available athttp://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/UKvisasAnnualReport07.pdf16 Securing the Border, op cit17 Nickolai Wenzel, Centre for Immigration Studies, "America's Other Border Control" (August 2000)http://www.cis.org/articles/2000/back800.html



Other countries are also coming closer toadmitting that major changes are needed. TheAustralian immigration department’s review of itsinformation-technology (IT) systems in 2006recommended a radical multimillion-dollaroverhaul of its hardware and softwareinfrastructure, as well as its project-managementcapability, record-keeping and record-management. The review was in part prompted bytwo very public embarrassments for the Australianimmigration authorities—the unlawful deportationof Vivien Alvarez to the Philippines in July 2001,despite her being an Australian citizen, and theillegal detention in 2004 of Australian residentCornelia Rau, falsely thought to be a German over-stayer.

As mentioned, countries seem likely to moveincreasingly to a points-based system forprioritising immigrants. This already exists inAustralia; applicants are given points foreducational and skill levels, amongst other things.The UK is phasing in a similar system. But suchschemes will provide an even greater incentive topotential immigrants to forge documents claiminghigh educational status or specific skills—makingthe document-verification process yet morecrucial. The consensus is that this process mustbegin at migrant's countries of origin if it is to beeffective.

Deepening immigration screeningCountries increasingly believe that they cannotidentify all potential undesirable immigrants atthe point of entry; they seek therefore to “deepen”the process by carrying out more checks within theimmigrant’s own country. This can be done atdifferent levels, but each adds an additional layerof complexity to the immigration process.

First, some form of risk-related assessment stillneeds to be done within the immigrant’s owncountry—both of the applicant’s suitability for avisa, and of the supporting documentation. This isno easy task in many countries, as one US consularofficial based in southern China reports. Althoughfake passports are a rarity, efforts to screen otherdocuments in China are hampered by widespreadfraud.

“You can’t trust any [personal] documents inChina”, the official says, explaining that themarket for supplying fraudulent papers in supportof visa applications is vast and growing quickly. Onone occasion, the official recalls, a visainterviewee who had neglected to bring a birthcertificate left to “find” the document andreturned from a printing shop across the roadminutes later, new certificate in hand.

However, the fact that the authenticity ofdocuments is widely questioned means there is atleast a level playing field, the official claims. Theassumption is made that the document in questionis fraudulent unless it is proved to be genuine. Butfinding the proof is a labour-intensive and time-consuming process. In India alone, the UK visasauthority identified 140 companies set up toprovide bogus employment references for visaapplicants. It also notes that in 2006/07 UKofficials detected over 12,600 fraudulentdocuments used to support applications in Lagosalone.18

For those individuals who are not required toobtain a visa before entry, one solution is for asecondary electronic-checking system to sendpassenger lists to the host country before theimmigrant gets on the plane—meaning boardingcan be stopped if some anomaly is picked up. Evenwhen an immigrant is on the plane to the host

18 UKvisas Annual Review 2006/07, op cit



country, their details can be further checked-sothat they can be turned back on arrival.

The technology to do this already exists. For 16weeks until February 2007 London’s HeathrowAirport ran a test of a system that uses biometricsfor identification, known as miSense, inconjunction with the UK immigration authorities,Cathay Pacific Airways and Emirates. The trial wasby most accounts a success. Biometric systemshave already been tried out at many other airportsby immigration control authorities. In some cases,biometric systems have been implemented in oneform or the other to verify passenger identity—forexample, in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore,Dubai and Australia.

Another initiative is SPEED, which is availableto Hong Kong permanent identity-card holdersflying frequently between Hong Kong and London.SPEED was jointly conducted by the Hong KongInternational Airport, Hong Kong’s ImmigrationDepartment and Cathay Pacific Airways fromJanuary to June 2007. Like miSense, SPEED wasrun to test the principles of the SimplifyingPassenger Travel (SPT) programme, initiated bythe International Air Transport Association.

As its name suggests, the SPEED model aims tointegrate airport, immigration and airlineprocesses in real time. Passengers who enrol inSPEED have superior online check-in and baggagehandling facilities, immigration control, securityclearance and aircraft boarding. In addition, theycan participate in IRIS, or the Iris RecognitionImmigration System, developed by the UKgovernment and Sagem, which permits automatedentry clearance.

It is expected that the use of biometrics willgreatly assist automated verification. Suchsystems essentially use pattern recognition toidentify users by authenticating their uniquephysiological or behaviourial traits. Increasinglythese systems are being introduced to

authenticate immigration applicants’ identity, aswell as to screen travellers. The UK, for example, isrolling out a system to include biometric data ineach visa granted. But there are snags in relyingon technology of this nature.

For a start, “These systems are not yetcompatible and interoperable worldwide,” notesThomas Romig, airport manager for informationtechnology (IT) with the Airports CouncilInternational, a Geneva-based association ofairports. One of the SPT’s tasks is to facilitate this“harmonisation” so that such systems are rolledout on a long-term basis to allow a passengertravelling between different locations to beverified at all ports of entry and exit.

Can biometrics be deployed in isolation of otherverification procedures? “No system is foolproof,”says Mr Romig. “However, some are better thanothers and it can be said that biometrics, althoughnot foolproof, is very robust…The technologyused has been developed to minimise thepossibility of spoofing or fooling the system. It isvery hard to use another person’s biometric as itwould mean that the biometric would have to bepresented to the control point; unless theperson—or their biometric—is present theidentification will not take place.” He adds thatmany biometric verification systems being usedworldwide are fully automated and do not requiremanual intervention except in unusualoccurrences such as false documentation.

But biometrics has prompted concerns aboutprivacy issues—and divergent attitudes. One sidewarns that using biometrics would enable theauthorities to “police” an individual’s movementsworldwide. The other side argues that biometricswould be just another technology that uses anindividual’s personal details to enable a modernlife, for example, using an ATM, a mobile phone,the Internet or a machine-readable passport.

“There may be privacy issues with biometric



data being held in databases as this is based onnational legislation,” says Mr Romig, “but fromthe greater public’s point of view, it has to beunderstood that biometrics will only improvesecurity and, in some cases, hopefully make lifeeasier for people.” Indeed, individuals willing toregister their private details could even turn toprivate identification services such as Edentiti,developed by an Australia-based company of thesame name. The product offers 100 points ofidentification to an individual based on theirassociations with other individuals andorganisations. Both sides have to agree on theassociation for it to be considered verified.

At a rather simpler level, identity verificationservices provided by the private sector arebecoming more common, particularly in the US.For example, Intelli-Check, based in New Yorkstate, markets ID-CHECK technology, whichaccording to the company blurb reads, analysesand verifies the encoded data in magnetic stripsand barcodes on government-issue IDs from about60 jurisdictions in the US and Canada to determinethe validity of content and format. But applyingthis approach to other supporting documentationmay be more difficult: very few university-degreecertificates are barcoded, for example.

Databases and background checksOfficial forecasts and back-of-the-envelopecalculations both suggest that migrant numbersare likely to remain very high for the foreseeablefuture. Individual countries continue to strugglewith the implications of this volume for visacontrol. Improved national systems and more co-ordination between government agencies areunlikely to solve matters. Although biometricpassports and data can link individuals with anidentity, they will not on their own prove that thedocumentation supporting that identity is valid.So, visas will continue to be issued based on

fraudulent documentation. Document verification will also remain

imperfect, with volume being the major inhibitingfactor. The substantial numbers of visas processedfor the major migrant destinations will continue toput their systems under strain; better risk-assessment systems will mitigate the problem, butnot solve it. Similarly, a harder-headed approachby receiving countries (for example by refusing toissue a visa to anyone who has been caught usingbogus documentation in the past) will not stopthose desperate for a new life. Various non-governmental initiatives (including in the privatesector) have been launched to tackle this problem.

Organisations checking educationalqualifications seem to be the most established.The Australian firm IDP, for example, has longbeen engaged in checking the educationalqualifications and background of foreign studentsapplying for further courses in Australia. In theUS, the National Student Clearinghouse—a not-for-profit organisation—has now been verifyingeducational qualifications for 13 years. AnotherAustralian firm, VETASSESS, is the only non-domestic organisation authorised to accessChina’s database of validated educationalcertificates (although this is said to coverdiplomas more effectively than degreecertificates). IntegraScreen—the sponsors of thisreport—Global Screening Solutions, L-1 IdentitySolutions, Digimarc and LexisNexis are among theprivate-sector firms offering document screeningand identity verification services.

Employment history checking is also beingdeveloped, with some of these organisationsinvolved in on-the-ground research, maintainingoffices in source-countries such as India and Chinaand building up databases on individuals andbogus companies set up for the sole purpose ofsupplying fraudulent documents.

There is already collaboration between such



firms and governments. Although pre-employmentscreening has traditionally been the greatestsource of revenue for these companies, there isevidence to suggest that contracts withgovernment immigration departments are apotentially fruitful avenue of growth. Somecountries have reported success with theseinitiatives: the United Arab Emirates, for example,in September 2005 began verifying theeducational qualifications of all applicants formanagerial work permits. The UAE’s ministry oflabour reports that over 180,000 qualificationshave since been screened by a third-party verifier,and it plans to expand the programme. But suchsystems are untested on a larger scale, andproblems with sharing information between firmsare likely to impede the establishment of globaldocument-verification systems.

Then again, perhaps standard documentverification is not the only answer to the problem.Kevin Cox, founder and chief technology officer ofEdentiti, a small Australian organisation that isstill trying to convince others about its approach,says that the process of document verification is

China's authorities are worried about the threatposed by fake degrees to the reputation of theireducational institutions. In response, they haveestablished the China Higher-Education StudentInformation and Career Centre (CHESICC) toendorse and verify all secondary-school anddegree certificates. It has a database that storesthe student's name, sex, date of birth,college/university, subject studied, course level,graduation date, ID certificate and graduationphotograph, and the serial number of the candi-date's diploma or certificate.

The drawback is that CHESICC has onlyauthorised certain domestic educational bodiesand one foreign organisation, VETASSESS (anAustralian migration document-verification andtraining firm), to carry out verifications. Othergovernments and businesses would have to gothrough Chinese universities and notaries in orderto try to check on authenticity, as its database fordegrees (if not diplomas) is widely seen to beinadequate.

Endorsing degrees in China

outdated. “The document that an organisationgives you is essentially a copy of their records,”says Mr Cox. “In a sense it’s like a letter ofintroduction, the same concept. But we don’t haveto do that now we’ve got the Internet.”

Edentiti believes that the best way to solve theproblem of fraudulent documentation is forindividuals to build up their own identities—initially getting third parties to verify thedocumentation supporting their life story. So youmight take your degree certificate, get it verifiedby a third party, and then post it on your ownpersonal webspace (or on a smart card at home).The biometric linking the identity to thedocumentation is a voice print: Edentiti rings theindividual if access to data is requested, and needsto get an affirmative voice print to continue.

Whether such a system of verification can workon a sufficiently large scale is open to question,however, while the technology and theapplications remain in their infancy—and are oftenunavailable to those developing-country migrantsmost desperate to build new lives abroad.



There are few areas of consensus when itcomes to global migration: exactly thescale of the issue, whether it injects freshtalent into developed economies or

undermines local labour markets—everyone has astrongly held opinion. On one issue there isagreement, however: global migration requiresincreased control. Countries need to be able todetermine who enters their borders to ensurepeople with the desired skills or other attributescome in, while those who are unqualified (or whopresent a security threat) stay out.

So what steps can governments take, in order toknow with relative certainty to whom they aregranting or denying entry? Borders must seemwelcoming to holidaymakers, yet rigorousprocesses must be in place to vet those who areplanning to stay and work. Difficulty in gettingvisas, the unpredictability of entry requirements,and unfriendly customs officers are having aseriously damaging impact on tourism, accordingto 25 US city mayors surveyed by the TravelBusiness Roundtable, a US trade association forthe travel industry. This is certainly somethingthat governments would wish to avoid.19

In an ideal world, to ensure reliable identityverification, source-countries would create asingle database that would track birth, educationand marriage certificates, driving licenses andcriminal records. Immigration officials fromforeign countries could, with permission from awould-be migrant, access the information andverify easily the identity and credentials of a givenindividual. Currently, countries are a long wayfrom sharing this kind of information on the kind

of scale necessary to perfect border screening.Moreover, it would have serious implications forcivil liberties if personal information were trackedin this way.

However, setting up organisations that canvalidate an individual’s personal documentationcould be an important step. For example, the bodyestablished in China to verify and registereducational certificates could be replicated inother countries where fraudulent diplomas areendemic. The next step would be to grant qualifiedaccess to overseas immigration departments. Orperhaps migrants would be asked to prove theiridentity in their own country before applying forforeign visas.

Destination countries such as the US and thoseof the EU can build up databases of valid and falsedocumentation to help customs recogniseforgeries, although the effectiveness of thesedatabases in fraud detection still relies onimmigration officials having the time andexpertise to use them. Private-sector firms mightperform the labour-intensive and painstakingwork of combing through the background data—but the responsibility for border protection isunlikely ever to be outsourced, and will remainlabour intensive.

Either way, whether immigration screening istightened through a co-ordinated multilateraleffort or in partnership with the private sector, thegoalposts will keep shifting. The advent of theInternet and other advances in technology willmean that the supply and sophistication offorgeries continues to grow, and fake documentswill remain difficult to detect.

Conclusions

19 More information available at http://www.tbr.org


An Economist Intelligence Unit briefing paperSponsored by IntegraScreen

LONDON26 Red Lion SquareLondonWC1R 4HQUnited KingdomTel: (44.20) 7576 8000Fax: (44.20) 7576 8476E-mail: [email protected]

NEW YORK111 West 57th StreetNew YorkNY 10019United StatesTel: (1.212) 554 0600Fax: (1.212) 586 1181/2E-mail: [email protected]

HONG KONG6001, Central Plaza18 Harbour RoadWanchaiHong KongTel: (852) 2585 3888Fax: (852) 2802 7638E-mail: [email protected]

Paper size: 210mm x 270mm

Paper chase - Economist Intelligence Unitgraphics.eiu.com/upload/IntegraScreen.pdf · 2007. 10....

Documents

Transcript of Paper chase - Economist Intelligence Unitgraphics.eiu.com/upload/IntegraScreen.pdf · 2007. 10....