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