This chapter revisits the challenges with which the AML regime is fraught and recasts them in a new light. The chapter begins by addressing law enforcement responses to money laundering, namely the prosecution of money launderers and the confiscation of proceeds of crime. It proceeds to discuss regulatory responses, with a focus on the tensions they entail, namely exclusion versus surveillance, exclusion versus the presumption of innocence and surveillance versus privacy. It then explores the challenges presented by the misalignment between law enforcement priorities and private-sector compliance efforts, including defensive reporting, derisking, the displacement effect and tick-box compliance. The chapter then outlines potential solutions, including a modified reporting regime, public–private partnerships, privacy- enhancing technologies, and the implementation of a risk-based approach. The last substantive topic in this chapter is the special case of the legal profession, which presents particularly difficult choices in connection with both exclusion and surveillance. Finally, the conclusion brings together this analysis to elucidate the limitations of the existing FATF-mandated framework.

This chapter considers the impact of Justinian’s codification on our understanding of Classical Roman law. After reading the introductory constitutions in order to understand how Justinian used the Corpus Iuris to represent himself, I discuss the tendency of constitutions contained within the Codex Justinianus to avoid explicit disagreement. Justinian is the one emperor who regularly criticizes his predecessors in the Codex, which suggests that other conflict was redacted out in the compilation process. I then use a passage of Pomponius, discussing a strange hypothetical involving a cross-dressing senator, to argue that jurists were more engaged with other literary genres (like paradoxography) than is obvious from fragments which survive in the Digest, and that the redactive tendency to treat juristic treatises as sources of law has greater distorting effects than is immediately apparent.

Most religious traditions and movements have majorities of women, but most are led by men and are based on deeply embedded patriarchal assumptions. That underlying reality is played out in multiple different Christian traditions and shapes the subsequent contests for power, representation, and influence. This chapter is animated by a primary question from which other questions naturally flow: What are the characteristics of the religious networks constructed by women and to what extent do they function differently from those built largely by men? In attempting to answer that question, I identify five different kinds of networks representing different varieties of female leadership and participation. It is important to state that this typology should not be read as either an ascension or declension narrative about women’s agency and the role of patriarchy in shaping that agency.

This chapter introduces abstract dynamic programs and shows how this framework can be used to prove the core optimality results from the book.

Chapter 9 explores the origins of healing authority and its experiential grounding. Sociological accounts of authority usually refer to institutional power. Many elementary systems of medicine connect healers’ own initiatory illness and affliction to their knowledge and power. This connection is explicit in the Greek myth of Asklepios and was taken up by others in terms of the archetype of the wounded-healer. This ethos of the wounded-healer reflects a relational structure present in the dynamics of the clinical encounter. Healers’ relationship to their own wounds not only conveys symbolic power but can evoke specific psychological and interpersonal dynamics that may contribute to the effectiveness of treatment. In this symbolic logic of healing, the healer’s own wounds become sources of wisdom when they are confronted rather than denied. The ways this attitude may be learned and embodied are illustrated by a series of dreams with images of wounding and healing during psychiatric training. This ethos has implications for understanding the epistemic authority of healers, the training of clinicians, and addressing basic issues in intercultural health care.

Conservatives claim that progressive taxation in America is unfair to the more affluent because it punishes them for working hard and redistributes their income to less affluent people who are lazy, and therefore don’t deserve it. It is true that some of the revenue collected from corporations and the more affluent pays for programs for the less affluent. But this ignores that even poor people pay taxes. It ignores that most people who receive government transfer payments are children, elderly, disabled, and working people, not slackers. And it ignores the many tax breaks, loopholes, subsidies, and bailouts that the affluent and corporations receive from government – a hidden welfare state – that costs taxpayers billions of dollars annually. In fact, cutting taxes and therefore spending on social programs can exacerbate inequality and undermine social cohesion and political stability, none of which is good for the economy or society. These arguments are supported by cross-national and US historical data.