Research source connecting co-funders and later policy advocacy
Taking the Profit Out of IP Crime — corrected March2021 report
Taking the Profit Out of IP Crime: Piracy and Organised Crime is a RUSI report by Janjeva, Reid and Moiseienko, retained in its corrected March 2021 version. It proposes financial and business-verification responses to intellectual-property crime.
Methods, support and proposals
The authors report seventy-seven interviews from February to September 2020 and two January 2021 validation workshops excluding funders. They acknowledge IPO, the Alliance for Intellectual Property, MPA, the Industry Trust and the Premier League. No allocations or payment instruments were acquired. Recommendations include business-identity records and verification where possible, financial institutions using existing lists with appropriate responses, and identity best practice before formal requirements. These are authored recommendations, not completed disruptions or statutory duties.
Taking the Profit Out of IP Crime — corrected March2021 report → RUSI business-verification and financial-disruption recommendations
recommends verification and proportionate financial interventions
March2021 corrected report
Recommendation4 seeks record/verification to extent possible and resources for compliance. Recommendation14 proposes that financial institutions seek existing lists and take appropriate actions including termination orSAR. Recommendation15 promotes reasonable identity best practice without waiting for formal KYBC. These are authored proposals, not established list entitlements or performed disruptions.
Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) → Taking the Profit Out of IP Crime — corrected March2021 report
published the co-funded research report
March2021 corrected version
Corrected March2021 report names authors Janjeva, Reid and Moiseienko. The authors claim findings were independent of funders;77interviews and two funder-excluding validation workshops are self-described methods. Funding, primary-data contribution and final editorial control are not interchangeable.
MPA FDF0068 evidence — internal10May2022 → Taking the Profit Out of IP Crime — corrected March2021 report
quotes the2021 report in parliamentary advocacy
MPA internal10May2022
Main§18 and footnote12 name and cite this report, quoting its executive-summary KYBC passage. That is a concrete co-funder→report→later-citation route. Quotation is from PDF12 executive summary, not identical numbered recommendation4; funding did not itself prove dictation or government adoption.
Alliance for Intellectual Property → Taking the Profit Out of IP Crime — corrected March2021 report
is disclosed as a co-funder
March2021 report disclosure
RUSI acknowledges this named co-funder alongside four others. No amount, transfer date, contract, publication veto or instruction of recommendations is established. Exact legal contracting entity is not obtained where the disclosure gives only an organisational name. Payment status: Funding acknowledged; award/payment instrument and allocation unacquired
Corrected March2021 report names authors Janjeva, Reid and Moiseienko. The authors claim findings were independent of funders;77interviews and two funder-excluding validation workshops are self-described methods. Funding, primary-data contribution and final editorial control are not interchangeable.
RUSI acknowledges this named co-funder alongside four others. No amount, transfer date, contract, publication veto or instruction of recommendations is established. Exact legal contracting entity is not obtained where the disclosure gives only an organisational name.
Payment status: Funding acknowledged; award/payment instrument and allocation unacquired
RUSI acknowledges this named co-funder alongside four others. No amount, transfer date, contract, publication veto or instruction of recommendations is established. Exact legal contracting entity is not obtained where the disclosure gives only an organisational name.
Payment status: Funding acknowledged; award/payment instrument and allocation unacquired
RUSI acknowledges this named co-funder alongside four others. No amount, transfer date, contract, publication veto or instruction of recommendations is established. Exact legal contracting entity is not obtained where the disclosure gives only an organisational name.
Payment status: Funding acknowledged; award/payment instrument and allocation unacquired
RUSI acknowledges this named co-funder alongside four others. No amount, transfer date, contract, publication veto or instruction of recommendations is established. Exact legal contracting entity is not obtained where the disclosure gives only an organisational name.
Payment status: Funding acknowledged; award/payment instrument and allocation unacquired
RUSI acknowledges this named co-funder alongside four others. No amount, transfer date, contract, publication veto or instruction of recommendations is established. Exact legal contracting entity is not obtained where the disclosure gives only an organisational name.
Payment status: Funding acknowledged; award/payment instrument and allocation unacquired
Recommendation4 seeks record/verification to extent possible and resources for compliance. Recommendation14 proposes that financial institutions seek existing lists and take appropriate actions including termination orSAR. Recommendation15 promotes reasonable identity best practice without waiting for formal KYBC. These are authored proposals, not established list entitlements or performed disruptions.
Main§18 and footnote12 name and cite this report, quoting its executive-summary KYBC passage. That is a concrete co-funder→report→later-citation route. Quotation is from PDF12 executive summary, not identical numbered recommendation4; funding did not itself prove dictation or government adoption.