 Thanks, everyone. I wanted to take a moment to introduce Huiget Lebel, someone who is well known to many, if not all of you, I'm sure. I'm happy to say we welcome Huiget to be a board member of GFI last year, and right from the outset she was – it was a very comfortable fit. Not only is she an expert in international development due to her time as President of the Canadian International Development Agency, but like Thomas Pogge, who spoke a bit ago. She is a PhD in philosophy, and much like Raymond Baker, she probably flies about a million miles a year, so she fits in quite well. During her very distinguished career, she's worn many hats. She's been Chancellor of the University of Ottawa, head of the Canadian Red Cross and as well as the Chair of the Board of Directors of Transparency International, to name just a few. In 2011, she was awarded Canada's highest honor, the Order of Ottawa, which recognizes the highest level of individual excellence and achievement in any field, and I would say from her bio it could say in excellence in many fields. Please welcome Huiget Lebel. Thank you, Tom, and good afternoon, everyone. You've got a lot of staying power, obviously, but I'm glad you got around to go and get a coffee. Otherwise, you know, people start getting a little bit low after a while. Well, I think we need to start with the dedication of the book that is being launched today, and that dedication, Raymond, is to those who suffer the indignity of poverty, and I would add to that the danger of living in conflict areas and with insecurity. So we're really talking here of something very, very important, and I want to congratulate GFI, which of course I'm part of, but for the work that's being done, and for the very long-standing collaboration between GFI and Transparency International, and would like also to come in the fact that we have some colleagues from TI in the room as well. I don't know how many of you were in Monterey. That's where I started, which then of course moved on to Doha and to Addis. Although Monterey did say a lot of the right things, it was a very different conference. There had not been all the discussions, the hearings that we have seen en route to Addis. But Addis, like Monterey, was not necessarily easy to achieve. Countries were debating, both behind the scenes and in front of the scene, because many had different views about what should be in the declaration in Addis. And the responsibilities, you know, as well as the collaboration and the advocacy of many organizations was very important, I think, in pushing forward some of those discussions, including civil society organization, the academic group, and some leaders of industry in terms of doing this, not only at the global level, but within countries. So this year we have heard is of course a very important one. And when you look at the goals that are part of the sustainable development goals as well as Addis, we've got a lot of the right stuff there, a lot of the things we would like to see. And of course the problem will be what do we do after September, and I'll come back to that in a minute. But before that, when you, I don't know how many of you have taken the time of reading the Addis declaration, I'm sure you do that every night before going to bed. I have read it a number of times, but, you know, what is rather interesting there is that, of course, the main goal is to end poverty and hunger and then achieve sustainable development with three dimensions, promoting inclusive economic growth, protecting the environment, and promoting social inclusion. I will leave aside the commitments that have been made broadly, the cross-cutting areas relating to the SDGs and that were also raised in the Addis declaration, and come to the action areas immediately to deal with the topic at hand today, which is illicit financial flows. What is interesting is that the first item of the action on Addis started with domestic public resources, and right immediately, item 23 to 29, dealt with some of the work that we are all concerned about and that we have heard since noon, whether it is redouble efforts to substantially reduce illicit financial flows by 2030, with the view to eventually eliminating them, reduce opportunity for tax avoidance, ensure transparency in all financial transactions, and ensure that all companies, including multinational pay taxes to the government of countries where economic activity occurs and value is created, encourage information sharing among financial institutions, encourage the international community to develop good practices on asset recovery, strive to eliminate safe havens, strive, I underlined the word strive here. It's a weak action, strive as well to strengthen regulatory frameworks at all level to further increase transparency and accountability of financial institutions and the corporate sector and governments, strengthen international cooperation, scaling up tax cooperation, transparency, natural resources, access to beneficial ownership information. It's not quite public register of beneficial owners, but it's at least getting there. Take into account the work of the OECD and G20 on base erosion and profit shifting, strengthen national audit institution, establish transparent public procurement frameworks, and so on. So I'm sorry, if I'm listing those, it's to make the point that a lot of the commitments that have been made in Addis are very much in line with what we are talking today. Why have we got these kinds of commitments? I would like to believe that a lot of it is because of what has happened since Doha. What has happened in the last, let's say since about 2007, 2008, and Raymond I would probably say with your first book on capitalism's Achilles heel that you published earlier, I guess in 2005, where illicit financial flows began to be put on the world agenda. But what has happened since Monterey and Doha? First of all, Norway played a very interesting role, the government of Norway, in holding a number of conferences about these issues. The establishment of what is now called the Financial Transparency Coalition, which the GFI was very instrumental and which brings together a number of organizations, including Transparency International from different parts. And this is, I think, playing as played a very important role in keeping the issue on the world agenda and continues to do so. And of course, this was supported also by the government of Norway along the way. A third point, I think of what was happening during this, was that the OECD started to have a number of conferences on between tax authorities from around the world. And this and their early work, I would like to believe, was important in getting the G20 to take note. There were more things that got the G20 to take note, but that I think was one of them on the whole issue of beneficial ownership and tax exchange and tax information. The financial crisis, I think, got western countries to realize how much money they were losing on tax evasion and also on tax avoidance. And that became, I think, a very important issue around that time. As well as some whistleblowers started to put some information on the world discussion, as well as some legislation, and I'll come back to that, but the discovery of the complicity of a number of banks, large banks, in participating, either by not doing due diligence by looking the other way or by being complicit in illicit money from persons from PEPs and others. Now, something else that happened during that period was the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, and this was referred to earlier. And I won't go into that because a lot of people in this room are probably very familiar with it, but it has meant that it is sort of a sense forcing other countries to cooperate on other financial institutions in terms of searching the records for reporting of persons who have assets outside of these countries. And I think this is launching a global discussion about reciprocity in this regard. I think another point was the G20 and some of what they have been committing to, including the asking the OECD to launch its base erosion of profit shifting initiative to develop multilateral instruments to facilitate the automatic exchange of information on tax, aiming at curtailing, of course, seepage of revenues from developing countries, but also from Western countries. Something else that happened was what did happen in the EU Parliament, where in 2013, 2014 legislation was passed requiring countries of the EU to report taxes paid on a country-by-country basis where their multinationals were operating, as well as approving legislation requiring public registers of beneficial ownership of companies in member countries. The UK started early on that as well. January 19th of this year, the high level panel on asset financial flows from Africa, chaired by Tebow Mbiki and Raymond, you were part of that panel. I think the publication of that panel again put the whole issue of illicit financial flows on the agenda and reinforced the work that was taking place. Now, what is happening as well and what you will see in the Addis Declaration is what I'm calling at least to some degree a new interest in what's happening at the subnational level. We've concentrated a lot on national level public sector and otherwise. A lot of the activity is happening when we're talking of illicit financial flows, not just at the national level but locally or provincially or statewide. I think that when you're looking at the greater Tokyo or Shanghai with close to soon will be 50 million people within the next few years, not in a decade from now. These are bigger than many countries put together and therefore their activity, the activity at the city level, I think is something that has been taking greater traction in the past while. Also, I would say that because of a number of scandals, because of publications from the World Bank, IMF, regional banks, OECD, UN, the whole area of infrastructure is also there. It's been there, but it's certainly not fading away as where so much money is lost, which then becomes part of the illicit flows running around the world. That, I think, remains a very important aspect. And I think the role of, in these last while, the role of funding organizations, and I'm referring to Ford here, Norway before, in supporting the work leading not only to this publication but to a number of other efforts remains very important, and I think other organizations need to be encouraged to follow through. Now, my points here have been, a number of things have been happening while leading to ADIS, which hopefully have had some influence in getting the commitments that were made. But we have seen commitments made before with very little action after. So going forward, I think, remains tremendously important. And some of what I've just said, I think, refers to that. But to me, going forward is really a new beginning to ensure that commitments made are respected, commitments that actions happen following that. And I will identify a few critical areas where work will be important, and I would like to commend for you to read the book. And Tom, the, your last chapter, I think, is very good in disregard and very helpful. And I will have some of the points that you have made here, but a few more. I think what we all know is that if you don't have political will at the top and a readiness for action, you won't get very far. In order to get that, you also need the people to begin to understand that they don't have to live with the loss of the resources that belongs to them, and that they are ready to unite, come together, and put that pressure upward, but also be able to provide constructive support and recommendations. And in between, we have all the institutions that we heard about, whether it's customs, whether it's the judiciary and many others, that if they don't have the strength, the capacity to deal with enforcement and prevention and detection, not a lot will happen. So, I think going forward, we're talking of financial transparency and all revenues, all disbursements, following the money, as was said before, remains vital. Otherwise, we won't have the information. Neither will the people in the countries to hold their governments accountable. The issue of public register of beneficial owners of companies, trusts, and other financial institutions in all countries. I mean, the G20 has now taken this on, but if it doesn't become a global issue where all countries participate in this, people will move their illicit money somewhere else, where you don't have the requirement for public registers. My third point is to really advance the work on misinvoicing and to really continue to engage, I think the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD are three very important international institutions in this regard. Complete the unfinished work on transparency and cooperation in tax information. And again, bring in those from outside of the circle that have been working on this, because again, you need a global solution here, and you need that cooperation, and not just bilateral, but you need the multilateral work, which has started to happen. I will also add one thing that we haven't talked about today yet. And to me, this is the whole extractive sector. And I'll start by an example. I was meeting with President Kagame a few years ago, and he said, these three minds are closing in the next two to three years. Rwanda has never received one penny in royalties, in tax, or in concession fees. I said, well, why? Because the fine print in the agreement said that any net revenues here could be spent where we're exploring somewhere else to the extent that we're exploring, and of course, you're always exploring. And that is certainly one aspect. But then the whole movement of some of the high-end goods from the mining sector, again, is feeding what we're talking about today. So I would say that the whole area of extractive industries need to be not only supported, but in countries to some extent. I was asking President Kagame, why did this happen? Was it corruption? Somebody paid money under the table? Was it the lack of capacity of those who negotiated compared to who was on the other side of the table? All of the above or more? And, you know, who knows? But what we know is that this is not unique to Rwanda. And a number of countries have started to renegotiate Chile as an example, their agreements, because of the money leaving the country. And some of it also from extractive industry turning into illicit financial flows. So we can come back to that. I think my other point goes to that middle group that I was mentioning before, the institutions, whether it be the judiciary, the police, the customs, the tax, those who are the custodians in a way of what happens when money moves in and out. And in many countries, and I would venture to say in some of our western countries, the sophistication of the facilitators is much better and higher than those who are responsible to make this happen. And here I'm talking of prosecutors of judges or of police. So much is happening. It is better in a number of countries than it was. But we're very far from being where we need to be in terms of having the capacity to prevent, to detect, and to sanction illicit flows and the related areas. I'm talking of audit. When Ellen Sirleaf Johnson arrived in Liberia, she just arrived immediately after the whole debacle and the war. And one of the first things that she decided she would do would be to recruit a forensic auditor who is Liberian but had been living in the United States as a professional for a long time and said, come back home for five years and I want you to establish a strong audit responsibility in this country. And I saw with the result of what they were able to find, sanction, and then give themselves the means to prevent in the future. And that I'm using this as a small example. We've talked a lot about data today. It remains so important in countries around the world, in particular in developing countries. I was meeting once with the Minister of Finance of a developing country and I was asking him about data, about information that he had. The conversation was short. He said, I've got three economists and I'm responsible for national, provincial, and local financing. So he rested his case. But I think that that remains the data and the support to ensuring that information is available. We can talk about transparency, but if the information is not available, we're not getting anywhere. I would like just to make a few more comments. I think that the whole area of due diligence for the banks on knowing your clients, on ensuring that they have the preventive measures to stop illicit flows, to report it as they see it coming and make sure that it becomes part of the justice system to me remains a very big part of an unfinished business here. And we haven't talked much about the recovery of stolen assets again. This is very much an unfinished business and I have been in countries in Africa where the negotiations had been going on for decades on trying to recover assets at a great cost to that country, but with very little in result, if any. And we just have to think about Abasha. We can think of Marcos. We can think about a number of other world leaders whose money for their family or themselves is still out there. And I would also add that we need to spend quite a bit more time on trying to see how we deal with intermediaries. And our last panel spoke about some of that. And it's not just the lawyers and the accountants who are the facilitators. It's the real estate agents and it's many more. So that to me is and finally, I think that the work of civil society, of leaders of industry being brought on board of the academic sector of the international institutions will remain more and more important. If we want to make sure that Addis and the SDGs are not just dreams, are not just words, commitments that don't turn into action and to make sure because you need the global cooperation for this to happen. No one country alone, of course, we know can do it. And I'd like to go back to the fact that we need to engage the people of the countries as well. Find better ways of doing that. Provide constructive mechanisms and tools, not just identify the problems because then we're not doing better than the leaders who approved in Addis or who put forward their major commitments. So we need to see these as a reality. If we want to go back to the first point of the dedication of this book of dealing with the fact that poverty is such an injustice, but so and the lack of peace and the lack of security also is. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Hugh Get. We hadn't mentioned political will prior to Hugh Get's comments, but I think it's always important to bring that up and also sort of puts things into light as much of a challenge as it has been to get illicit flows into the Addis agenda and the SDG agenda. We know what's ahead of us, which is trying to build that political will around the globe to really address this problem on the ground. Hugh Get also mentioned the issue of data, and that will be the topic of our next panel. Very good segue. Thank you for that. We talk about data all the time, not only within GFI, but within the broader NGO community, within the FTC and elsewhere. We always try to strive to get the best most comprehensive data possible to try to put out as accurate estimates as we possibly can. We're constantly asking how do we improve it? How do we broaden it? And that's what our next panelists will discuss. I'd like to ask Dr. Devkar, Anders Eggerskoff, Tamara Rosen and Porter McConnell up front, please. Thanks very much.