Contents: (1) Results of the Invest.; (2) SEC Review of 2000 and 2001 Markopolos Complaints: (3) SEC 2004 OCIE Cause Exam. of Madoff; (4) SEC 2005 NERO Exam. of Madoff; (5) SEC 2006 Invest. of Markopolos Complaint; (6) Effect of Madoff¿s Stature and Reputation on SEC Exam.; (7) Allegations of Conflict of Interest from the Relationship between Eric Swanson and Shana Madoff; (8) Private Entities¿ Due Diligence Efforts Revealed Suspicious Activity about Madoff¿s Operations; (9) Potential Investors Relied upon the Fact That the SEC had Examined and Investigated Madoff in Making Decisions to Invest with Him; (10) Additional Complaints Received by the SEC re: Madoff; (11) Additional Exam. and Inspect. of Madoff¿s Firms by the SEC.

Securing Development: Public Finance and the Security Sector highlights the role of public finance in the delivery of security and criminal justice services. This book offers a framework for analyzing public financial management, financial transparency, and oversight, as well as expenditure policy issues that determine how to most appropriately manage security and justice services. The interplay among security, justice, and public finance is still a relatively unexplored area of development. Such a perspective can help security actors provide more professional, effective, and efficient security and justice services for citizens, while also strengthening systems for accountability. The book is the result of a project undertaken jointly by staff from the World Bank and the United Nations, integrating the disciplines where each institution holds a comparative advantage and a core mandate. The primary audience includes government officials bearing both security and financial responsibilities, staff of international organizations working on public expenditure management and security sector issues, academics, and development practitioners working in an advisory capacity.

This publication is the second in a series of lessons learned reports which examine how the U.S. government and Departments of Defense, State, and Justice carried out reconstruction programs in Afghanistan. In particular, the report analyzes security sector assistance (SSA) programs to create, train and advise the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) between 2002 and 2016. This publication concludes that the effort to train the ANDSF needs to continue, and provides recommendations for the SSA programs to be improved, based on lessons learned from careful analysis of real reconstruction situations in Afghanistan. The publication states that the United States was never prepared to help create Afghan police and military forces capable of protecting that country from internal and external threats. It is the hope of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), John F. Sopko, that this publication, and other SIGAR reports will create a body of work that can help provide reasonable solutions to help United States agencies and military forces improve reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. Related items: Counterterrorism publications can be found here: https://bookstore.gpo.gov/catalog/counterterrorism Counterinsurgency publications can be found here: https://bookstore.gpo.gov/catalog/counterinsurgency Warfare & Military Strategy publications can be found here: https://bookstore.gpo.gov/catalog/warfare-military-strategy Afghanistan War publications can be found here: https://bookstore.gpo.gov/catalog/afghanistan-war

Historically, governments have played the predominant role in owning and operating infrastructure facilities such as schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, railways, ports, telecommunications networks, and water and electricity supply facilities. However, fiscal policy constraints, growing acceptance of the user-pays principle, and a recognition that there are generally greater incentives for efficiency in the private sector, have driven increased private involvement in the provision of both economic and social infrastructure. A new Commission Staff Working Paper reports on the experiences of a number of countries using different approaches to funding public infrastructure projects. The countries covered in the study are Australia, Canada, France, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. In most countries, general government investment in infrastructure has declined in recent years. Nevertheless, overall investment in infrastructure has remained fairly steady, although volatile in some countries. Total Australian investment in infrastructure was just below 6 per cent of GDP in 2006-07. Sub-national governments undertook 76 per cent of public infrastructure investment, with government trading enterprises (GTEs) accounting for around half of this.