Dr Mayya Konovalova reflects on her recent research, which explores why some trade crimes get more attention than others, and why this is a problem.
When people think of illicit trade, counterfeit designer goods often come to mind. But who decides what counts as illicit trade in the first place?
When we hear the phrase illicit trade, most of us assume we know what it means. Counterfeit goods, cigarette smuggling, sanctions evasion, trade-based money laundering, and other forms of economic crime are often grouped under this single label. Yet surprisingly little attention is paid to a more fundamental question: who decides what counts as illicit trade in the first place?
Our recent research suggests that illicit trade gradually emerged as a category through the efforts of governments, international organisations, businesses and other key actors seeking to define particular activities as deserving attention and intervention.
Drawing on 52 semi-structured interviews across these sectors – alongside documentary and media analysis – we tracked how the label developed over time.
Three examples from our findings are particularly revealing: reframing cigarette smuggling as organised crime; focusing on counterfeit goods amid the rise of manufacturing power in China and the Global South; and using data-driven techniques to spot trade-based money laundering risks. While distinct, all three became focal points of policy and governance under the expanding banner of illicit trade.
By branding specific crimes as urgent threats, these initiatives may channel resources toward highly visible activities while overlooking deeper drivers of economic criminality, such as financial secrecy, governance failures, and regulatory complexity.
Another interesting finding is that trade-related crimes are “nested” within one another. Counterfeiting, tax evasion, sanctions breaches, money laundering and smuggling operate as interconnected criminal ecosystems. Yet enforcement responses frequently treat them as isolated problems. As a result, visible wrongdoing attracts substantial attention while the underlying networks enabling wider economic criminality stay hidden.
Different forms of illicit trade receive uneven attention. Participants highlighted concerns ranging from counterfeiting and smuggling to sanctions evasion, money laundering, and tax fraud. But while all are recognised as important, some risks attract far greater political and regulatory attention than others.
This matters because the way a problem is framed dictates where resources are allocated, who comes under scrutiny, and which policies are possible. Wildlife trafficking is a clear example. Despite its significant ecological, social and economic impact, it often receives far less attention than established trade crimes. Understanding why certain risks dominate policy agendas while others are sidelined reveals how global governance really works.
These anti-illicit-trade initiatives can also trigger unintended consequences. By branding specific crimes as urgent threats, these initiatives may channel resources toward highly visible activities while overlooking deeper drivers of economic criminality, such as financial secrecy, governance failures, and regulatory complexity. At the same time, particular actors are singled out, making it easier to overlook the wider systems enabling the harm.
Reducing complex global challenges to simple stories of ‘criminals vs enforcement ’ unintentionally limits our ability to fix root causes. Efforts to combat illicit trade are clearly important, but we must also examine how certain activities get labelled as ‘illicit’ in the first place.
Businesses face growing pressure to demonstrate ethical practices across their operations and supply chains. Meeting these expectations is vital, but simply identifying and excluding "bad" actors is not enough. Responsible business also means understanding how standard business practices and governance can unintentionally create environments where illicit activities flourish.
What companies choose to measure and report shapes how responsibility is defined. Focusing on a narrow set of visible threats leads organisations to channel resources towards compliance, leaving broader drivers of economic harm unaddressed. Similarly, a compliance programme designed to address a single risk in isolation may overlook the way different forms of misconduct reinforce one another across supply chains and financial systems.
The central lesson of our research is that how we define a problem shapes the solutions we pursue. Reducing complex global challenges to simple stories of ‘criminals vs enforcement ’ unintentionally limits our ability to fix root causes. Efforts to combat illicit trade are clearly important, but we must also examine how certain activities get labelled as ‘illicit’ in the first place.
For businesses, policymakers, and researchers, understanding who shapes these definitions and which risks they bring to light is just as important as the enforcement measures that follow. Ultimately, the challenge is recognising how the label itself influences what we see, and what we choose to govern.
This blog post draws on a research project titled Smuggling Along the New Silk Road, supported by the Serious Organised Crime Anti-Corruption Evidence (SOC ACE) Programme, funded by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO).
The project is registered under SOC ACE Code 2023/UOB/002/Silk Road.
Blanden, A., Konovalova, M. & Bensassi, S. (2026). The ‘Dark Side of Globalisation’? Anti-Illicit Trade Discourse and the Role of Ideas in the Fight Against Globalised Economic Criminality. SOC ACE Research Paper No 49. University of Birmingham.
Lecturer in Accounting
Dr Konovalova specialises in Taxation, Anti-Money Laundering and International Transparency Standards.
