Cost of crime: Crime pays, perhaps, for the criminal that isn't caught. But, for the economy as a whole, the cost is high.
The many manifestations of crime impose costs across a range of economic areas, from the direct price of fraud and robbery on businesses and households, to the increasing costs of crime prevention and the price of tax evasion on society.
By definition, the shadow economy, or black economy as it is sometimes known, goes unreported. It covers the proceeds of illegal activities - drug dealing, trade with stolen goods and so on - as well as the uncounted proceeds of legal activities, typically when income is not declared for tax purposes.
The size of the shadow economy can only be the subject of educated guesswork. Austrian economist Dr Friedrich Schneider, who specialises in this area, has calculated - using a formula based on the total demand for cash in the economy - that the Irish shadow economy is worth some 15 per cent of GDP, or some €20 billion in cash terms.
This is around the average for developed countries, according to his research, although it appears a very high figure.
Research by economist Mr Gabriel Fagan, who then worked for the Central Bank and now works for the European Central Bank, put the black economy at 3-11 per cent of GNP. Taking the mid-point figure of 7 per cent would give a value of some €8 billion. This would suggest tax foregone - using the 20 per cent rate - of some €1.6 billion.
In 2001, a Revenue Commissioners study said that vastly different estimates for the size of the black economy are common internationally. For example, Dr Schneider's estimate for Sweden is 20 per cent of GDP, while the tax authorities there put it at 4.5 per cent.
Significant Revenue resources are going into combating evasion, while the proceeds of crime are targeted by the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB), which aims to seize the proceeds of crime. The value of assets covered by court orders it has obtained since its inception in 1996 is €69 million, with €71 million in tax demands. Its most recent annual report shows that, last year, it got court orders covering €44 million in assets and issued tax demands for €12.8 million.
However, in cash terms, the bigger contribution to the shadow economy comes from undeclared income, an area subject to extensive work by the Revenue in recent years. The investigations into the findings of the Moriarty tribunal, the National Irish Bank and non-resident offshore accounts has yielded some €750 million and tens of millions more is collected from Revenue audits and other enforcement work. And this is only the money we know about.
Measures of the shadow economy and tax foregone are an attempt to assess the overall economic scale of criminal activity.
The direct economic - and social - cost is also substantial. Tax foregone means less money to spend on public services and major infrastructure projects.
Health experts, for example, look back to the 1987-1988 cutbacks as the genesis of many of the current problems in the service. Had tax evasion not been so rampant at the time, more resources would have been available for spending in health and other areas.
The direct cost of what we generally think of as criminal activity - robbery, drug dealing etc. - is also substantial, although impossible to measure in cash terms. It imposes heavy security costs on many businesses and households (although security companies benefit), consumes huge resources in crime prevention, and reduces productivity and efficiency in a myriad of ways.
Tourism is affected, economic activity stays out of heavily hit areas and huge resources - which could be put to productive use - are instead devoted to planning crime.
The economic cost of drug dealing alone is significant, imposing costs on hospitals and law enforcement, ruining the productive potential - and lives - of many people and turning certain localities into no-go areas for investment and job creation.
A PricewaterhouseCoopers survey of 3,600 companies worldwide estimated that more than one-third of firms were the subject of "economic crimes" such as asset misappropriation, corruption, money laundering or cyber crime. There was no Irish breakdown, but there is no reason to believe that the experience of firms here would differ from their peers based elsewhere.
AIB's $750 million loss from the John Rusnak affair was the most publicised loss in recent years, but Irish companies each spend millions of euro on crime-prevention measures, ranging from protecting their technology to employing security companies to protect their assets and executives.
For the small firms sector, crime considerations tend to cover more prosaic risks such as theft, burglary and vandalism. Surveys by the Small Firms Association (SFA) and ISME, the two small firms lobby groups, indicate that around half of all SMEs are affected by some sort of crime each year and that many have repeated difficulties in this area. Theft of property or cash are the most common crimes against small business, with the retail sector obviously particularly vulnerable.
Violence was an increasing factor in crimes against business, with 11 per cent of companies in a 2001 SFA survey reporting that they or their employees were attacked. In a sinister development, SFA director Mr Pat Delaney says that many company directors are now targeted not only at their place of work but also at their homes.
Crime imposes an average of €8,000 in direct costs per company affected, according to ISME, with as much again spent on security measures.
However, the most significant price for many firms comes in higher insurance costs, inflated by the cost of direct crime and by bogus personal liability claims.
In turn, these costs are passed on to consumers through higher prices and take a general toll through reducing business productivity - and in less tangible areas such as hitting staff morale.
Fundamentally, crime diverts many economic resources from their best use. It imposes a heavy economic burden, as the official economy is forced to adapt to and pay the cost of all the manifestations of its shadow.