Combating organized crime is like cleaning oil off your driveway. There are dozens of methods to clean up the mess, yet none of them will do the job alone. Deciding how to clean the mess is just as frustrating as actually cleaning. In the same manner, many law enforcement organizations don’t know where to begin when routing out syndicate crime. In most cases law enforcement aims their resources at the most obvious areas; street level criminals and money. These are not altogether bad tactics however just like cleaning the sludge off your driveway a few methods alone will not eradicate the syndicate. Instead of traditional methods for combating organized crime, law enforcement can learn a few tricks from traditional risk analysis.
Syndicates thrive off the fact they don’t appear complicated on the surface. However, they typically sink deep roots into one or more methods of preserving their existence which adds layers of complexity. Their diffused rooting, while necessary for survival, is also a weakness and can be exploited through common risk analysis. For example, when examining supply chains, business continuity plans, or site security we look at several factors including communication, redundancy, and resiliency. Using this same tactic we can expose risks within organized criminal syndicates and exploit them to collapse the enterprise.
The first step in analyzing a syndicate’s risk is to map their internal structure. For example, all successful criminal syndicates have at least three levels of organization; upper leadership, mid-level management, and foot soldiers. Many syndicates will have other operational and management levels. To adequately collapse the order you need to know the structure from top to bottom and understand how each level interacts with ones above and below. Mapping may not be easy if the syndicate utilized a cellular structure however that too has weaknesses that can be exploited.
The next step is to detail what the syndicate needs to survive. In most cases you find common needs like communication, recruits, and possibly money. There may be several “needs” and the more the better because with more needs comes more risk. Once you have mapped out the groups’ needs, overlay them on the structure. This will let you see which level of the group is responsible for these needs. At this point, several “red flags” will become obvious. These red flags are what we call “risks.” If no red flags are obvious then deeper analysis may be needed to expose other facets of the group like ideology and cultural dependency.
Similar to prioritizing risks for mitigation, you now prioritize the syndicate’s risks for exploitation. Target one element and become the threat directly associated to that risk. In some cases where the risks are cultural this will require non-traditional law enforcement techniques like outreach and collaboration. In syndicates where the risks are not cultural and easily identified, exploiting the weakness will threaten the group’s entire stability.
Combating organized crime through risk analysis is of course more complicated than described above, however the basic template will not change. Every criminal syndicate has weaknesses, it’s up to law enforcement to find the weaknesses, exploit them fully, and eradicate the group.