Readers with an interest in post-Soviet affairs may associate "Moneyland" more with Cooley and Heathershaw's "Dictators without border", than to Bullough's own previous writing on the Caucasus.
Both "Dictators without border" and "Moneyland" highlight two often underestimated aspects that characterise modern-day corruption:
1. The sheer size of it. As Bullough points out in the book's jacket, nowadays corruption can take place on an historically unprecedented scale thanks to the many wonders of the offshore world, and all that comes with it. 
2. The essential enabling role of Western liberal democracies. Corruption on this scale in post-Soviet countries and other parts of the world would simply not be possible without the safe haven that their strong institutions offer to wealthy crooks from all over the world.
The UK and jurisdictions related to it have been playing an exceptionally important part.
Other small island jurisdictions have found a way to escape their post-colonial predicament by monetising their sovereignty, and helping the global wealthy no matter their source of income.
Other small island jurisdictions have found a way to escape their post-colonial predicament by monetising their sovereignty, and helping the global wealthy no matter their source of income.
We shouldn't feel bad about Moneyland just because it fosters corruption and gives to the crooked elites of mostly poorer nations the means to deprive residents of their countries of a big share of their national wealth to buy luxury goods (ok, we should).
We should worry about Moneyland because - as Bullough highlights in the book's last chapter - Moneyland poses a direct threat to our own democracies.
A widespread understanding that laws and taxes do not apply to the rich is damaging in itself. Beyond that,
A widespread understanding that laws and taxes do not apply to the rich is damaging in itself. Beyond that,
even if Moneyland existed only for enabling a selected few to enjoy a disproportionate amount of luxury goods, the very existence of aboundant "anonymous money" leads to the spreading of conspiracy theories and contributes to loss of trust in the democratic process.
Finally, a question: many in continental Europe seem to think that, no matter the issue at hand, the European Union is either part of the problem or part of the solution (it can be both, but it can't be neither). In Bullough's book, the EU barely features at all. Why is that?
And finally, reading this from South of the Alps, I had to think about why Italy is not coveted by moneylanders to the extent that it could. Why so much Surrey and so little Tuscany? I fear the day when some entrepreneurial politician in Italy will take this question at heart...
