Complicity Functions for Detecting Organized Crime Rings

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9880)

Abstract

Graph theory is an evident paradigm for analyzing social networks, which are the main tool for collective behavior research, addressing the interrelations between members of a more or less well-defined community. Particularly, social network analysis has important implications in the fight against organized crime, business associations with fraudulent purposes or terrorism.

Classic centrality functions for graphs are able to identify the key players of a network or their intermediaries. However, these functions provide little information in large and heterogeneous graphs. Often the most central elements of the network (usually too many) are not related to a collective of actors of interest, such as be a group of drug traffickers or fraudsters. Instead, its high centrality is due to the good relations of these central elements with other honorable actors.

In this paper we introduce complicity functions, which are capable of identifying the intermediaries in a group of actors, avoiding core elements that have nothing to do with this group. These functions can classify a group of criminals according to the strength of their relationships with other actors to facilitate the detection of organized crime rings.

The proposed approach is illustrated by a real example provided by the Spanish Tax Agency, including a network of 835 companies, of which eight were fraudulent.

References

  1. 1.
    Bavelas, A., Barret, D.: An experimental approach to organizational communication. Personnel 27, 366–371 (1951)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohn, B.S., Marriott, M.: Networks and centers in the integration in Indian civilization. J. Soc. Res. I(1), 1–9 (1958)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Czepiel, J.A.: Word of mouth processes in the diffusion of a major technological innovation. J. Mark. Res. I, 1–9 (1974)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eades, P.: A heuristic for graph drawing. Congressus Numeranti 42(11), 149–160 (1984)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ester, M., Kriegel, H.-P., Sander, J., Xu, X.: A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. In: KDD 1996 Proceedings (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faust, K., Wasserman, S.: Blockmodels: interpretation and evaluation. Soc. Netw. 14(1–9), 5–61 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freeman, L.C.: Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc. Netw. 1, 215–239 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fruchterman, T.M.J., Reingold, E.M.: Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Softw. Pract. Experience 21(11), 1129–1164 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hu, Y.: Efficient and high quality force-directed graph. Math. J. 10(1), 37–71 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kamada, T., Kawai, S.: An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Inf. Process. Lett. 31(1), 7–15 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karrer, B., Newman, M.E.J.: Stochastic block models and community structure in networks. Phys. Rev. E 83(1), 016107 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Katz, L.: A new status index derived from sociometric analysis. Psychometrika 18(1), 39–43 (1953)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kleinberg, J.: Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. J. ACM 46(5), 604–632 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Langville, A.N., Meyer, C.D.: A survey of eigenvector methods for web information retrieval. SIAM Rev. 47(1), 135–161 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lawrence, P., Sergey, B., Rajeev, M., Terry, W.: The pagerank citation ranking: bringing order to the web. Technical report, Stanford University (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leavit, H.J.: Some effects of certain communication pattern on group performance. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1949)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peixoto, T.P.: Hierarchical block structures and high-resolution model selection in large networks. Phys. Rev. X 4(1), 011047 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pitts, F.R.: A graph theoretic approach to historical geography. Prof. Geogr. 17, 15–20 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quigley, A., Eades, P.: FADE: graph drawing, clustering, and visual abstraction. In: Marks, J. (ed.) GD 2000. LNCS, vol. 1984, pp. 197–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schaeffer, S.E.: Graph clustering. Comput. Sci. Rev. I, 27–64 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith, S.L.: Communication Pattern and the Adaptability of Task-Oriented Groups: An Experimental Study. Group Networks Laboratory, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (1950)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Torgerson, W.S.: Multidimensional scaling: I. Theory and method. Psychometrika 17(4), 401–419 (1952)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Decision Analysis and Statistics Group, Departamento de Inteligencia ArtificialUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations