Interactive policy model Illustrative · not a prediction Runs fully offline

The Magnitsky Model for AI — Policy Simulator

A hands-on companion to the Phase II theory paper. Choose how an AI system is used to circumvent international law, watch the double veil defeat attribution, then enact Magnitsky-style targeted designations and tune the market and financial levers. The model scores the cascade and returns a verdict — Contained, Circumvented, or Cascaded-to-compliance — with plain reasons.

This is an illustrative model, not a forecast. The scores are a deliberately simple, transparent representation of the paper's argument about how targeted designations cascade through the global financial and market network. It is a teaching and reasoning aid — not a prediction, not legal advice, and not a claim about any real person, entity, or state.

Choose a circumvention scenario

Each scenario spans a different register of the “double veil” — a corporate form stacked on an algorithmic one. Pick one, then choose who is behind the veil.

Who is behind the veil? — this sets how much the target depends on market and financial access

Enumerated predicate norm

The double veil defeats attribution

Before any designation, the ordinary route fails. The corporate veil hides the principal; the algorithmic responsibility gap means no human authored the specific act. Attribution to a person or state cannot be made — so the model routes around the veil rather than trying to pierce it.

Why the ordinary route fails

Attribution to a human principal or state: fails. The designation route ignores this — it attaches to the person and entity by their failure of control, not by a proven outcome.

Enact targeted designations & tune the cascade

Select which jurisdictions enact a Magnitsky-style designation. Their combined market size, banking centrality (dollar-clearing / correspondent access) and emulation propensity drive the cascade. Then tune the four levers.

Enacting jurisdiction(s)

Cascade levers

The cascade

A designation in a central jurisdiction does not stay there. It propagates through market exclusion, the dollar-clearing chokepoint, over-compliant de-risking, and — if the norm is shared — legislative emulation by peer states.

Verdict

—

Global exclusion