The fight against corruption is a
developmental imperative. While international efforts have
achieved some significant results, they also illustrate the
extent of the challenges that remain. A key lesson of
experience is that tackling corruption needs to be waged
simultaneously on two fronts: prevention and enforcement.
Both approaches are complementary and self-reinforcing. The
vast scale of illicit financial flows from the proceeds of
corruption and the challenges associated with national and
international asset recovery efforts call, in particular,
for significant investments in prevention and a broadening
of prevention tools. Income and asset disclosure (IAD)
systems are gaining prominence as a tool in the fight
against corruption, and have the potential to support
efforts in both prevention and enforcement. This
contribution is recognized in the United Nations Convention
against Corruption (UNCAC) and other international
anticorruption agreements. Chapter one of this guides
provides an overview of the objectives of IAD systems...
Developing countries lose an estimated US$20–40 billion each year through bribery, misappropriation of funds, and other corrupt practices. Often, the most visible manifestation of corruption is the enrichment of a corrupt public official. Despite such visibility, prosecuting corruption can be very problematic, particularly when it requires proving the offer or acceptance of a bribe. Even when the corruption is established in a court of law, linking the proceeds of the crime to the offense in order to recover assets is a complex endeavor.
In response, some countries looking to strengthen their overall arsenal against corruption have criminalized illicit enrichment. In its Article 20, the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) recommends, but does not mandate, States Parties to adopt illicit enrichment as a criminal offense, defining the same as an intentional and “significant increase in the assets of a public official that he or she cannot reasonably explain in relation to his or her lawful income.”
The illicit enrichment offense has spurred significant debates involving due processes of law. Others question how jurisdictions are actually using the offense. Finally, many jurisdictions that serve as financial centers do not recognize illicit enrichment as an offense...
Over the past decade, countries have increasingly used settlements—that is, any procedure short of a full trial—to conclude foreign bribery cases and have imposed billions in monetary sanctions. There exists a gap in knowledge, however, regarding settlement practices around the world and the disposition of these monetary sanctions—notably through the lens of recovery of stolen assets.
Left Out of the Bargain , a study by the Stolen Asset RecoveryInitiative (StAR), provides an overview of settlement practices by civil and common law countries that have been active in the fight against foreign bribery.
The guide is organized into three major
parts: Part A first provides an overview of the problem of
stolen assets and the problem of recovering the assets once
they are transferred abroad. Second, it describes how the
international community has taken steps to respond to the
problem through United Nations Convention against Corruption
(UNCAC) and the Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative.
UNCAC introduced a new framework to facilitate the tracing,
freezing, seizing, forfeiture, and return of assets stolen
through corrupt practices and hidden in foreign
jurisdictions. The StAR Initiative developed an action plan
to support the domestication and implementation of asset
recovery provisions under UNCAC, to facilitate
countries' efforts to recover stolen assets that have
been hidden in foreign jurisdictions, and ultimately, to
help deter such flows and eliminate safe havens for hiding
corruption proceeds. Third and finally, Part A introduces
non-conviction based (NCB) asset forfeiture as one of the
critical tools to combat corruption...
Corruption and thefts of public assets
harm a diffuse set of victims, weakens confidence in public
institutions, damages the private investment climate, and
threatens the foundations of the society as a whole. In
developing countries with scarce public resources, the cost
of corruption is an impediment to development: developing
countries lose between US$20 to US$40 billion each year
through bribery, misappropriation of funds, and other
corrupt practices. Corruption is by no means a
"victimless crime." This study aims to explore
the standing of States and Government entities as victims
and the possible recourse to private actions to redress
public wrongs. States and Government entities may act as
private litigants and bring civil suits to recover assets
lost to corruption. The goal of this work is to promote
knowledge and understanding as well as to increase the use
of civil remedies and private lawsuits to recover stolen
assets in the context of the United Nations Convention
against Corruption (UNCAC) offences. The UNCAC...
Outre les changements sociaux associés à la fin du communisme, les années 1990 marquent également une augmentation de l’intérêt à l’égard de la corruption et de ses effets néfastes sur le développement. En raison de la pression exercée par les États-Unis et l’augmentation de la visibilité de la corruption, plusieurs organisations internationales ont vu l’intérêt de s’impliquer dans la lutte anticorruption. La littérature soutient que la Convention des Nations Unies contre la corruption représente le document international anticorruption par excellence. Adopté en 2003, il compte aujourd’hui 144 pays signataires. Cependant, et malgré l’importance du document, les perceptions des professionnels demeurent cachées derrière les discours institutionnels. Par conséquent, cette étude de cas se concentre sur les perceptions des employés travaillant au sein de la Branche de corruption et crime économique de l’ONUDC. Ils révèlent plusieurs difficultés techniques reliées à leur travail. Entre autres, les professionnels évoquent la charge de travail, les moyens financiers et la considération de leur jugement lors du processus d’évaluation. Leurs fonctions sont également limitées par des défis associés à la mise en oeuvre de la convention : l’absence de sanctions directes pour les pays non conformes...