CHAIR’S SUMMARY－ 19 －

CHAIR’S SUMMARY
Eleventh Regional Seminar on Good Governancefor Southeast Asian Countries
Hanoi, Viet Nam
17 – 19 October 2017

GENERAL
1. The Eleventh Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries, co-hosted
by the Supreme People’s Procuracy of Viet Nam (SPP) and the United Nations Asia and Far
East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) was heldat the Melia Hotel in Hanoi, Viet Nam from 17 to 19 October 2017. Mr. Keisuke Senta, Directorof UNAFEI, served as the Chair of the Seminar.
2. Officials and experts from the following jurisdictions attended the seminar: the Kingdom of
Cambodia, the Republic of Indonesia, Japan, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia,
the Union of Myanmar, the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic of Singapore, theKingdom of Thailand and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.

OPENING CEREMONY
3. Mr. KEISUKE SENTA, Director of UNAFEI and Dr. TRAN CONG PHAN, Deputy Procurator
General delivered opening addresses, welcoming the participants to the Eleventh Good
Governance Seminar, focused on the theme of Best Practices in Anti-Corruption: A Decade of
Institutional and Practical Development in Southeast Asia, and emphasizing the importance ofreviewing and recognizing advancements in anti-corruption practices through the sharing of
knowledge, skills and strategies from the ASEAN region and beyond.
4. His Excellency, KUNIO UMEDA, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to theSocialist Republic of Viet Nam, delivered a special address welcoming the participants andexpressing his gratitude to the SPP and UNAFEI for holding this important seminar, notingthat the rule of law and good governance contribute directly to the development, prosperity andstability of the ASEAN region. Ambassador Umeda concluded by observing that this Eleventh
Good Governance Seminar is an excellent opportunity to review developments in anticorruption practices over the past 10 years and to establish a roadmap for the future.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS
5. DIRECTOR SENTA delivered his keynote address, extending his thanks to all of the participantsand visiting experts who have contributed to the success of the Good Governance Seminarsince 2007 and to the SPP for their support in hosting this year’s Seminar. Director Senta also
reported the untimely passing of former UNAFEI director, Mr. Keiichi Aizawa, the founder of
the Good Governance Seminar and chair of the first Seminar in 2007, extending his
condolences to Mr. Aizawa’s family and all those who knew him. Yet Director Senta also had－ 20 －

some very positive news to report—Japan’s acceptance of the United Nations Convention
against Corruption and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime
earlier this year. Since it was first held in Thailand in 2007, the Good Governance series has
reflected the issues and trends facing anti-corruption practitioners in Southeast Asia. Director
Senta summarized each seminar, noting the overall themes addressed: controlling corruption
in the judiciary and prosecution (first), public procurement (second), asset recovery (third),
witness and whistle-blower protection (fourth), prevention (fifth), mutual legal assistance andextradition (sixth), investigation (seventh), adjudication (eighth), anti-corruption case studies(ninth), and international cooperation (tenth). Describing the past ten years as the “UNCAC
decade”, Director Senta noted that this period has been particularly significant in Southeast
Asia, as all countries in the region became parties to UNCAC. In turn, the adoption of UNCAC
facilitated efforts to enact legislation criminalizing corruption and setting national strategies
and administrative mechanisms to counter corruption, such as the establishment of dedicatedanti-corruption agencies in many countries. Other developments include enhancements inmutual legal assistance, witness and whistle-blower protection, rules pertaining to public
officers, and private sector corruption and corporate liability, as well as the wealth of practicalexperience gained by all countries in combating corruption. Despite the tremendous efforts in
the region, much more work remains to be done. Grand corruption crimes are being committed
in more skillful ways than ever before. The transnational dimensions of corruption coupledwith the use of modern technology has made detection, investigation and prosecution evenmore difficult. Further challenges to combating corruption include insufficient investigation
skills, insufficient legal and physical tools to collect admissible evidence, poor interaction
between intelligence and criminal justice officials, differences in systems and practices in cases
involving international elements requiring mutual legal assistance, and low levels of public
understanding and uncooperative attitudes. As these and other challenges remain, the Good
Governance Seminar remains an important forum for anti-corruption practitioners to share bestpractices and explore solutions to the challenges that hinder anti-corruption efforts.

VISITING EXPERTS’ LECTURES
6. MS. CANDICE WELSCH, Chief, Implementation Support Section, Corruption and Economic
Crime Branch, United Nations Organization on Drugs and Crime, delivered her lecture on the
topic of the UNODC’s Anti-Corruption Work over the Last Decade, introducing the United
Nations Convention against Corruption, global efforts to implement the Convention, and the
UNODC’s anti-corruption activities. On the global level, the adoption of the Sustainable
Development Goals in 2016 is significant in that Goal 16 on “peace, justice and strong
institutions” recognizes that anti-corruption efforts are necessary to achieve sustainable
development, and Goal 16 firmly establishes anti-corruption as a global priority. UNCAC, with
183 States parties, remains the global standard in anti-corruption policy, and the Convention
establishes binding legal principles to prevent corruption, harmonize corruption crimes,
enhance international cooperation, and facilitate asset recovery. Among the many important
provisions of the Convention, Chapter V on Asset Recovery is particularly significant in thatit establishes the return of assets as a fundamental principle. UNCAC also establishes a numberof bodies, including the Conference of the States Parties and working groups, that focus on
implementation and overcoming challenges. Furthermore, the Implementation Review
Mechanism is an inter-governmental peer-monitoring process whereby the status of
implementation of the Convention in each member country is reviewed by two peers. Amongother purposes, this process enables countries to make legislative and other improvements andto identify technical assistance needs. Ms. Welsch reported that in the first cycle of－ 21 －

implementation review, 3,583 needs for technical assistance have been identified, with thehighest number of needs focusing on witness protection. Other key needs include mutual legal
assistance, extradition, law enforcement cooperation, advanced investigation techniques, andwhistle-blower protection. Seminars like the Good Governance Seminar are important
opportunities for practitioners to identify challenges and propose solutions (South-South
Cooperation). The UNDOC is pursuing a number of initiatives to facilitate good governance,
including the promotion of public-private partnership, combating wildlife crime, establishingintegrity in the criminal justice system, and sports integrity. Another key initiative of the
UNODC is to encourage appropriate anti-corruption education from primary school throughuniversity education to instil the understanding and adoption of values that promote a
corruption free society. Ms. Welsch encouraged practitioners to utilize the UNODC’s resources,
including the MLA Request Writer Tool to facilitate the drafting of mutual legal assistancerequests. The UNODC has partnered with the World Bank to establish the Stolen Asset
Recovery Initiative (StAR) to provide assistance and training for asset recovery, and offers
legal databases, e-learning tools, and publications which can be accessed at:
http://www.unodc.org/corruption and http://www.track.unodc.org.
7. MR. GIRI SUPRAPDIONO, Director of Gratification, Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK)
of Indonesia, delivered his lecture on the topic of the KPK Indonesia: Experience,
Achievements and Challenges in Combating Corruption for a Decade. Corruption in Indonesia
had been rampant for decades, and many problems persist as demonstrated by the prosecutionof high-level officials. In response, the KPK was established in 2002, and it operates under thethree-pronged approach of enforcement, prevention and public participation. The KPK’s duties
include coordination, supervision, monitoring, and prevention. Unlike the other anti-corruption
agencies that preceded it, the KPK is independent from the executive branch of government.
The KPK is authorized to conduct investigations into corruption crimes, but it also has theauthority to prosecute certain cases before the special anti-corruption court. Indonesia is ranked
90th on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, but its score has increased
steadily over the past decade. As of 30 June 2017, the KPK boasts a 100% conviction rate
resulting in 670 convictions, including minister-level officials, members of parliament,
ambassadors, governors, mayors, and so on. The most common crime prosecuted by the KPK
is bribery, followed by crimes related to procurement and misappropriation of budget. In
bribery cases, the KPK emphasizes the importance of catching offenders red handed, often
using informants to generate leads. Pre-trial procedure in the criminal court, which is arguably
not intended to address the substance of a case, is a significant challenge for the KPK, as
enterprising defence lawyers have succeeded in persuading judges to dismiss some corruption
cases prior to referral to the special anti-corruption court. The KPK uses its unique powers toinvestigate corruption, including intelligence-based investigations and search and seizure
without the need for a court order, and suspects are obliged to provide information on theirassets. At the same time, the KPK is prohibited from stopping an investigation mid-stream. To
prevent corruption, the KPK is working on a number of initiatives, pursuing a holistic approach,which includes, among others, bureaucratic reforms and raising pay for government officials.
To prevent bribery, the KPK has adopted an approach to engage youth, women and netizens,
as well as promoting anti-bribery messaging through endorsements from pop stars. Mr.
Suprapdiono introduced a number of cases that demonstrate the fierce resistance from thoseengaged in corruption, including the fabrication of false allegations of corruption against the
KPK commissioner, faking hospitalization in order to avoid trial, and the threating and assault
of KPK investigators, including an acid attack which has left one investigator permanently
disabled and disfigured. Despite these and many other serious challenges to anti-corruption
enforcement in Indonesia, the KPK remains dedicated to leveraging its strengths with the goal

－ 22 －

of eradicating corruption.

COUNTRY PRESENTATIONS
8. CAMBODIA: The Rectangular Strategy, Phase 3, of the Royal Government of Cambodia
establishes good governance as a core national strategy, laying out Cambodia’s politicalcommitment to socio-economic development and to the fight against corruption. This strategy
is supported by general and specific laws that comprehensively establish an anti-corruption
framework through a series of laws such as the Code of Criminal Procedure 2007, the Criminal
Code 2009, the Law on Anti-Corruption 2010, the Law on the Amendment to the Law on AntiCorruption 2011 and the Law on Public Procurement 2012. The Law on Anti-Corruption
established Cambodia’s Anti-Corruption Institution (ACI), which has two bodies, the National
Council against Corruption (NCAC) and the Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU). The NCAC is anadvisory body that offers anti-corruption policies, recommendations and sets out strategies
against corruption. The ACU is an implementing body that has exclusive authority toinvestigate corruption, send corruption cases to the court of law and operates under the statebudget. Cambodia’s intertwined approaches to combating corruption include Education;
Prevention, Obstruction and Law Enforcement. The ACU has many enforcement tools whichenable it to legally conduct its operations, including the power to arrest corruption-related
suspects for investigation, obtain bank records, subpoena documents, conduct wiretapping, andfreeze assets, among others. On the international and regional level, Cambodia has been
involved in various forms of bilateral and multilateral cooperation. A Law on MLA is being
drafted by the Ministry of Justice, and Cambodia is a party to extradition treaties with several
countries. Cambodia is participating in the UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism,
which has led to the drafting of a code of conduct for public officials and laws on witness andwhistle-blower protection. The presentation concluded with a factual corruption case study
demonstrating the efficient investigation techniques of the ACU and which successfully
resulted in the conviction of a public official for misappropriation of public funds. The official
extorted money from a company which the official knew was not due to be paid, knowingly
exceeding the amount due in order to provide a VAT exemption letter
9. INDONESIA: The presentation addressed the development of corporate criminal liability forcorruption. Although corporate liability existed for some time under Indonesia’s Corruption
Law, very few convictions had been obtained. However, due to the promulgation of Supreme
Court Regulation No. 13 in 2016, interest in corporate liability has been renewed. The
regulation applies to criminal acts done by any person based on an employment or otherrelationship and applies equally to both local and foreign corporations. A corporation may bepunished if it (1) obtains a benefit from the corruption offence, (2) allows the criminal offence
to occur, and (3) fails to take necessary steps to prevent criminal offences. Sanctions can be
imposed on the corporation, management or both, as well as the corrupt actors who directly
committed the corruption crime. If a corporation is found guilty, fines are imposed, and failure
to pay can result in confiscation and auctioning of corporate assets. When corporate assets are
auctioned, they cannot be bought by those involved with the crime, and the proceeds are
returned to the person who has the right to the property. Two case studies were introduced tohighlight an enforcement action brought by the Attorney General’s Office and an investigationby the KPK. The AGO case involved a company that deceived the government in adevelopment project, resulting in financial loss to the municipal government. This case was thefirst in which a corporation was found guilty of corruption. In the case investigated by the KPK,
an undercover operation resulted in the discovery that a bribe was paid by a corporation in－ 23 －

order to win a bid in the procurement of a development project.
10. JAPAN: The Japanese anti-corruption framework is somewhat different than the frameworks ofmany of the countries in Southeast Asia. Generally speaking, Japan has no special anticorruption laws or enforcement agencies, and there are no special measures for investigating
corruption cases, such as wiretapping and undercover operations. Corruption is investigatedand prosecuted by public prosecutors applying Japan’s general criminal laws and the Code of
Criminal Procedure. This is because Japanese criminal justice institutions enjoy a fair degreeof public trust, rendering special laws and agencies unnecessary. However, Japan has
developed a number of legal tools over the past decade which can be applied to cases ofcorruption, including legislation that addresses bid-rigging, the control of political funds, andwhistle-blower protection. Additionally, in 2018, public prosecutors will be able to enter into
“cooperation agreements” with suspects and witnesses (similar to plea bargaining) in order toobtain statements and testimony for use at trial against other participants in corruption schemes.
Leads on corruption cases are generated by Japan’s financial intelligence unit, digital evidence
and the statements of witnesses and suspects. Three case studies were introduced which
identified challenges in assessing the credibility of witness statements, including judicial
criticism of interrogation techniques and a case of evidence tampering by a public prosecutor.
In response, Japan has introduced the practice of mandatory audio-visual recording ofinterrogations in cases where suspects are detained in order to avoid disputes over thecredibility of witness statements. Moving forward, Japan will continue to enhance its practices
for obtaining testimonial evidence, collecting and analysing evidence, and tracing the proceedsof corruption crimes.
11. LAOS: The anti-corruption framework in Laos is structured in four tiers, with enforcement at
the national level through the State Inspection and Anti-Corruption Authority (SIAA), theministry and agency level, the provincial level, and the district level. Over the past decade, the
SIAA has coordinated corruption prevention and enforcement efforts, prioritizing prevention
and encouraging public participation to counter corruption. Measures for prevention include
incorporating anti-corruption education at all levels from kindergarten through university,
promoting anti-corruption through the mass media, and requiring the declaration of assets andincome by public officials. Regarding enforcement, after leads on corruption are received, the
SIAA has authority to order an investigation, and where solid evidence exists, the case issummarized and referred to public prosecutors for prosecution in court. Over the past five years,
over 734 targets were inspected, with some 1,800 civil servants found to have violated
corruption laws and regulations. Laos is a party to multilateral and bilateral anti-corruption
instruments and participates in a variety of international forums on anti-corruption. Regarding
challenges, the participants from Laos reported that the country has no strong prevention
campaign, lax law enforcement by competent authorities, a lack of modern equipment forrevenue collection, and limited financial resources and skilled personnel for anti-corruption
bodies. In addition to continued engagement on the international level, Laos will continue its
efforts to mainstream anti-corruption training into formal education.
12. MALAYSIA: Over the past decade, Malaysia has undergone a number of legislative
developments to criminalize specific corruption offences, introduce plea bargaining,
strengthening asset forfeiture and recovery, and witness and whistle-blower protection. Assetrecovery is important to do justice to the victimized parties, and the MACC is authorized tofreeze, seize and confiscate illicit proceeds. It was noted that legislation is an important tool tofight corruption in order to give teeth to anti-corruption enforcement through criminalizationof specific offences. In addition to these developments, the Malaysia Anti-Corruption－ 24 －

Commission has developed a number of best practices for anti-corruption investigation. One
important practice has been the adoption of the PEACE technique for conducting witness
interviews, and the establishment of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Academy to provide
training in advanced investigation techniques. Other best practices include the use of video
technology during interviews and interrogations, the implementation of team-based
investigation, private-sector investigation, intelligence-based investigation, introduction of atechnology-based complaint management system, and enhancement of forensic-accounting
skills. A case study was introduced in which USD 28 million in illicit proceeds of corruption
were confiscated—the largest confiscation in Malaysian history. One of the MACC’s newest
initiatives is the Anti-Corruption Revolution Movement (GERAH) 2017, which promotes
public awareness of the dangers of corruption. This movement will engage roughly 2,000
MACC officers to meet with the public. To successfully combat corruption, cross-border andjoint investigations are important, and thus maintaining good relationships between Central
Authorities and law enforcement agencies is critical to overcoming the challenges of anticorruption enforcement and asset recovery.
13. MYANMAR: Noting that corruption poses serious threats to the rule of law and socio-economic
development in all countries, Myanmar has undertaken significant efforts over the past decade
to enhance anti-corruption enforcement. In 2005, Myanmar ratified UNCAC, and adopted theAnti-Corruption Law in 2013 and the Anti-Money Laundering Law in 2014, respectively.
Aggrieved persons may submit corruption complaints to the Anti-Corruption Commission,
which has broad power to examine financial records, order prosecutions, order confiscation ofmoney and property, and provide witness protection. The Commission has the power to
conduct investigations and to take action against offenders who commit corruption. The
commission vests investigation powers to an investigation board or an inspector, and theinspector or investigation board carries out the investigation under the law. The Commission
is required to send reports, which contain matter on deciding to take action upon the accused
person, to the President, respective Hluttaw Speaker, the complainant and also to the Union
Government Office so that it can continue to take action against the accused person under thearrangement of the Union Attorney-General's Office. The Union Attorney General’s Officeproceeds to tender legal advice on corruption cases and also the prosecution of the accused
before the relevant court. The commission received 4,135 complaints during the period from
10 March 2014 to 30 September 2017. One of the challenges faced by Myanmar includes thelack of a whistle-blower protection law. Myanmar remains dedicated to addressing key
challenges in anti-corruption enforcement, including improvement of the asset recovery
process, enhancing whistle-blower protection, addressing cross-border corruption, andstrengthening cooperation in the fight against corruption.
14. PHILIPPINES: The participants from the Philippines introduced the best practice of witness
protection as an important law enforcement measure for combating corruption. Before
introducing a corruption case that was discovered through key witnesses, the institutions
responsible for anti-corruption enforcement in the Philippines, as well as the legal framework,
were introduced, including the Sandiganbayan (a specialized anti-graft court), the Office of the
Ombudsman, which is established under the Constitution of the Philippines, and theDepartment of Justice. The Philippines ratified UNCAC in 2006, and pursuant to UNCAC’s
Implementation Review Mechanism, the Philippines is 59% compliant with UNCAC’s
provisions on criminalization and law enforcement (Article III). Witness protection is an
important tool for law enforcement. A witness protection law has been in place since 1991 toencourage those who have witnessed crime to testify in court by protecting such witnesses from
reprisals and economic dislocation. This programme operates under the authority of the－ 25 －

Department of Justice. The participants introduced the Congressional Pork Barrel Scam, inwhich legislators conspired with other government officials and private individuals to divert
public funds for their own use and benefit. This scheme operated for at least three years andwas only exposed due to the reports of witnesses who were former employees of one of theprincipal players in the scam. Thus, the protection of these witnesses was crucial to theprosecution of this corruption case, and the dynamics between the Office of the Ombudsman
and the Department of Justice, particularly in terms of providing for the safety and security of
witnesses, proved to be an effective means in ensuring the availability of the key witnesses.
Indeed, the collaboration of various government agencies and active cooperation of thewitnesses are indispensable in the Philippine government’s fight against corruption.
15. SINGAPORE: Singapore has transformed from a country rampant with corruption to one of theleast corrupt countries in the world. From 1995 to 2016, Singapore has consistently been ranked
as the least corrupt Asian country according to Transparency International’s Corruption
Perceptions Index, ranking 7th among 176 countries. The CPIB is a founding member of the
new International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre (IACCC) launched in July 2017, which
serves to improve information sharing and coordinate law enforcement actions between law
enforcement officers from member countries. Given the reality that criminal proceeds are
difficult to trace and even harder to prove, Singapore’s anti-corruption laws establish thepresumption that “concealed property” held by the accused in an amount disproportionate to
his known sources of income was derived from criminal conduct, providing effective
deterrence against public sector corruption. When combined with a strict code of conduct anddisclosure requirements applicable to all public servants, public sector corruption cases
accounted for only 15% of all corruption cases investigated in Singapore in 2016. Accordingly,
private sector corruption is viewed as a greater problem, and, while lawyers have beenaccustomed to the imposition of fines for private sector corruption, custodial sentences are now
regularly sought and imposed in appropriate corruption cases. In terms of initiatives to address
corruption in the private sector, CPIB and SPRING Singapore recently co-launched theSingapore Standard (SS) of the ISO 37001 on Anti-Bribery Management Systems, which is
aimed at helping companies strengthen their anti-bribery systems and processes in reducing
risks and costs relating to bribery. CPIB also developed “PACT”, a practical guidebook forbusinesses in Singapore which sets out to guide business owners in Singapore in developing
and implementing anti-corruption systems within their companies. Singapore will continually
strive to uphold high standards of integrity in public administration as well as the marketplace.
Investigators and prosecutors must work more closely than ever to effectively identify,
investigate and prosecute corruption, and efforts at public outreach and community
engagement must be maintained to preserve the zero-tolerance societal attitude towards bothpublic and private sector corruption in Singapore.
16. THAILAND: Corruption is a serious problem in Thailand which occurs in both the public andprivate sectors. Among traditional forms of corruption, policy corruption was reported as a new
type of corruption that involves making illegal plans or management mechanisms for certain
beneficiaries. In response to the problem of corruption, the National Anti-Corruption
Commission was established under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand in 1997. In
2003, the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission was established to investigate corruptionof lower-level officials. The Supreme Court has established a Criminal Division for Persons
Holding Political positions to hear cases involving high-level public officials such as ministers,
members of the House of Representatives, Senators, etc., and in 2016 another court wasestablished to hear cases involving other public officials. Thailand requires public officials todisclose their assets, which may be confiscated if acquired by malfeasance or determined to be－ 26 －

unexplained wealth. It was also reported that Thailand has no statute of limitations forcorruption offences and that conflict of interest rules are being implemented for public officials.
The participants from Thailand introduced four case studies, demonstrating the successes andchallenges faced in the increasingly complex field of anti-corruption enforcement. The cases
presented addressed a variety of issues, including unexplained wealth, confiscation ofcorruption proceeds, conflicts of interest, outright fraud, and complex transnational corruption
involving a scheme to defraud the government’s rice-subsidy programme.
17. VIET NAM: In recent years, the number of corruption cases has increased, resulting in themisappropriation of public funds and property at great cost to the public. Meanwhile, successful
asset recovery has been limited. In part, this may be due to inconsistent interpretations of theconcept of "corrupt proceeds" under the Anti-Corruption Law 2005 and the Criminal Code. To
date, Viet Nam has not adopted specific laws on confiscation and recovery of corruption
proceeds; however, the necessary measures include confiscating, freezing and distraining
corrupt proceeds and imposing fines in order to recover proceeds of corruption provided in thecriminal laws, and administrative and civil measures are provided in civil laws and are appliedin different stages of the proceedings (investigation, prosecution and trial). Under the Criminal
Code, the principal penalties for corruption should be the death penalty, life sentence or
imprisonment, and imposition of fines is only applied as additional punishment. Both moneyand objects are subject to confiscation if they are directly related to the commission of thecrime. In recent years, procurators have strictly supervised the investigation process for serious
corruption crimes starting from the receipt of tips and reports of the crime to the conclusion of
the investigation. From December 2012 to May 2016, 868 cases were prosecuted involving
1,868 accused persons. Nevertheless, shortcomings in the asset recovery process exist, as thetotal damages in corruption cases exceeds 5,335 billion VN dong, of which only 35.9% has
been recovered. To improve the efficiency of asset recovery, a number of solutions were
proposed including improvement of asset declaration requirements, enabling law enforcement
agencies to take swifter action to distrain property to prevent the dissipation of illicit assets,
and continuing the implementation of the provisions of UNCAC.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
18. DEVELOPMENTS
The past ten years encompass the appropriately named “UNCAC decade”, as the last remaining
Southeast Asian non-member countries became parties to UNCAC during that period. With
full regional participation in UNCAC, tremendous advances were made in the adoption of
implementing legislation, including laws on the criminalization of specific corruption crimes,
asset recovery, and mutual legal assistance and extradition. Furthermore, all countries havetaken great strides toward the adoption of national anti-corruption strategies, establishing anticorruption frameworks, and implementing robust anti-corruption enforcement. Almost all of
the participating Southeast Asian countries have established specialized anti-corruption
agencies to conduct investigation and prosecution, and all countries have gone to great lengths
to eradicate corruption. Other developments include enhancements in mutual legal assistance,
witness and whistle-blower protection, rules pertaining to public officers, and private sector
corruption and corporate liability, as well as the wealth of practical experience gained by all
countries in combating corruption.
19. CHALLENGES
Despite the tremendous improvement in anti-corruption legislation, practices and enforcement
over the past decade, the country presentations made it clear that many challenges remain, and－ 27 －

they are shared by many countries. These challenges include insufficient investigation skills,
insufficient legal and physical tools to collect admissible evidence, assessing the credibility of
witness statements, poor interaction between intelligence and criminal justice officials,
differences in systems and practices in cases involving international elements, low levels of
public understanding and uncooperative attitudes, fierce resistance from those engaged incorruption (including physical attacks on investigators), overcoming procedural challenges tocorruption prosecutions raised during pretrial procedures, the lack of adequate prevention
measures, lax law enforcement by competent authorities, the lack of modern equipment forrevenue collection, limited financial resources, the lack of a whistle-blower protection laws insome countries, the lack of legal frameworks for special investigation techniques, dealing with
underground banking systems, the dissipation of illicit assets prior to confiscation, and ongoing
efforts to fully comply with UNCAC.
20. RECOMMENDATIONS
During the Seminar, many valuable practices were introduced by all of the participating
countries. The following practices were among those that drew significant attention: pursuing
private-sector corruption and exploring the concept of corporate criminal liability,
implementing adequate witness and whistle-blower protections, establishing the legal
presumption that disproportionate wealth was obtained from illicit sources, implementing
codes of conduct for public employees and procedures requiring the declaration of assets,enhancing advanced investigation and interviewing techniques including forensic accounting
skills, video-recording of witness and suspect interviews, maintaining working relationships
with practitioners from other countries, engaging in joint investigations, raising or abrogating
statutes of limitation for corruption crimes, engaging public support for anti-corruption
including through anti-corruption education, and ensuring adequate pay for government
officials. Each country may wish to consider adopting these practices or tailoring them to its
unique legal and social circumstances. As described above, anti-corruption challenges abound,and all countries are encouraged to participate and learn from the UNCAC Implementation
Review Mechanism and to participate in international forums with anti-corruption practitioners
from other countries to exchange practices and ideas for overcoming challenges and breaking
down barriers to the investigation and prosecution of cross-border corruption.

19 OCTOBER 2017
HANOI, VIET NAM－ 28 －