STOLEN ASSET RECOVERY:POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PRACTICAL TOOLS(SUMMARY)
Emile van der Does de Willebois*

An intimate connection exists between corruption and development, and development organizations,
including the World Bank, must be very conscious that they do not sponsor or fund the private activities ofcorrupt officials; not only is the aid lent thus rendered less effective, but it also perpetuates corruption.
Until recently, the World Bank advocated a non-law enforcement approach to corruption, but there
has been a policy change: a shift from this developmental view of the matter to a more “law and order” view.
While good governance and transparent and effective public financial systems are vital, they need to becomplimented by law enforcement efforts. Realizing this, in 2007 the World Bank and the UN launched the
StAR Initiative, which receives strong support from World Bank management as well as external support;
for example, the explicit call of the G20 leaders in Pittsburgh on the StAR Initiative to continue its efforts
to mitigate the effects of corruption. With this support comes the responsibility to make a real contribution
to combating corruption.
The StAR Initiative’s objectives are to reduce barriers to asset recovery, and thereby to encourageand facilitate systematic and timely return of stolen assets. StAR emphasizes the joint responsibilityof developed and developing countries in this endeavour. Specifically, these objectives take the formof technical assistance and financing training courses; advisory services to support the preparation andanalysis of mutual legal assistance requests (not their execution); and knowledge and advocacy, on which
this presentation focused.
Many jurisdictions already have asset recovery legislation in place, and while it is largely focusedon proceeds from drugs and organized crime, it can also be used for corruption. The Financial Market
Integrity Unit can give advice in this regard, as well as supporting multi-agency teams, encouraging coordination and communication between investigators, prosecutors, AMLUs and FIUs, etc. The Financial
Market Integrity Unit also contributes to the development of asset recovery programmes and has produced
a paper on the management of assets after return. With regard to mutual legal assistance, while the WorldBank cannot take control of specific cases, it can give advice in hypothetical terms. Details of these projects
are outlined in the accompanying slides 7 to 10.
Of great importance is the integration of the anti-money-laundering (AML) and anticorruption
agendas. This is illustrated with the example of James Ibori of Nigeria, a state governor, who, althoughimmune from prosecution under the Nigerian Constitution, had his assets frozen under AML legislation in
the UK, the jurisdiction to which he had moved his assets, following advice from the Nigerian Economic
and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The FATF Recommendations overlap with certain provisions of the UNCAC (listed in slide 11) andof particular importance is the issue of politically exposed persons (PEPs), specifically scrutiny of bankaccounts held by such persons, which is addressed by Article 52 of the UNCAC and Recommendation 6 of
the FATF40+9 Recommendations. However, there is a low level of compliance with FATF Recommendation
6 (only three of 124 surveyed jurisdictions were deemed to be fully compliant), and other provisions
relating to PEPs generally.
The issue of PEPs is an important one for the StAR Initiative, and it has written a policy paper,
entitled “Politically Exposed Persons – A Policy Paper on Strengthening Preventive Measures”, which*  Senior Financial Sector Specialist, Financial Market Integrity Unit, World Bank.

− 10 −

aims to give policy recommendations to states on how they should deal with PEPs and then is divided into
principle recommendations and good practices. Some of the principle recommendations are: enhanced due
diligence, (which all countries which have ratified the UNCAC should apply to both domestic and foreign
PEPs, regardless of FATF status); requiring a declaration of beneficial ownership at the point of opening
an account; requiring an asset and income declaration; periodic review of PEPs customers; and avoiding
setting time limits on the time a PEP remains a PEP (this should be considered on a case-by-case basis).
See slides 14 to 18.
On the basis of UNCAC Article 54 and FATF Recommendation 3, the StAR Initiative has produced
a knowledge product entitled the Non-Conviction Based Guide to Asset Recovery, co-authored by a VE tothe Seminar, Ms. Linda Samuel. The guide draws upon the experience and expertise of practitioners fromthe common law and civil law traditions, as well as from the developing and the developed world. Some of
the key concepts addressed in this guide are outlined in slides 23 to 28, including the differences between
conviction based or criminal forfeiture and non-conviction based or civil forfeiture. FATF is working
on reviewing some of the 40 Recommendations, including forming a Working Group on the issue ofconfiscation, and possibly strengthening the Recommendation on civil forfeiture, although NCB forfeiture
ought never to be a substitute for criminal prosecution. Furthermore, fundamental principles relating to
NCB forfeiture, such as the standard of proof to be employed and the use of a rebuttable presumption that
unexplained wealth accumulated during a period of public service is attributable to corruption, should bedelineated in statutory law.
A further policy product of the StAR Initiative is the publication entitled “Barriers to Asset Recovery”,
which will be published in the second half of 2010. (See slides 29 to 38). This publication reflects one of
the UNCACs most fundamental principles: the return of assets (Article 51). This principle is also reflected
in Recommendation 38 of the FATF 40+9 Recommendations. The publication’s objective is to identify
and analyse operational and practical barriers to asset recovery. It also lists recommendations as to howdeveloping countries can deal with the barriers thus identified. Its most important conclusion is that “where
there is a political will, there is a legal way”. Lack of political will is the greatest barrier to asset recovery.
Legal barriers affecting requesting and requested states, as well as operational, institutional and practicalbarriers are listed in slides 31 to 35. The publication also recommends that countries utilize the assistanceand training offered by the StAR Initiative and other international organizations in the process of asset
recovery.
Another of the StAR Initiative’s policy products is a publication on the “Misuse of Corporate
Vehicles”, which means using legal entities, including corporations, trusts, foundations and partnerships
with limited liability, for illicit purposes, for example, money-laundering. The publication is based on
UNCAC Article 12 and FATF Recommendation 33. The Leaders’ Statement at the Pittsburgh Summit
requests FATF to strengthen standards on customer due diligence, beneficial ownership and transparency.
Details of the contents are available in slides 41 to 43.
Finally, another StAR knowledge product, the Asset Recovery Handbook, the ultimate “how to”
guide in asset recovery, will be published in October 2010.

− 11 −

Stolen Asset Recovery
Policy development and practical tools
Third Seminar on Good Governance forSoutheast Asian Countries, UNAFEI
Manila, December 9-11, 2009

Emile van der Does de Willebois
Financial Market Integrity
World Bank
evanderdoes@worldbank.org
1

Corruption – why we care
• The cross-border flow of the global proceeds from criminal activities,
corruption, and tax evasion is estimated at between $1 trillion and$1.6 trillion per year.
• Many developing nations are hemorrhaging money desperately
needed to alleviate poverty. By one estimate, corrupt money flowing
abroad from the developing and transition countries is estimated at$40 billion per year.
• This represents 40% of annual official development assistance funds(ODA).
• Twenty-five percent of the GDP of African states is lost to corruption
every year, amounting to $148 billion, but the problem exists in every
continent.
2− 12 −

Corruption-why we care
Assets stolen by corrupt leaders at the individual country-level are
frequently of staggering magnitude (estimates by TI):
• Suharto• Marcos• Abacha(1967-98)(1972-86)(1993-98)$15 - $35 billion$ 5 - $10 billion$ 2 - $ 5 billion

Even a portion of recovered assets could provide much-needed funding
for social programs or badly needed infrastructure. Every $100 million
recovered:• could fund full immunizations for 4 million children,• provide water connections for some 250,000 households, or• fund treatment for over 600,000 people with HIV/AIDS for a full year;or• fund 50–100 million drug treatments for malaria.
3

Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative Was
Launched by the World Bank and UNODC on
September 17, 2007
“There should be no safe haven for those who steal from thepoor,”“Helping developing countries recover the stolen money will
be key to fund social programs and put corrupt leaders on
notice that they will not escape the law.”
World Bank President, Robert B. Zoellick“This Initiative will foster much needed cooperation between
developed and developing countries and between the public
and private sectors to ensure that looted assets are returnedto their rightful owners,”
Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon− 13 −

4

High Level Political Support“As we increase the flow of capital to developing
countries, we also need to prevent its illicit outflow.
We will work with the World Bank’s Stolen Assets
Recovery (StAR) program to secure the return ofstolen assets to developing countries, and support
other efforts to stem illicit outflows..“
Leaders’ Statement, The Pittsburgh Summit, September 24-25,
2009
5Objective of StAR
“To reduce barriers to asset recovery and thereby
encourage and facilitate more systematic andtimely return of stolen assets. StAR emphasizes
that developed and developing countries sharea joint responsibility in tackling corruption andthat international collaboration and collective
action are needed to facilitate asset recovery
and prevent asset theft.”6− 14 −

Objective of StAR
• Development of national capacity through technical assistance andfinancing training courses for practitioners at both the national andregional levels.
• Assistance in the Recovery of Stolen Assets in preparatory stages of asset
recovery proceedings. This may include advisory services to support the
preparation and analysis of mutual legal assistance requests• Knowledge and advocacy
I. “how to” guides for practitioners
II. tools and supporting information systems for practitioners; andIII. analytical work to inform the design and implementationof policies aimed at lowering the barriers to asset recovery infinancial centers

7Country assistance• Twenty country requests for StAR assistance• Key areas for assistance•

Awareness raising•

Gap analysis•

Integrating the AML and anti-corruption agendas•

Legal reform and development•

Support to multi-agency teams•

Development of asset recovery programs•

Support on specific cases8− 15 −

Knowledge and advocacy
NETWORKS• Interpol Focal Point Database (Launched February 2009)
HANDBOOKS FOR PRACTITIONERS• Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture Guide (April 2009)• Proceeds of Corruption: Managing Asset Return (July 2009)• Asset Recovery Handbook (October 2010)• Good Practice Guide on Income and Asset Declaration (September 2009).
TOOLS FOR PRACTITIONERS• Legal Library on Asset Recovery (October 2009 and then continuous)• Reporting on UNCAC Implementation (October 2009 and then continuous)• Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) Request Writer Tool (October 2009)• Knowledge Consortium (October 2009 and then continuous)
9

Knowledge and advocacy
POLICY ANALYSIS••••Managing Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) : enhanced due-diligence (October
2009)
International Architecture : gaps in the institutional framework (October 2009)
Lowering the Barriers : innovation and policy options in financial centers (second
half 2010)
Corporate Vehicles : identifying beneficial ownership (second half 2010)10− 16 −

Overlap AML and Anti Corruption agenda• UNCAC and FATF 40 recommendations cover someof the same ground– Chapter II Preventive Measures covers FATF Recs
5,10,13, 19, 20, 23, 31, 33-34, 40, SR VI, VII, SR IX– Chapter III Criminalization and Law Enforcement
covers FATF Recs 1-4 and 14 a
– Chapter IV International Cooperation covers FATF
Recs 27, 31 36, 37, 39– Chapter V Asset recovery covers FATF Recs
5,6,7,10,18,26,38
11

StAR policy development: PEPs
• UNCAC, Article 52:– “to conduct enhanced scrutiny of accounts sought ormaintained by or on behalf of individuals who are, or havebeen, entrusted with prominent public functions and theirfamily members and close associates.”• FATF 40+9 Recommendations: Rec. 6– Risk management systems to identify PEPs
– Senior management approval– Establish source of funds and source of wealth– Conduct enhanced ongoing monitoring12− 17 −

PEPs- low compliance• More than 80% ofjurisdictions have not
implemented effective
measures. Only 3
jurisdictions compliant• Compliance lower in FATF
jurisdictions

13

PEPs- Principle Recommendation 1
Apply EDD to All PEPs, Foreign and Domestic• UNCAC - domestic and foreign PEPs; FATF – foreign only
• Why?
– Legal and reputation risks remain same – domestic
politicians are subject to same pressures and perverse
incentives.
– Increase credibility of commitment to fighting corruption
and money laundering– Reality: Many banks are already covering both14

− 18 −

PEPs- Principle Recommendation 2
Require a Declaration of Beneficial
Ownership•Provides background to assist withidentification and verification•Assist regulatory authorities in
evaluating BO practices•Requirement to sign under criminal
penalty, where existing, serves as
deterrent•One tool – not only tool—to identify andverify BO. Not sufficient to let banks “offthe hook”

15

PEPs- Principle Recommendation 3
Request Asset and Income Declarations• Required in more than 110 countries• Provides a “snapshot in time” that bank can use tocompare with profile or account activity• Addressing refusals• Issues: Verification is uneven• Other uses: PEP identification if public list of filers,
analysis of STRs by FIUs
16

− 19 −

PEPs- Principle Recommendation 4
Periodic Review of PEP Customers• Review of the “big picture” on risk-based approach,at least yearly• Helps to overcome silo approach• Should include consideration by at least one senior
manager• Good Practice: PEPs Committee

17

PEPs- Principle Recommendation 5
Avoid Setting Limits on the Time a PEP Remains a PEP• UNCAC and FATF – “once a PEP always a PEP”
• Problems with time limits• Consider on case-by-case basis using risk-based
approach18− 20 −

StAR knowledge products: NCB guide• UNCAC, Article 54 (1)(c) (entered into force Dec 2005):“Consider taking such measures as may be necessary to allow

confiscation of such property without a criminal conviction incases in which the offender cannot be prosecuted by reasonof death, flight or absence or in other cases.”• FATF 40+9 Recommendations: Rec. 3 (June 2003)“Countries may consider adopting measures that allow suchproceeds or instrumentalities to be confiscated without
requiring a criminal conviction.”

19

StAR knowledge products: NCB guide• Limitation of Criminal Forfeiture:
Cannot always forfeit property that was derived
from crime or was used to commit a crime in acriminal prosecution. Defendant may be:• Dead• A fugitive• Immune from criminal prosecution• Too powerful• [Acquitted for lack of admissible evidence]20− 21 −

StAR knowledge products: NCB guide• Criminal and NCB Forfeiture:
Conviction Based or Criminal Forfeiture (Common
law jurisdictions)
Against the person (in personam)

Non-Conviction Based or Civil Forfeiture

ActionAgainst the thing (in rem)

Æ Part of the criminal charge against a person

Æ Judicial action filed by a government against the thing
as the wrongdoer

Imposed as part of sentence in criminal case

When

Filed before, during, or after criminal conviction, or even
if there is no criminal charge against a person

Criminal conviction Æ beyond a reasonable doubt

Proof required

Unlawful conduct Æ balance of probabilities. Criminal
conviction not required

Forfeit defendant’s interest in property

Forfeiture

Forfeit the thing itself, subject to innocent owners

21

StAR knowledge products: NCB guide•Based on experience of experts in the field of NCB asset
forfeiture, both from civil and common law and fromdeveloped and developing countries- investigating
magistrates, prosecutors, law enforcement officials and asset
managers.
•36 key concepts- recommendations critical for designingand building an effective NCB forfeiture regime•Designed as a practical tool for policy makes, legislative
drafting groups and pracitioners

22− 22 −NCB guide, selected key concepts•NCB asset forfeiture should never be a substitute forcriminal prosecution•Undermines the effectiveness of criminal law and confidence in law enforcement•Should be viewed as complementary to criminal prosecutions and convictions•Relationship between NCB asset forfeiture and criminal proceedings
should be defined•NCB procedure may collide with criminal investigation and prosecution•Jurisdictions need to decide whether NCB are permitted only when criminal proceeds
impossible or whether the two can proceed simultaneously (preferred)•Applicable evidentiary and procedural rules should be as specific as
possible•Promotes uniformity in the application of the law, reduces opportunity for judicially
imposed rules- particularly important in regimes with a judiciary inexperienced inforfeiture23

NCB guide, selected key concepts•Tainted assets acquired prior to the enactment of an NCB
asset forfeiture law should be subject to forfeiture•If not criminal defendants would be given the opportunity to profit
from acts illegal at the time- particularly important for recovering
proceeds of corruption against official who are in power for long
periods of time
•Not in conflict with the “nulla poena sine previa lege” rule:•NCB asset forfeiture does not amount to a criminal prosecution or
penalty•ECHR: NCB asset forfeiture “comparable to a civil law restitution ofunjustified enrichment and therefore not a “penalty within the meaningof the ECHR”. In addition NCB law “aimed at guaranteeing crime did notpay”•Cf UK POCA 2002, section 340(4) “It is immaterial (…) whether the
conduct occurred before or after the passing of this Act.”24− 23 −NCB guide, selected key concepts•The government should have discretion to set appropriate
thresholds and policy guidelines for forfeiture•Relevant for assets that are depreciating in value or burdensome tomaintain (eg house with substantial mortgage, live animalsracehorses) or items that are unsellable (counterfeit products)•To avoid the asset forfeiture system from becoming overburdened•Preservation and investigative measures taken ex parteshould be authorized when notice could prejudice the ability
to prosecute the forfeiture case
•Where dissipation of assets is possible if notice is given

25

NCB guide, selected key concepts•Fundamental concept such as the standard of proof and useof rebuttable presumptions should be delineated by statute•Eg rebuttable presumption that unexplained wealth accumulated
during a period of service as a public official is attributable tocorruption•Thailand rebuttable presumption to invalidate transfers to family
members (section 51/52 AMLA)•Switzerland: assets belonging to a person who has participated in or
supported a criminal organisation are presumed to be at the disposalof the organisation (used to forfeit 7 million Swiss Francs in the caseagainst Duvalier)26− 24 −NCB guide, selected key concepts•Rebuttable presumptions cont’d•UK any property acquired 6 years before conviction was
criminally derived•Philippines, section 31 of rules of Procedure in Civil
forfeiture cases•ECHR confirmed in case that, provided the presumption
is worded strictly, rebuttable and reasonable there is no a
violation of the principle of presumption of innocence27

NCB guide, selected key concepts•The government should be authorized to voidtransfers if property has been transferred toinsiders or to anyone with knowledge of theunderlying illegal conduct.
•To void transfers to insiders/relatives as a way to avoid
detection/forfeiture•Consider assignment of judges and prosecutors
with special expertise or training in forfeiture tohandle NCB asset forfeiture28− 25 −

StAR policy products: Barriers to Asset
Recovery (2nd half 2010)• UNCAC, Article 51 and Article 54 (1)(c):“The return of assets (…)is a fundamental principle of thisConvention.”“Each State Party shall take such measures as may benecessary to permit its competent authorities to give effect toan order of confiscation issued by a court of another State
Party.”• FATF 40+9 Recommendations: Rec. 38 (June 2003)“There should be authority to take expeditious action in
response to requests by foreign countries to identify, freeze,
seize and confiscate property laundered, proceeds frommoney laundering or predicate offences (…) or property of29
corresponding value.”

StAR policy products: Barriers to Asset
Recovery• The overall objective is to identify and analyze the barriers—operational
and practical—that impede the recovery of stolen assets located within
financial centers to:– Provide analytical work to inform the design and implementation of policies
and action plans by financial centers aimed at lowering the barriers to asset
recovery; and– Assist practitioners in requesting jurisdictions• The financial centers on which the study will focus are Canada, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States of America,
Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Singapore, Hong Kong, Spain, Cayman Islands,
Channel Islands (Guernsey), and the United Arab Emirates

30− 26 −

Barriers to Asset Recovery, tentative
conclusions• Most important: lack of political will- “where there is political
will there is a legal way”•

Legal Barriers– Dual criminality requirements ( eg no assistance for cases involving unlawfulenrichment), strict application of dual criminality– Reciprocity requirement – requesting countries would allow requested
countries to do much more than they themselves would allow.
– Requirement of final judgment– Bank secrecy laws make it difficult to trace assets– Statute of limitations – length is too limited– Laws and procedure do not incorporate principles of UNCAC or otherinternational conventions, despite signature or ratification– Additional requirements: in some countries (eg Switzerland), notice is given
to defendant before MLA is sent and defendant is allowed to challenge.
– Requirement to link asset and offence (no money value judgment)
31

Barriers to Asset Recovery, tentative
conclusions• Legal, in requesting states– NCB asset forfeiture is limited.
– Immunity laws – perhaps these extend too far– No internal legislation on MLA– Not a signatory to UNCAC, UNTOC, or other regional orinternational convention involving cooperation; notmember of Egmont– Time requirements on investigation and trial proceedings
is insufficient to allow for MLA request to be completed

32− 27 −

Barriers to Asset Recovery, tentative
conclusions cont’d• Operational/Institutional Barriers:– Request is channeled through too many departments or agencies.
– Limited resources (managing assets, available expertise, time) to commit torequest and assist foreign jurisdictions. Priority will go to big cases– Agencies (Law enforcement / FIU) are not connected to key databases (eg.,direct link to bank accounts, real estate database) which limits amount ofassistance that can be provided through informal channels– Jurisdictions that require submission through diplomatic channels, rather than
accepting informal requests.
– Translation requirements– Jurisdictions / agencies not proactive, eg they provide MLA assistance only on
accounts requested –not on accounts traceable to – nor do they instigate
their own investigations into possible money laundering

33

Barriers to Asset Recovery, tentative
conclusions cont’d• Operational/Institutional Barriers in requestingstates:– Individuals in power are perpetrators and beneficiaries of corruption– Asset management process is new and very difficult to manage.
– Prosecutors hesitant to put cases before courts or move cases with
MLA requests to low priority because likelihood of obtaining sufficientevidence for trial is low– Strict formalities set by central authority– More than one central authority in some jurisdictions – cases may get
shuffled between authorities or agencies– Changing governments– Difficulty in proving link between assets and offense, money trailrelative inexperience in conducting financial investigations
34− 28 −

Barriers to Asset Recovery, tentative
conclusions cont’d• Practical Barriers– Identifying the proper authority/agency to contact– Certain procedural laws are ineffective (e.g., direct enforcement of foreign
order can be slower than asking foreign jurisdiction to obtain order on
country’s own behalf)– Poor communication (eg., unclear requests/response, no information on
status of request, translation), lack of trust, geographical distance– Difficulty to link asset and offence– Time delays (for MLA, for freeze, for return)– Time delays differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending on information
request• Freeze order quicker in some civil law jurisdictions (eg Switzerland); but
slower in common law• Breaching bank secrecy can take a lengthy time in some countries, lesstime in others.
35– Lack of guidance on MLA process

Barriers to Asset Recovery, tentative
recommendations• Communicate Æ builds trust, avoids misunderstandings– In multi-jurisdictional cases, bring countries together in a joint task
force atmosphere (pressure element to other jurisdictions; sharing of
information)– Build communication institution-institution, rather than individualindividual– Establish networks, regional workshops– Travel for case conferences, communicate receipt of request,– Elaborate mechanisms to eliminate barriers to communications:email not common, networks difficult to develop, hesitant to call
• Maximize informal channels for assistance (FIUs, law enforcement)36− 29 −

Barriers to Asset Recovery, tentative
recommendations cont’d• Commit resources– In requested jurisdictions to proactive efforts (eg dedicated police
units)– In requesting jurisdictions to assisting them with investigations, filingproper requests, going through proper channels, trainings, legal
support through foreign experts or foreign practitioners that would
work on ad hoc basis• Initiative in South Africa focused on confiscation. They have POC
units and place them in a developed country for 3 months.
Undertaking from individual and agency that they will stay in placeand do confiscation for 2 years• Use international conventions to push other jurisdictions to comply

37

Barriers to Asset Recovery, tentative
recommendations cont’d
•
•

•

•

•

Use good offices, training of StAR and other international organizations to assist
with process
Gather more information about recovery from financial centers– examples of Procedural Documents with MLA Requests or application ofmodel documentation;– available on-line– list of focal points available on-line
Incorporate in national legislations the legal provisions providing for accountability
and terms for carrying out MLA Requests; regionally have a peer review
mechanism to ensure compliance;
Swiftly take the matters before courts, understanding the time frame that somecountries are working under [perhaps countries should also consider amending
legislation to allow for extensions in cases of MLA]
Provide for statutory provision for execution of conviction and sentence awarded
by foreign country38− 30 −

StAR policy work, Misuse of Corporate
Vehicles (2nd half 2010)• UNCAC Article 12 (1) and (2):“Each State party shall take measures to prevent corruption
involing the private sector [which] may include (…) Promoting
transparency among private entities”.
• FATF Rec 33:“Countries should ensure that there is adequate, accurate
and timely information on the beneficial ownership andcontrol of legal persons that can be obtained or accessed in atimely fashion by competent authorities.

39

StAR policy work, Misuse of Corporate
Vehicles“We ask the FATF to help detect and deter the proceeds ofcorruption by prioritizing work to strengthen standards oncustomer due diligence, beneficial ownership and transparency.”
Leaders’ Statement, The Pittsburgh Summit, September 24-25,
2009

40

− 31 −

StAR policy work, Misuse of Corporate
Vehicles• The overall objective of this study is both to inform thedebate on this topic and to assist those involved in theinvestigation thereof.
• At the policy level the project aims to collect and systematize
available data on the use of corporate vehicles in grandcorruption cases and test implementation of BO identification
obligations and possibly how the policy responses could be
refined.
• At the operational level the project aims to gather
information on the practical difficulties encountered ininvestigating corporate vehicles and put forward goodpractices on how these may be overcome.
41

StAR policy work, Misuse of Corporate
Vehicles3 components:• Database on grand corruption cases involving the abuse of
corporate vehicles verifying/debunking commonly held
beliefs on this (eg Is “the classic corrupt PEP” dead?)• Field work on Due Diligence obligations of TCSPs andidentification of Beneficial Ownership by financial institutions• Round tables with investigators to discuss obstacles in
obtaining BO information and good practices in trying to deal
with those obstacles

42− 32 −

StAR knowledge products: Asset Recovery
Handbook (Oct 2010)• UNCAC, Articles 31, 43, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55,
58• FATF 40+9 Recommendations: Rec. 3, 26, 27, 28,
36,38• Covers– Strategy for asset recovery– Identifying and securing evidence– Tracing and securing of assets– Obtaining assistance from Foreign Jurisdiction- informal
channels and mutual legal assistance– Asset forfeiture mechanisms

43

Thank You
Emile van der Does de Willebois
Financial Market Integrity
World Bank
evanderdoes@worldbank.org

44− 33 −