SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS
The discussion sessions were chaired by Mr. Ricardo V. Paras III, Chief State Counsel, Departmentof Justice of the Republic of the Philippines.
Mr. Panumas Achalaboon, Public Prosecutor, International Affairs Department, Office of the Attorney
General, Thailand, sat as Co-Chair, by consensus of the participants.
Mr. Haruhiko Ukawa, Deputy Director of UNAFEI, supported the Chairs as General Editor of thediscussion sessions.
Topic (i): Measures to get information to identify and trace the proceeds of corruption, including
effective use of FIU information.
In this first part of the discussion session, the participants addressed their experiences with Financial
Intelligence Units (FIUs); the desirable qualities or character of FIUs; the use of information held by FIUs;
and asset declaration.
All but one of the participating countries had already established FIUs and the participants discussed
their experience with such institutions. They addressed the matter of obtaining information from financial
institutions: co-operation and compliance from financial institutions are essential for an FIU’s operation.
Chair Paras enquired of the participants about the willingness of financial institutions to comply with knowyour-customer rules, Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) and other reporting requirements. A participantfrom the Philippines responded that compliance in his country is generally satisfactory. The terrorist attacksof 9/11 led to increased acceptance on the part of financial institutions that political leadership demands
more stringent records and anti-money laundering measures. As global financial transactions tightened after
9/11, the financial institutions accepted that an era of financial reporting had arrived and that the prudent
provider of financial services would know his or her customers well. The participant from Malaysia also
voiced confidence in the level of compliance in his country, but a visiting expert to the seminar expressedsome reservation as to the willingness of financial institutions to divulge information to FIUs. It was notedthat the effective discharge of FIU duties is directly tied to their independence. The participants echoed thisprinciple throughout the discussions.
This discussion of the importance of independence for FIUs led the participants to focus on theelements required for an FIU to function at optimal efficiency. To prevent the use of private financial
information for political gain the participants agreed that FIUs must be politically neutral. They furtheragreed that sufficient human and financial resources were indispensable.
The discussion also addressed the use of information held by FIUs, both between domestic law
enforcement agencies and international counterparts. All agreed that the use of information held by FIUs
should not be heavily restricted. Links between the FIU and its country’s law enforcement agencies ensurethat the FIU’s work is an effective contribution to the fight against financial crime in all its forms. A visiting
expert from the USA explained that authorized US law enforcement agencies had direct access to all
Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and STRs filed with FinCEN, the US Department of Treasury’s FIU.
Law enforcement agencies do not have to wait for FinCEN to analyse or forward any of the information.
This is particularly useful because FIUs are not necessarily aware of the relevance of particular pieces
of information they acquire. Regarding international exchange of information, a participant from thePhilippines explained that the Philippine AMLC has both proactive and reactive functions in exchanging
intelligence via Egmont Secure Web.
Regarding asset declaration by government officials, the participants discussed the requirements of
the respective countries and the relative merits and demerits of differing levels of stringency. The Philippine
requirements are extensive, encompassing the assets and liabilities of spouses, children and extended
family. Annual updates are also required. A participant questioned the practicality of requiring politicians
to file asset declarations. Both the Philippines and the USA make such requirements of parliamentarians. Avisiting expert from the USA explained that the US has both public and non-public agency reports and both

− 131 −

government officials and politicians must disclose their assets. Chair Paras mentioned time/response limits
to more properly implement the requirement to disclose assets and liabilities. Participants then discussed
what constitutes an appropriate time limit to place upon investigations of declarations.
Topic (ii): The development of laws and international co-operation to actualize freezing, confiscation,and recovery of the proceeds of corruption, including prevention, criminalization and prosecution ofmoney-laundering.
The participants discussed the responsibilities incumbent on signatories to the UNCAC. Eachparticipating country is a signatory to the UNCAC, and most have ratified it. The participants also addressedvarious aspects of the financial investigation process: identification, freezing, confiscation, and repatriationof the proceeds of crime. The participants also discussed measures against cash smuggling, including therequirements placed upon financial institutions regarding foreign currency exchange. Finally, they also
addressed international co-operation in asset recovery.
Regarding freezing, the participating countries have differing requirements and procedures; somepermit administrative freezing by law enforcement authorities, but most require judicial involvement
through court orders. Some participating countries do not permit the use of freezing orders to secure nonconviction-based forfeiture.
One expert cautioned against issuing freezing orders too early in an investigation, stating insteadthat finding intelligence and building a network are more useful long-term objectives than simply seizing
funds once identified.
Other matters relating to freezing orders which the participants discussed include the proceduresfor ex parte orders, the most desirable period of validity of freezing orders and the need to protect thirdparties. One expert pointed out that the temporary UN Security Council Resolution 1373 makes freezingof terrorist assets an obligation.
More detailed discussion of non conviction-based forfeiture (NCB) then followed. UNCAC Art.
54.1 (c) requires States Parties to consider taking such measures as may be necessary to allow NCB in orderto render mutual legal assistance (MLA), but not all of the participating countries provide for NCB.
Chair Paras explained that NCB is used in the Philippines and extolled its usefulness when thedefendant cannot be prosecuted because of death, flight or absence. Further advantages of NCB forfeiture
are that it may allow for a lower burden of proof than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required ofcriminal conviction, and that jurisdiction can be more easily established in NCB cases. In criminal cases,
the action is in personam and the physical presence of the defendant is essential, but an NCB case is inrem, a procedure against the asset, rather than the person, and jurisdiction can be established by serving asummons on the title holder. In the event that the title holder cannot be located, the summons can be servedby publication.
Regarding international co-operation in asset recovery, the participants noted that repatriation ofstolen assets is not automatic and that requests for assistance must be filed in accordance with the UNCAC
or other relevant instruments. In this regard, the General Editor spoke of the importance of a strong networkof practitioners who make active use of informal channels of communication. Such measures can be used
immediately; they do not require any legislative changes or other reform. Informal consultation regarding
draft requests can increase the request’s executability and avoid later procedural difficulties in the requested
state. Participation in international fora such as the Good Governance Seminars or other UNAFEI training
programmes can facilitate the building of such a network of practitioners and the sharing of experience andexpertise.
At the conclusion of the discussion sessions, the following Recommendations were adopted byconsensus.

− 132 −