REPORTS OF THE PROGRAMM EGROUP 1
EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION CASES
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
M embers

Adviser

M r. Vladimir Aras
M r. Hironori Sato
M r. Abraham Kemboi
M s. Justine Namukwambi
M r. Faycal Touti
M r. Md Golam Rabbani
M r. Nuon Norith
M s. Evah Thingini
M r. Oleg Crismaru
M r. Rosito Amaral
M r. Kenichi Ito
M r. Mutsuo Nakabayashi
M r. Shotaro YamadaProf. Kazuhiko M oriya(Brazil)(Japan)(Kenya)(Namibia)(Algeria)(Bangladesh)(Cambodia)(Kenya)(M oldova)(Timor-Leste)(Japan)(Japan)(Japan)(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
Group 1 started its discussion on 25 October 2013. The group elected Mr. Vladimir Aras as its
Chairperson,Mr.Hironori Sato as its Co-Chairperson,Mr.Abraham Kemboi as its Rapporteur and Ms.
Justine Namukwambi as its Co-Rapporteur. The group which was assigned to discuss “Effective
M easures to Investigate Corruption Cases”agreed to conduct its business in accordance with thefollowing agenda:1)M easures to investigate corruption;2)International cooperation in investigationof corruption cases;and 3)Procedures for trial of corruption suspects/accused/defendants in order toconclude the Case Study. Of these agenda items, we agreed to focus on 1) M easures to investigate
corruption.

II. CASE STUDY
Anti-corruption organization B in A country has received an anonymous report (assume that thisinformation is accurate and reliable):Public official C in charge of a project to build bridge D has
accepted a bribe from Construction Company E. In exchange for the bribe, the public official C has
agreed to award the construction contract to Construction Company E. The bidding is scheduled totake place soon.Additionally,Construction Company F was awarded a construction contract to build
bridge G three years ago after the public official was bribed by Construction Company F.
Based on the Case Studyprovided,the group decided to examine the three broad topics ofdiscussion
by country and agreed to conduct its discussion with following format:

III. MEASURES TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION
A. M easures to Generate Leads (Intelligence Steps) in Each Country
The questions/points on the said topic to be discussed by the group as agreed and the prevailingsituation in each country regarding these matters in the participating countries are summarized asfollows:
1. Whether Corruption Cases are Investigated by an Anti-Corruption Agency, Police, or Prosecutors
Almost all the countries,except for Japan and Brazil,stated that they had established independentanti-corruption agencies (ACA)dedicated to investigate corruption cases.In Brazil and Japan corruption cases are investigated by police or prosecutors. In these two countries, their practice is that if
corruption cases are to be handled by the police,supervision by a prosecutor is necessary because thecases are considered complex.

278

16TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAM MEREPORTS OF THE PROGRAM ME
Establishment of the independent ACA is in line with UNCAC Article 36, which requires States
Parties to ensure the existence of a body or bodies specialized in combating corruption through law
enforcement. The participants observed that the ACAs had been granted necessary independence, in
accordance with fundamental principles of the legal system of the State Party,to be able to carry out
their functions effectively and without undue influence.
2. Whether Reporting through Anonymous Letters is Acceptable
All the participants stated that anonymous reports/letters were accepted in their countries as ameans of generating information that can assist in identifying acts of corruption. This method is
considered safe and convenient for informants whose lives and relationships with the perpetrators
would greatly be affected if it was found out that theyreported such cases to law enforcement agencies.
3. Anonymous EmailAll the countries indicated that they had established dedicated email accounts for use by informants/complainants when reporting alleged corruption practices to the anti-corruption agencies/
police/prosecutors. It was observed by the participants that it is necessary and always important toprotect the source of the report to guard against any harm.
4. M eans to Identify the Source
Except for Cambodia, all the countries stated that they had in place mechanisms to identify thesource of the anonymous reports. Identification of the source would be done through deployment ofintelligence techniques such as recruitment of reliable informants within the target organization who
will provide information for covert identification of the source.Identification of the source is usuallycrucial for clarification of the issues touching on the case beforehand. M embers agreed that theidentification of the source is not mandatory if information is reliable. M embers consider that
resources of identification of the author of an anonymous report can be used more successfully inverification of the information about the crime.
5. 24-Hour Telephone Hotlines
Japan,Algeria and Timor-Leste were the countries which indicated that they did not have 24-hour
telephone hotlines;the rest of the countries in the group have such lines in place. The said lines aremanned at all times and allow people who witness acts of corruption to report the same to authorities
as and when they happen.
6. Suspicious Transaction Reporting from FIU
The participant from Timor-Leste stated that at the moment, they did not have a Financial
Intelligence Unit for reporting of suspicious transactions. It was the considered opinion of all theparticipants that such a unit was very crucial in generating leads on laundering of proceeds ofcorruption;and therefore recommended the establishment of an FIU in Timor-Leste.
7. Whistle-Blower Programmes
These are programmes to ensure the safety of whistle-blowers when they expose mega scandals
touching on persons or group of persons considered dangerous to the whistle-blowers.Each participant
was requested to share the situation in their countries as regards programmes for protecting whistleblowers. The group was informed that Algeria, Cambodia and Timor-Leste had no whistle-blower
programmes in place.
8. Public Databases (Property, Work, Movements, Criminal Records, Etc.)
These are databases which are accessed by law enforcement agencies for information that may be
useful in informing the direction of the case. Such information includes but is not limited to assets
owned by the suspect, past criminal record(s) and personal details. Algeria, Bangladesh, Japan andTimor-Leste do not have such arrangements in place.
9. Human Intelligence
Except for Algeria, all the other countries use human intelligence to discover more facts about
corruption reports.

279

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
10.Collection of Relevant Documents
All the participants agreed that collection of documents touching on the report was necessary. It
was observed that this step needed to be done covertly to avoid arousing the suspicion of those
involved, which could lead to destruction or concealment of the documentary evidence.
11.Surveillance (Visual, Trailing or Physical Tracking)Except M oldova,in the remaining 8 countries,surveillance would be used monitor the activities ofthe suspects. According to the participant from M oldova, surveillance at this early stage before
investigation is considered too intrusive to fundamental rights of the suspects as per the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Surveillance firms up the report by confirming the associations ofvarious players and movement of proceeds of corruption.
12.Formalization
This is the stage of arriving at a decision that full investigation should commence;and it occurs
upon acquisition of sufficient information and documents necessary to support such investigation.All
the information and documents acquired are put together in an orderly manner.Formalization requires
sanctioning by an authorized official.
13.Problems Faced by the Countries in Relation to the Intelligence Phase of Investigation
1) Participants from some countries cited slow progress in passing legislation that establishes key
institutions such as FIUs
2) Participants from some countries stated that they had challenges in generation of leads, especially by use of surveillance techniques because of lack of professional training.Lack of modern
surveillance equipment was also cited as a contributor to this problem.
3) Some participants stated that bribery in the private sector is not criminalized.
B. M easures to Detect Corruption Cases (Investigation Step)
The issues on this topic were discussed by the group as agreed, and the prevailing situations in in
the participating countries are summarized as follows:
1. Interception of Electronic Communications (Voice, Voice over IP, Etc.)
Bangladesh, Japan and Timor-Leste stated that they do not intercept communication of suspects
engaged in corrupt activities; the rest of the participating countries do. The justification for thisaccording to Japanese participants is that the countryʼ
s legal framework does not permit interceptionof communication in corruption cases.Warrants are required in some jurisdictions such as Brazil and
M oldova so as to intercept communications.
2. Computer Tracking and Phone Call Tracking (IP, M etadata, GMT/UTC, Etc.)
Cambodia,Japan and Timor-Leste do carry out computer and phone call tracking during investigation of corruption cases.According to participants from Japan,financial institutions are very strict intheir dealings and therefore there is no likelihood of illegal financial transactions.As such it may not
be necessary to monitor computers for any possible illegal transaction. The other participating
countries consider this a rich source of evidentiary materials on the associations and movement ofsuspects as well as procurement details and money trail. Warrants to track calls and computers are
required in M oldova and Brazil.
3. Electronic Surveillance (Inside and Outside, GPS, Drones, Etc.)
Algeria, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Japan and Timor-Leste are the countries which do not use electronic surveillance during the investigation of corruption cases;the other four participating countries
employ such techniques in investigation.
4. Physical Tracking
All the participating countries use physical tracking as a technique for investigating corruption,
especially in tracing suspectsʼmovements and possible exchange.In all the participating countries no280

16TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAM MEREPORTS OF THE PROGRAM ME
warrant is required to use this technique of investigation.
5. Eavesdropping (Video, Photo, Voice Recording)
Except for Bangladesh and Timor-Leste the other seven participating countries use eavesdropping
as an investigation technique.Participants from Brazil and M oldova stated that a warrant is required
to carry out video and voice eavesdropping.
6. Postal Interception
Involves clandestine access to a suspectʼs mailbox;upon which information contained in thesuspectʼs
letter(s)is extracted for use in investigation.Brazil and M oldova are the only countries that use postal
interception as an investigation technique, the rest of the participating countries do not.
7. Covert Investigation
All the participating countries use this technique to investigate corruption cases. In Brazil, awarrant from the court and approval of a prosecutor are required for the police to conduct covert
investigation.
8. Undercover Operations (Agents)
All the participating countries except Japan conduct undercover operations while investigating
corruption.
9. Controlled Delivery
Bangladesh, Cambodia, Japan and Timor-Leste do not use controlled delivery as a means ofinvestigating corruption,but the other participating countries use this technique.The participant from
M oldova observed that this technique is very useful and relevant for the case study because it can beused to confirm the delivery of a bribe.
10.Trash Can/Bin Collection
This involves physical surveillance on the suspect and collecting banking slips dropped in trashcans/bin collection.This may contain account details of the suspect,which can now be handed over tothe FIU to monitor any suspicious transactions.Participants from Bangladesh and Moldova stated that
this technique is not regulated in their countries;whereas the rest of the participants observed that it
was in use for investigations in their countries.
11.Access and Monitoring of Financial Activities
Except for Algeria, Japan and Timor-Leste, all the other participating countries monitored thefinancial transaction of suspects in real time, with the assistance of the respective countryʼ
s FIUs. It
was observed that if the investigative agency was interested in real-time monitoring of the account,itwould simply forward the details to the FIU which would carry out the monitoring and share the same
information with the agency.
12.Informants (Plea Bargains)
Algeria,Bangladesh,Brazil,Japan,Namibia and Timor-Leste participants informed the group that
there are no plea bargain arrangements for informants in their countries. On the other hand, plea
bargain arrangements are practised in countries such as Cambodia, Kenya and Moldova.
13.Leniency Programmes
The participants from Algeria, Bangladesh, Japan and Timor-Leste reported that there are no
leniency programmes for suspects who commit corruption offences in their jurisdictions. Cases areinvestigated and processed to logical conclusions whether or not suspects request leniency.
14.Problems Faced by the Countries in Relation to Investigation of Corruption
The participant from Bangladesh stated that they do not use evidence obtained throughwiretapping as there is no enabling legislation.
The participants from Japan stated that their legal framework does not allow wiretapping

281

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
during corruption investigations.
C. Acquiring and Analyzing Objective Evidence
Discussions on this topic were approached by the group following the agreed items as follows:
1. Acquiring and Analyzing Bank Records
All the participating countries stated that in order to obtain objective evidence,it was necessary toacquire bank records of the suspect(s).As a legal requirement,warrants to search the bank records ofthe suspect(s)would be obtained in all the participating countries except Algeria,Cambodia,Japan andNamibia.The participant from Brazil stated that in cases where public money is involved,no warrant
is required to access bank records.
2. Acquiring and Analyzing Other Documents
All the documents relevant to the investigations being carried out are acquired and analyzed asstated by all the participating countries.Relevant expertise would be necessary for each particular setof documents;for example if the documents involved touch on the procurement process,they are better
analyzed by procurement experts.
3. Search and Seizure
Participants from M oldova,Kenya,Timor-Leste,Brazil and Japan stated that searches and seizures
are carried out using warrants.In Kenya and Timor-Leste,the ACA applies for the warrants while,inBrazil,the police or the prosecutor can apply for warrants.The participant from Cambodia stated that
the ACA can search premises with the permission from the prosecutor,whereas,the participants from
Namibia stated that an authorized officer of the ACC can search premises, other than a private
dwelling,without a warrant,while the participant from Cambodia stated that they can search premises
without warrants.
4. Acquiring and Analyzing Account Details
All the participants agreed that acquiring and analyzing account details was necessary, with thehelp of accounting experts.
5. Analyzing Electronic Data
Participants from Japan stated that electronic evidence is analyzed with the input from industry
experts.The other participants stated that they had in-house experts,and in case certain expertise was
missing, they would outsource.
6. Expert Opinions
Except Timor-Leste, which does not have experts in document examination, all the other participants stated that an expertʼ
s opinion was always sought on documents and other evidentiary materials
which required such input.
7. Problems Faced by the Countries in Relation to Acquiring and Analyzing Objective Evidence
Except Algeria,Namibia and Japan,the rest of the participating countries stated that accessto bank records is a challenge because they cannot access the bank details of suspects directly.
In Bangladesh, the ACA cannot acquire tax details of suspects without a warrant. This isconsidered a challenge to investigation of corruption cases.
Participants from Kenya stated that they faced challenges in analyzing electronic data
because of lack of technical capacity.
D. Acquiring Suspect, Accomplice and Witness Statements
The issues on the said topic were discussed by the group as agreed,and the prevailing situations in
the participating countries are summarized as follows:282

16TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAM MEREPORTS OF THE PROGRAM ME
1. Interviewing Witnesses, Including Company Employees and Bank Officials
All the participants declared that it was the practice in their respective countries that, given the
scenario presented by the case study,it would be necessary to interview all witnesses considered usefulto the investigations, including company employees and bank officials. This would help build up astrong case against the suspects by sealing all the loopholes that may be exploited during trial.
2. Interviewing Suspects (Natural Persons and Legal Entities)
All participants stated that the suspect should be interviewed so as to establish his/her line ofdefence.Interviewing a suspect may also lead to a confession,in which case,it will be registered before
a magistrate/judge. Some suspects may request leniency during the interview. The suspect may be
accompanied by their defence lawyers at the interview in all the participating countries except inCambodia where the defence attorney is not allowed at all;and in Japan where the defence attorneysits around the interview area for any possible consultation with the client (suspect). In all nine
participating countries,the right to silence is allowed apart from interviewing the natural suspects;all
the other countries except Brazil would interview the legal entities which may be represented by theirdefence.
3. Compel Suspects to Appear
In all the participating countries, if the suspect fails to appear for an interview, he/she will becompelled by way of summons obtained from court. The participant from Brazil stated that in theirjurisdiction the prosecutor and the judge can compel appearance.The participant from Namibia statedthat if a witness/suspect fails to appear for an interview, he/she will be compelled to furnish theinformation under oath or on affirmation by way of summons issued by the Director of the ACA.
4. Harsh Interrogation
Participants from Bangladesh and Cambodia stated that they sometimes use interrogation in placeof interviews when dealing with difficult suspects. In the other seven participating countries,interrogation is not practised.
5. Plea Bargaining
The participants from Japan and Namibia stated that there are no plea bargaining arrangementsin their respective countries. The other seven participating countries have plea bargaining arrangements in place.
6. Leniency
Leniency is allowed in all the participating countries.
7. Problems Faced by the Countries in Relation to Acquiring Witness, Accomplice or Suspect Statements
Participants from Cambodia, Namibia, Brazil, Japan and Bangladesh lack plea bargaining
frameworks.
Participants from M oldova and Brazil stated that their legal systems do not take legal persons
to task over acts of corruption
E. Domestic Cooperation
The issues on the said topic were discussed by the group as agreed,and the prevailing situations in
the participating countries are summarized as follows:
1. Prosecutors (Supervision and Approval)
All participants stated that the investigative agencies cooperate with the prosecution in the investigation of corruption cases.
2. Investigating Agencies (ACA/Police/Prosecutors)
Except for Brazil and Japan which do not have ACAs,the rest of the participating countries haveestablished ACAs to investigate corruption cases.

283

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
3. Examining Judges
Only Algeria has examining judges undertake investigations on corruption.
4. Supervising Judge (Warrants and Orders)
All the participating countries except for Algeria stated that they need to cooperate with asupervising judge for the purpose of obtaining warrants or other court orders.
5. Financial Intelligence Units
All the participating countries stated that they cooperate with their respective countriesʼFIUs.
6. Revenue and Tax Authorities
Algeria has no tax authority, but the rest of the eight participating countries have tax authorities
which they cooperate with in investigation of corruption cases.
7. Customs
All the participating countries stated that they cooperate with their respective countriesʼcustoms
offices.
8. Task Forces
All the countries except Algeria stated that they cooperate by way of task forces to investigate
corruption cases.
9. Private Sector Organizations
All the participating countries stated that they cooperate with the private sector in investigating
corruption.
10.Government Regulatory Agencies
All the participating countries stated that they cooperate with government regulatory agencies ininvestigating corruption.
11.Problems Faced by the Countries in Relation to Domestic Cooperation
Bangladesh lacks access to tax authority systems to acquire necessary evidence
Poor working relationships between examining judges and prosecutors in Algeria.
F. Identifying, Tracing and Freezing Proceeds of Crime
To prevent flight and concealment of assets already identified and associated with the suspect andaccomplices, it is necessary that they are frozen, according to all the participants. Participants from
Bangladesh,Kenya and Timor-Leste stated that the ACA is empowered by law to freeze assets by wayof a court order.The participant from Namibia stated that the Prosecutor General is charged with the
responsibility of freezing suspectsʼassets.In Cambodia,the ACA can freeze the assets with permission
from the Prosecutor. In Algeria, Brazil and Japan, freezing of assets is the responsibility of theprosecutor through court orders. Asset recovery represents an important issue of anti-corruption
authorities, because the proceeds of crime are often very hard to identify and trace.
A majority of participants stated that proceeds of crime that consist of immovable or movable
goods can be identified by accessing information from public databases or by gathering information
through intelligence.Some participants mentioned the importance of property databases in preventing
leakage of information about the investigation. Most of the participants stated that anti-corruption
authorities need a warrant to access suspectsʼbank information.
The participants agreed that FIUs, MOUs or Interpol channels can ensure rapid tracking of theproceeds of corruption if the proceeds were deposited in bank accounts. In addition, the participants
highlighted the importance of international collaboration and specified that the majority of countries
have different means of mutual legal assistance in order to trace and freeze proceeds ofcorruption suchas:treaties and agreements,MOUs,law enforcement cooperation (Interpol,JIT,FIU-FIU information

284

16TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAM MEREPORTS OF THE PROGRAM ME
sharing, etc.), informal channels, etc. The participants found that Algeria conducts non-convictionbased repatriation of frozen proceeds of corruption.
M ost of the countries can freeze assets of an individual before bringing charges against a suspect,
as well if the property over the assets related to crime was transmitted to third parties.In Brazil,thefreezing of assets can be performed based on civil cases of corruption against legal entities.
All the participants mentioned that, in their respective countries, law provides measures forsecuring the recovery of damages caused by the crime and for guaranteeing the execution of apunishment by fine.M easures for securing the recovery of damages consist offreezing the movable andimmovable assets.
A majority of the participants agreed that their countries should follow the example of Bangladesh,
when the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant with respect to the origin of ill-gotten assets.
Participants consider that criminalization of illegal enrichment should be enacted in their countries.

IV. RECOM M ENDATIONS TO IMPROVE/DEVELOP INVESTIGATIONM EASURES IN EACH COUNTRY
The measures to improve/develop investigation in each country were recommended as follows:
1. All the participants agreed that the plea bargaining system should be considered in countries where
possible due to its advantages.
2. All the participants agreed that legislation on corruption should be reviewed so as to enable holding
legal persons accountable for acts of corruption.
3. All participants agreed that ACAs,police and prosecutors should be able to directly access banking
institutions without warrant.
4. All the participants agreed that ACAs should develop technical and technological skills so as toenable them to analyse technical evidence including electronic evidence.
5. All the participants agreed on establishing an inclusive approach between the ACAs, police,prosecutors and other agencies that play roles in the justice system.
6. All the participants agreed that the ACAs should be connected to all government ministries anddepartments/agencies to enable easy access of any relevant information.
7. All participants agreed that cooperation between law enforcement agencies and private companies
was very crucial in aiding law enforcement and, therefore, should be encourage and sustained.
8. All the participants agreed on the importance of legislation to establish FIUs.
9. All participants agreed that the law should enable the use of evidence obtained through eavesdropping to prove a case.
10.All participants agreed that anti-corruption agencies should pay special attention to asset recovery.
11.All participants agreed that governments should encourage international collaboration for tracing,
freezing and repatriation of frozen proceeds of corruption.
12.All participants agreed that countries should consider the possibility of freezing of assets based on
civil cases of corruption against legal entities.
13.All participants agreed that insurance of anti-corruption authorities with on-line free access to all
the public property databases without any restrictions as well as establishment of databases should be

285

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
done.

V. QUESTION
1-a) What steps should Anti-Corruption Agency B take, and in what order, to collect sufficientevidence to take this case to court?
All the participants stated that in order to investigate the case adequately, it was important thatcovert techniques were used initially so as to avoid leakage and concealment of evidence.The covert
methods that can be used are wiretapping, computer tracking, surveillance, and communicationinterception for the ongoing case (company E bribe);FIU,MOU,and Interpol report,for the past case(company F bribe). After sufficient information has been acquired then the investigative agencies
should employ overt methods of investigation, such as search warrants, freezing suspect assets, andinterview of witnesses and suspects.
The participants observed that both crimes required priority attention;therefore they should be
handled simultaneously. The participants noted that securing of evidence, suspects and assets was ofgreat importance.However,the participants noted that in the event of limited resources which usually
happens in practice,it is better to focus on one case.The participants from Namibia,Kenya,Brazil andJapan stated that they would pursue the past crime, whereas the participants from other countries
would pursue the ongoing crime.
1-b) How should Anti-Corruption Agency B cooperate with prosecutors or the examining court
judge in the collection of evidence?
The participants stated that formation of a task force was the best way of ensuring cooperation
between the ACA,the prosecution and the examining court judge.In the participating countries where
there are no ACAs,the police,prosecution and all the other agencies which have valuable input to law
enforcement should cooperate.Cooperation between agencies enables sharing of resources and enables
speedy acquisition.

VI. CONCLUSION
The group thoroughly deliberated and discussed the current issues and problems of each participating country relating to effective measures to investigate corruption cases.Following thorough discussion, the group concluded certain recommendations and necessary measures to be implemented in theparticipantsʼcountries for the development and improvement of the criminal justice system focusing
mainly on investigation of corruption cases.However,it is noted that the measures and recommendations in this report may be adopted in each of the respective countries based on the necessity andsuitability for the ultimate achievement of an effective and efficient criminal justice system.

286