CHAIR’S SUMMARY
Tenth Regional Seminar on Good Governancefor Southeast Asian Countries
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
26 – 28 July 2016

GENERAL
1. The Tenth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries, co-hosted
by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) of Indonesia, the Attorney General’s Office(AGO) of Indonesia, and the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of
Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI), was held at the Royal Ambarrukmo Hotelin Yogyakarta from 26 to 28 July 2016.
2. Officials and experts from the following jurisdictions attended the seminar: Brunei Darussalam,
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 Kingdom ofThailand and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.

OPENING CEREMONY
3. Mr. KEISUKE SENTA, Director of UNAFEI, Mr. BAMBANG WALUYO, Acting Vice Attorney
General of Indonesia, and Mr. LAODE M. SYARIF, Deputy Commissioner of the KPK, delivered
opening addresses, welcoming the participants to the Seminar, focused on the theme ofContemporary Measures for Effective International Cooperation, and emphasizing theimportance of sharing strategies, practices and case studies to develop stronger international
cooperation to combat corruption in the ASEAN region and beyond.
4. Mr. KOZO HONSEI, Minister (Deputy Chief of Mission), Embassy of Japan in Indonesia,delivered a special address welcoming the participants, stating that corruption is an obstacle togood governance and democracy in all countries and stressing the need to counter corruption
by engaging the support of the public. Mr. HONSEI noted Japan’s decades-long partnership with
ASEAN countries and stressed that the government of Japan stands ready to provide support
to the region in its fight against corruption.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS
5. MR. SENTA delivered his keynote address, recalling the theme of this year’s Seminar and thefour key discussion topics: (1) international cooperation in generating leads; (2) best practices
for international cooperation in investigating corruption cases; (3) international cooperation in
the trial of corruption cases; and (4) international cooperation relating to asset recovery.

PURPOSE OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
To combat corruption in the modern era, investigators and prosecutors must engage in thecollection of evidence, information and assets from foreign jurisdictions. Evidence collected
through this process must be admissible and material; information in the form of leads orsuspicious transaction reports can lead to increased enforcement and, in the long run,prevention of corruption; assets, the proceeds of corruption, must be repatriated to the country
from which the proceeds were taken. Although common experience suggests that the processof obtaining evidence, information and assets from foreign jurisdictions is often a time
consuming and discouraging process, this mindset needs to change.
HYPOTHETICAL CASE
MR. SENTA presented a hypothetical case demonstrating the complexity of conducting
investigations in other jurisdictions, but the case also showed that evidence and information
can be obtained through means of informal assistance, which can result in the collection ofleads and evidence that will lead to successful prosecution. Thus, pursuing informal assistance
before resorting to a formal MLA request is generally a best practice. The hypothetical casedemonstrated a number of important concepts: (1) investigators should be content with thelevel of assistance they can realistically obtain from foreign counterparts, (2) investigators
should undertake all possible efforts to prove the case within their own jurisdiction before
seeking international assistance, (3) mutual legal assistance (MLA) should only be resorted to
if it is indispensable to the case, and (4) before sending a formal request, investigators should
engage in open dialogue with the requested authority to make sure that the request has a highprobability of being acted upon by the requested state.
THE LOS ANGELES CASE
MR. SENTA also presented a particularly successful drug-smuggling case involving
international cooperation that he had worked on as a Japanese public prosecutor. MR. SENTA
succeeded in his mission to obtain written statements from witnesses in the United States, andsome of the keys to success were: (1) a good working relationship had already been establishedbetween the officers in Los Angeles and the investigators in Japan; (2) the central authorities
of both countries were very cooperative; (3) Japan had a legal attaché in Washington D.C.; (4)informal consultation had taken place prior to the submission of the formal MLA request; andlast but not least, (5) the US permitted the Japanese investigators to be present during theexecution of the request in Los Angeles (i.e., the recording of the witnesses’ statements.
UNDERSTANDING THE JUDICIARY
Finally, it is important to remember that judges act independently and do not take orders fromany other authority. Thus, to draft formal MLA requests that are likely to be enforced by judges
in foreign jurisdictions, it is important to cooperate with prosecutors in the requested
jurisdiction so that expert advice can be obtained on drafting requests that comply with thejurisdiction’s laws in order to increase the likelihood that they will be granted.

VISITING EXPERT’S LECTURE
6. DR. KIM HAN-KYUN, Research Fellow at the Korean Institute of Criminology, delivered his
lecture on the topic of Contemporary Measures for Effective International Cooperation in theFight Against Corruption—International Cooperation for Anti-Corruption: South KoreanPractices. With ratification of UNCAC by 178 states parties (as of December 2015), theConvention has established opposition to corruption as a global norm and made the eliminationof corruption a global aspiration. UNCAC focuses on four key areas: prevention,
criminalization, international cooperation, and asset recovery. To achieve UNCAC’s anticorruption goals, the UNODC has released a guide titled The United Nations Convention
against Corruption National Anti-Corruption Strategies: A Practical Guide for Development
and Implementation (2015). The guide lays out specific strategies such as fighting corruption
within the political, social, economic and cultural context of each state; generating sufficient
political will; the involvement of civil society and so on. Accordingly, the guide recommends
that each country should develop an action plan with clearly identified responsibilities andtimelines for implementation of the national strategy. Moreover, the guide identifies a generalprocess for asset recovery, which includes the steps of asset tracking, securing the assets,
engaging in the court process, enforcing orders and repatriation of the assets to the requesting
country. To develop procedures and practices for asset recovery, the Stolen Asset Recovery(StAR) Initiative focuses on training, technical assistance and building partnerships with andbetween jurisdictions. Other resources include the UNODC Digest of Asset Recovery Cases,
the StAR Initiative’s Asset Recovery Handbook, and the UNODC’s Mutual Legal Assistance
Request Writer Tool.1
REGIONAL COOPERATIONAt the regional level, the Asset Recovery Network-Asia Pacific (ARIN-AP) has beendeveloped, with South Korea serving as the network’s secretariat. ARIN-AP is an informal
network to overcome the challenge of cross-border cooperation to combat money laundering.
Because ARIN-AP is not a formal institution with legally binding obligations, members cancooperate quickly and informally in asset recovery cases, whether or not they have ratified
bilateral or multilateral MLA treaties. The network is intended as a developmental step toward
the establishment of an AsiaJust programme.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN KOREA
In Korea, the Anti-Corruption Department of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office is primarily
responsible for international cooperation in the fields of corruption and asset recovery, and has
specialized teams dedicated to accounting analysis, money tracking, asset forfeiture, andfinancial intelligence. The government of Korea has entered into MLA treaties with 27
jurisdictions and extradition treaties with 30 jurisdictions. International cooperation typicallytakes the form of information exchange, joint investigation and deportation of criminals. MR.
KIM concluded his presentation by reviewing a case of asset recovery in which criminal
proceeds, for the first time, were successfully recovered from the United States under the
Korea-US MLAT, which has been in force since 1997.

COUNTRY PRESENTATIONS
7. VIET NAM: A number of institutions are involved in the fight against corruption, such as theCentral Steering Committee on Anti-Corruption, which makes strategies, policies and plans,
the Supreme People’s Procuracy, which prosecutes corruption, the Ministry of Public Security,
which conducts criminal investigations, and the State Bank of Viet Nam, which serves as theanti-money-laundering agency. Regarding international cooperation, Viet Nam ratified
1

Available at <http://www.unodc. org/unodc/access_request.html>.

UNCAC in 2009 and grants MLA requests pursuant to MLA treaties or based on reciprocity;
dual criminality is required. Regarding extradition, the Ministry of Public Security serves as
the Central Authority, and Vietnamese nationals cannot be extradited; in the case of extradition
requests, dual criminality is an optional ground for refusal. The participants also presented twocases studies. In a successful case involving Viet Nam and Japan, both sides exchanged
documents that established the bribery of Vietnamese officials by a Japanese company, andpersons in both countries were successfully prosecuted. The second case was the Bio-Rad
Laboratories case in which company officials were accused of making improper payments toVietnamese government officials. The case was discovered in Viet Nam through public
documents obtained from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, but the
documents did not contain information on the individuals in Viet Nam who were involved in
the improper payment scheme. Viet Nam submitted a formal MLA request to the US seeking
additional documents and evidence. After a face-to-face meeting with the US legal attaché, theVietnamese were told that they had not complied with certain requirements listed on the MLA
request form, including the initiation of a formal investigation before submitting the request.
Although the US officials had resolved their case against Bio-Rad by imposing a monetary
penalty of 55 million USD, no Bio-Rad officials were prosecuted. This case demonstrates thatdifferences in legal systems and lack of coordination between authorities may reduce theeffectiveness of requests for assistance. The participants from Viet Nam stressed theimportance of overcoming differences among legal systems through frequent consultations
among practitioners, developing friendships and goodwill, and enhancing the willingness tocooperate in order to successfully deal with criminal matters.
8. THAILAND: Formal and informal assistance, as well as technical assistance and capacitybuilding, are fundamental forms of international cooperation. Regarding formal assistance, thegovernment of Thailand ratified UNCAC in 2011 and has entered into bilateral and multilateral MLATs and extradition treaties. Thailand had previously criminalized bribery, bid
rigging, other fraudulent acts and money laundering predicated on corruption. In addition,
Thailand had established the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Public Sector
Anti-Corruption Commission as government agencies to investigate corruption among
politicians, executive officials and other public officials. Furthermore, good governance in theprivate sector is regulated by the Public Company Limited Act and the Securities and ExchangeAct. When territorial and jurisdictional limitations prevent direct investigation of corruption by
Thai authorities, they are empowered by law to seek and render mutual legal assistance by way
of formal requests sent through Thailand’s Attorney General as its Central Authority. The Act
on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters authorizes Thai authorities to seek andprovide formal assistance including, inter alia, locating persons, conducting searches andseizures, and taking witness statements and testimony. Extradition is also permitted by law if
the penalty in the requesting jurisdiction is more than one year, dual criminality is satisfied,
and the offence is not political or military in nature. Cases presented during the presentation
demonstrate that Thailand faces the challenges of pursuing corrupt officials beyond national
borders, the length of time required to secure the extradition of officials back to Thailand, andthe difficulty of repatriating proceeds and allocating costs of anti-corruption enforcement.
9. SINGAPORE: Corruption investigations are becoming more complex and time consuming due
to the growing trend of criminals who abscond to other countries and hide bribery proceeds
overseas. Accordingly, there is great need for cooperation between law enforcement agencies
to fight transnational bribery and other crimes. Regarding formal cooperation, the Attorney
General’s Chambers is designated as Singapore’s Central Authority based on the Mutual
Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MACMA) while the CPIB investigates corruption cases

and provides assistance to foreign agencies as they prepare their formal MLA requests.
Singapore has extradition agreements with the USA, Germany, Hong Kong SAR, as well as
the 40 declared Commonwealth countries. The CBIP also engages in informal cooperation to
generate leads and provide informal assistance prior to the receipt of formal requests. Informalcooperation is facilitated through regular communication with the investigative agencies inother jurisdictions, as well as through participation in SEA-PAC and other bilateral working
groups. The CPIB also shares financial intelligence among FIUs in the form of suspicioustransaction reports and utilizes INTERPOL for information sharing of intelligence, theidentification of crime trends and for training in investigation. Joint operations are a key
practice employed by the CPIB. Although joint operations can only be used for intelligencegathering and investigation, they allow quick and efficient sharing of information and facilitate
the drafting of formal MLA requests, ensuring that necessary evidence is preserved throughproper chain-of-custody procedures and so on. Singapore presented two case studies on joint
operations, which demonstrated the importance of information sharing and collaboration
among authorities, inter alia, to synchronize searches and seizures in both jurisdictions toprevent dissipation of evidence and to maintain close cooperation and timely exchange of
information, which may allow cases to proceed in both countries without the need for theexchange of formal MLA requests.
10. PHILIPPINES: The participants from the Philippines focused on the legislative framework to
combat money laundering and explained the development of the law through amendments toclose loopholes in the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA). Money laundering was
criminalized in the Philippines in 2001, and the AMLA authorizes the investigation of
suspicious transactions, the institution of civil forfeiture, rendering assistance to foreign
governments seeking assistance to combat money laundering and so on. Despite these powers,
the Philippines was non-compliant with FATF standards; in response, the Philippines
undertook a series of remedial amendments. These amendments strengthened legal provisions
on freeze orders and bank inquiries, and they also expanded the definition of “covered
institutions” to natural and juridical persons and clarified the authority of the Anti-Money
Laundering Council to freeze money or property through ex parte proceedings. Despite these
efforts, the $81 million Bangladesh cyberheist demonstrates that loopholes still remain, andlaw enforcement authorities still face challenges in supressing money laundering, particularly
in reference to the regulation of casinos. A comprehensive and effective AMLA including
provisions that regulate the flow of money through casinos, together with timely
implementation and effective enforcement, will certainly reduce the profitable aspects ofcriminal activity and, ultimately, discourage criminals from pursuing their illicit trade.
11. MYANMAR: The government of Myanmar is fighting corruption through strategies to enhance
prevention, investigation and prosecution, and international cooperation. Regarding theprevention of corruption, the new government elected in 2016 has issued a directive limiting
the value of gifts to public officials to about 25 USD, and the government recognizes the needfor public-private partnership to combat corruption, as demonstrated through its efforts to raise
public awareness of anti-corruption policies during major public festivals. When corrupt actsare detected, investigation and prosecution proceed under Myanmar’s new anti-corruption
legislation. In August 2013, Myanmar adopted its second anti-corruption law and repealed thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1948. The new law established the 15-member Anti-Corruption
Commission, which is appointed by the President with the approval of the Parliament andwhich is responsible to the President of the Union. The Commission is responsible for
conducting investigations into allegations of corruption and illicit enrichment. When

allegations are received, the Commission forms investigation boards, which are chaired by amember of the Commission and are also composed of appointed citizens. Preliminary scrutiny
boards are formed on a case-by-case basis. These investigating bodies are empowered to ordersearches and seizures of money and property, inspect and copy relevant documents and conduct
suspect and witness interviews. If the suspect can explain the legality of his or her conduct, thesuspect may be excused. Where grounds exist, the Commission can order the investigative
board to file suit against the suspect in the appropriate court. From 2014 to 2016, a total of
2,108 complaints were received by the Commission; 8 were acted on by the Commission, 8
were acted on under the Civil Servants Regulation, and 482 cases were transferred to therelevant ministry. Myanmar continues to face the challenge of suspects and witnesses
absconding after they are brought before the investigation board, and Myanmar is considering
appropriate amendments to its laws and rules. Myanmar also engages in international
cooperation through a variety of frameworks. Myanmar’s domestic law on international
cooperation is the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Law (2004), which was draftedwith the help of the UNODC and the FATF. The Ministry of Home Affairs serves as the Central
Authority for MLA requests related to corruption cases. Myanmar has ratified UNCAC and theASEAN Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty and participates in SEA-PAC and other internationalorganizations.
12. MALAYSIA: The legal bases for MLA in Malaysia are the Mutual Assistance in Criminal
Matters Act 2002 (MACMA), bilateral and multilateral treaties, and Special Direction of the
Minister of Law under section 18 of MACMA. MACMA establishes the Attorney General as
the Central Authority for MLA, and authorizes assistance such as providing and obtaining
evidence, conducting searches and seizures, identification and tracing of proceeds of crime orproperty and so on. Malaysia also provides informal assistance, which should always be thefirst step in the MLA process. Examples of informal assistance include, arranging witness
statements, location and identification of witnesses or suspects, and service of process. A
common challenge in the field of MLA and extradition is the timing and urgency of the MLA
request. The requested state requires time to process the request and to seek approval andexecution of the request by the court. Another challenge is the requesting state’s understandingof the laws and procedures of the requested state and the submission of requests withinsufficient or incomplete information. These challenges might be overcome throughprofessional networking between officers and agencies, consultation on laws and proceduresof the requested state and pursuing informal requests for assistance. Furthermore, theeffectiveness of MLA can be enhanced by implementing the following best practices:
reviewing relevant guidance from the requested authority on its website, the identification ofcontact persons for handling requests, consultation between the requesting and requested
authority, establishing monitoring systems on the progress of requests, and internal networking
between central and executing authorities.
13. LAOS: The participants from Laos provided an overview of the country’s strategy to combat
corruption. In 1999, the Lao government saw a large increase of corruption, especially in the
public sector. In response, the government issued an anti-corruption decree that expanded
auditing of state budgets. In 2001, the State Inspection and Anti-Corruption Authority wasestablished, and that agency answers directly to the prime minister. Laos signed UNCAC in2003 and ratified it in 2009; since then, Laos has engaged in the UNCAC implementation
review process. Laos has criminalized (1) acceptance of bribes by government officials, (2) theact of bribing foreign officials and officials of international organizations, (3) trading in
influence, (4) private-sector bribery and (5) money laundering. To strengthen enforcement,

Laos has criminalized obstruction of justice, enacted measures for witness protection, andengages in the practice of asset seizure and confiscation. Despite these measures, Laos still has
many needs to strengthen enforcement, such as technical assistance and training, capacitybuilding to develop qualified human resources, and modern technology and equipment. It is
important for Laos to continue working closely with international organizations and countries
that have been garnering experience and knowledge on these matters for years. Thus, inaddition to working through fora such as SEA-PAC, Laos has participated in the United
Nations Implementation Review Programme to ensure that its legislation and practices
continue to improve.
14. INDONESIA: The participant from the Attorney General’s Office stressed the importance of
informal cooperation to the fight against crime and corruption, and noted that knowledge andflexibility are important characteristics for the success of anti-corruption officials. With regard
to formal cooperation, Indonesia has signed extradition treaties with 10 countries. Indonesia
can extradite to treaty and non-treaty partners, though the procedures are somewhat different.
Pursuant to law, Indonesia offers mutual legal assistance, such as identifying and locating
persons, conducting searches and seizures, freezing and confiscating property and so on. MLA
treaties have been entered into with a number of countries in the region, and Indonesia is aparty to the ASEAN MLAT. Cooperation between a country’s prosecutors and its Central
Authority is very important because prosecutors are skilled practitioners in the country’s
judicial system. This is necessary, for example, to address issues of admissibility of evidence
obtained from foreign jurisdictions. In addition to formal assistance, informal assistance canbe rendered in the form of informal evidence gathering and in the form of deportation or
expulsion from the country as an alternative to extradition. The participant from the KPK
introduced the agency’s broad role in combating corruption, which includes investigating
corruption cases, freezing bank accounts, conducting undercover operations, conducting joint
investigations, processing MLA and extradition requests, training and capacity-building and soon. The participant from the KPK also presented two case studies demonstrating theeffectiveness of informal agency-to-agency communication in order to obtain speedy andsuccessful assistance.
15. CAMBODIA: The participant from Cambodia explained the country’s anti-corruption
enforcement mechanism and MLA procedures. The Anti-Corruption Institution comprises two
sections: the National Council Against Corruption (NCAC) and the Anti-Corruption Unit
(ACU). The NCAC develops anti-corruption strategies in five areas, namely education,
prevention and obstruction, law enforcement, national and international cooperation, and good
governance and internal control; the ACU has the exclusive power to investigate corruption.
Cambodia engages in bilateral and multilateral cooperation through UNCAC, MLATs, andMOUs. Regarding MLA, the Ministry of Justice is currently drafting the Law on Mutual Legal
Assistance. Despite the lack of specific legislation, Cambodia received 42 requests for MLA
in criminal matters and 36 requests in civil cases between 2012 and 2014 from countries
including the US, the UK and EU member states; between 2012 and 2013, Cambodia sent 27
requests in criminal cases and 34 in civil cases. Successful cases of informal assistance wereintroduced. For example, the ACU collaborated with the Corruption Eradication Commissionof Indonesia (KPK) and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) of Singapore to
exchange information through focal persons nominated by each agency. As a result of
collaboration between the ACU and the KPK, the suspect was arrested and sent back toIndonesia. In addition, the ACU and the CPIB have cooperated in the exchange of informationand support related to court procedures, information gathering and evidence collection, andobtaining interviews and recorded statements so that the CPIB could use the evidence legallyin court. Cambodia reported facing a number of challenges in the fight against corruption,
including the need to develop technical expertise in the fields of investigation, forensic science,
law, accounting and procurement, as well as the need for technical equipment.
16. BRUNEI: The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of Brunei presented a case study demonstrating
its close cooperation with the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission, which has existed since
2002, through a bilateral cooperation Working Group for the purposes of cooperation andinformation sharing in the fields of intelligence and investigation. The Working Group acts asa focal point for mutual legal assistance. In the course of the investigation of a criminal who
gave smugglers tips to reduce customs duties on cigarettes, the ACB was able to use theWorking Group to obtain necessary information from Malaysia, such as bank accountinformation that identified a Malaysian national’s involvement in the cheating scheme. As aresult of further cooperation from the MACC, including obtaining a witness statement from the
Malaysian national, the ACB was able to build its case against the criminal in Brunei, who wasconvicted and imprisoned as a result. Thus, the bilateral agreement proved the effectiveness of
exchanging information and gathering evidence involving cross-border and transnational crime.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSIn the modern era, technology facilitates the rapid transfer of communications, funds andpeople all around the world. This technology allows criminals engaged in corruption to quickly
and effectively hide their criminal proceeds and abscond to foreign jurisdictions. As a result,corruption investigations are becoming more complex and time consuming. Anti-corruption
practitioners increasingly need specialized skills and technology in order to track criminals,
and they rely on goodwill and professional relationships to pursue criminals in foreign
jurisdictions. In light of the time-consuming nature of formal MLA requests, informalcooperation between anti-corruption agencies and practitioners of different countries enhances
the speed of information sharing, as well as the chances of successful prosecution.
A. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN GENERATING LEADSInformal information sharing between investigators in different jurisdictions is the dominant
practice for generating leads on corruption cases. In addition to discovering the identities andmodi operandi of individuals engaged in corrupt acts, financial intelligence—throughsuspicious transaction reports—can identify money laundering and help connect illicit
proceeds with the criminals who attempt to launder them. Thus, anti-corruption investigators
should actively pursue stronger contacts with their counterparts in other jurisdictions with theaim of generating leads and increasing anti-corruption enforcement.
B. BEST PRACTICES FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION CASES
Formal requests for assistance have their limits. Throughout the seminar, there was substantial
agreement that formal requests should only be resorted to if they are absolutely indispensable
to the case, and before submitting a formal request, investigators should engage in open
dialogue with the authorities of the requested state to ensure that the request has a highprobability of being granted. With these concepts in mind, all participating countries stressed
the importance of informal cooperation, which is particularly useful for obtaining speedy andsuccessful assistance. Though it takes many forms, informal cooperation includes joint

operations or investigations, and a number of countries reported success in the use of this model.
Benefits of joint operations include enhanced exchanges of information, synchronized searches
and seizures in both jurisdictions to prevent dissipation of evidence, and the timely exchange
of information, allowing cases to proceed in both jurisdictions without the need to exchange
formal MLA requests. Finally, all countries reported engagement in regional MLA treaties orfora, such as the ASEAN MLAT and SEA-PAC. Accordingly, all countries are encouraged toconsider using these practices to comprehensively enhance anti-corruption investigation.
C. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN THE TRIAL OF CORRUPTION CASES
Corruption trials can only be successful if the evidence submitted is admissible in court.
Evidence collected and testimony secured through international cooperation must comply withthe rules of evidence in the jurisdiction in which the trial takes place. Thus, the steps taken
during the investigation stage to preserve the admissibility of evidence by establishing a proper
chain of custody or to ensure that witness statements or testimony are procedurally sound can
win or lose the case at trial. Likewise, prosecutors seeking execution of MLA and extradition
requests cannot prevail at court hearings if they lack the information, evidence or arguments
necessary to persuade the judge to grant the request. Thus, close cooperation between
investigators and prosecutors, domestically and internationally, is critically important toachieve success at court hearings and trials.
D. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION RELATING TO ASSET RECOVERY
If money laundering is successful and the proceeds of corruption cannot be traced, asset
recovery becomes impossible. The process of asset recovery includes the technical and timeconsuming steps of asset tracking, securing the assets, engaging in the court process, enforcing
court orders and repatriation of the proceeds to the requesting country. The exchange offinancial intelligence is crucial to the first step of asset tracing, and a combination of informal
and formal assistance is often necessary to successfully recover illicit assets. However, casessuch as the Bangladesh cyberheist demonstrate that loopholes in domestic anti-moneylaundering legislation can thwart or reduce the ability to recover assets. In addition, due to thetechnical nature of financial analysis and banking practices, investigators and prosecutors
involved in asset recovery should enhance their specialized knowledge and skills by making
use of training, technical assistance and the development of professional networks throughprogrammes such as the StAR Initiative, as well as other forms of cooperation such as ARINAP.

28 JULY 2016
YOGYAKARTA, INDONESIA