GROUP 4
EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO DETECT, INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE
HIGH-PROFILE CORRUPTION
Rapporteur: Ms. Mariam Galstyan (Armenia)
Co-Rapporteur: Ms. Gulzhan Shugumbayeva (Kazakhstan)
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Members

Advisers

Mr. Sanjeev Pokharel
Mr. YOSHIKAWA Takuya
Ms. TAKAHASHI Kana
Mr. Faisal Majeed Khan
Ms. Silawan Panom
Mr. Thanh Thuy NguyenProf. WATANABE Machiko(Nepal)(Japan)(Japan)(Pakistan)(Thailand)(Viet Nam)
(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
In the process of detection, investigation and prosecution of corruption crimes, whistle-blowers, witnesses
and accomplices play an indisputable role. It should be highlighted that in the cases related to high-profile
corruption, the above-mentioned subjects have become more vulnerable, and the need of effective protection
guaranties acquires a crucial importance.
Despite the existence of the legislative provisions and toolkits aimed at protection of witnesses, accomplices,
as well as whistle-blowers, the effective measures to encourage them to report corruption and to facilitate
their cooperation with criminal justice authorities remains an issue for the group member countries.
Taking into consideration the above-mentioned, the group has agreed to select two interrelated subtopics,
which are “Effective measures to encourage reporting from witnesses, accomplices, whistle-blowers, etc. andto ensure credibility of their testimony” and “Effective measures to facilitate witness and accomplicecooperation with criminal justice authorities”.

II. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
A. Effective Measures to Encourage Reporting from Witnesses, Accomplices, Whistle-blowers
Participants from Armenia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Nepal and Pakistan stated that appropriate legislation onwhistle-blower protection is in place in their countries, while the representative of Viet Nam stressed theabsence of specific law on whistle-blower protection. The participant from Thailand touched upon the pointthat although there are no specific laws on whistle-blowers, the “Witness protection act” is also applied towhistle-blowers. Regarding the legal provisions on protection of witnesses and accomplices, the participants
stated that legislation of their respective countries provides regulations on witness and accomplice protection;nevertheless, in some countries there are loopholes and gaps.
1. Challenges and Issues of Encouraging Reporting
Taking into consideration the fact that almost all issues and challenges are equally applicable to whistleblowers, witnesses and accomplices, the group has agreed to discuss the challenges and issues together. So,
the following issues and challenges were identified by discussion of the group.
(a) Social bonds
As one of the main challenges, the participants indicated social bonds. According to the representatives
from Japan, Armenia and Kazakhstan, whistle-blowers, witnesses and accomplices are often constrained bypublic opinion. In this regard, the main challenge is related to the fact that the neighbours, relatives, colleagues,etc. will be aware of their reporting, which is not preferred; therefore, most of them restrain themselves fromreporting.

183

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 110(b) Social acceptance/lack of awarenessAll participants stated that one of the main challenges to reporting corruption is either social acceptanceor lack of awareness, which are closely interrelated. As regards social acceptance, it should be highlighted
that the citizens of Kazakhstan, Armenia and Pakistan share the opinion that it is not socially acceptable toreport corruption they witnessed. However, citizens of Viet Nam, Thailand and Japan find that it is highly
acceptable to report corruption.
Another main challenge on which all participants agreed, and which is related to social acceptance, is thelow level of awareness and anti-corruption education. The lack of awareness concerns equally low level ofknowledge of legislation, citizens’ rights in case of reporting and measures implemented by the governments.
(c) Political pressure/interventionParticipants stressed that the process of detection, investigation and adjudication of high–profile cases isvery often marked with political intervention and influence which becomes a discouraging issue for people
to report. As an example, in Pakistan, if the complaint is against politicians, the portfolio can be used toinitiate prosecution against reporters. In case of Viet Nam, the suspected politician can indirectly affect those
who have reported against them by using relations, their secrets, or by bribing them.
(d) Threats—physical and economic
All participants agreed that yet another of the main challenges to the reporting of corruption is the fear
which manifests itself in two main forms: physical threats or economic pressure. As an example of threatsof physical violence, 30 witnesses were killed in Pakistan by the order of one of the leaders of a politicalparty. In Japan and Armenia, people are more worried about their economic situations, such as being laid off,dismissed, etc.
(e) Lack of trust towards the authorities
Some participants (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Pakistan and Viet Nam) raised the issue of inefficiency of theinvestigation process which can be caused by different factors such as lack of capacity, resources andspecialization of investigators, lack of motivation-(perks/allowances, promotion), absence of contemporary
technologies, as well as involvement of law-enforcement agencies in corruption in the process of investigation.
Participants from Pakistan stressed the issue that lengthy trials are discouraging people from reporting
corruption.
(f) Lack of motivation
Participants from Kazakhstan and Pakistan stated that for whistle-blowers a reward mechanism exists,
but in Kazakhstan the reward is not sufficient for the whistle-blowers to entice them to report. Moreover,the mechanisms of reward, including the time period, are not efficient, which creates grounds for lack ofmotivation.
(g) Fear of punishment
As regards accomplices, the participants agreed that the main challenge is the fear of being punished incase of reporting corruption. In this regard, in many countries no mechanism is in place to encouragereporting of corruption.
2. Challenges and Issues of Ensuring Credibility of Testimony
The group discussed and agreed that the main challenges of the credibility of testimony of witnesses andaccomplices are as follows:(a) False statements to avoid or mitigate punishment
This challenge mainly relates to the accomplice. The other interrelated challenge which is applicable forboth witnesses and accomplices is false statements to incriminate an innocent person.
(b) Changing testimony
The participants agreed that changing testimony occurs for two principal reasons: one of them is theintentional change which can be caused by influence, business, political, family relationships, and the other isan unintentional change.

184

173RD INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE PROGRAMME
B. Effective Measures to Facilitate Witness and Accomplice Cooperation with Criminal JusticeAuthorities
The participants have agreed that the challenges related to the facilitation of cooperation are closely
related to those already discussed above. The participants agreed that the main challenge is in the phase oftestifying, taking into consideration the fact that the court is public, and witnesses sometimes do not preferto testify because of fear and/or social bonds.

III. SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS AND BEST PRACTICES
It is not easy to fight against corruption as it is carried out secretly between bribe givers and takers
where both parties get benefits. Hence, the transaction is always top secret. There are a lot of attempts
made at the local (country) level and the global level. The best practices to solve the issues raised above arestated below.
A. Solutions and Practices to Encourage Reporting
To encourage reporting is a big challenge. Therefore, all participants agreed that the main solutions toovercome the lack of social bonds, as well as social acceptance challenges, are the implementation of wideawareness-raising campaigns and educational programmes. The latter can include active announcement ofsuccess stories on corruption cases using news media, advertisement of reporting by involvement of respected
and influential people, clear messages from high-level officials aimed at encouraging reporting and announcing
zero tolerance, and dissemination and promotion of anti-corruption education since childhood. As examples,the zero-tolerance principle of Nepal and the anti-corruption educational modules in Armenia and Kazakhstan
can be mentioned.
The participants agreed that the best practice to resolve the political intervention is to create a Joint
Investigation Team (JIT), which is successfully practiced in Pakistan and Nepal. Similarly, Hong Kong
ICAC’s practice can be useful, which applies institutional and functional independence, especially the existenceof the Operations Review Committee composed of regular citizens with different backgrounds in charge ofoversight of ICAC and thereby decreasing the risk of influence
Participants discussed the practices of their respective countries to solve the threat challenge. In thisregard, strong guaranties of protection shall be in place for encouraging persons to report. The participants
have agreed that, first of all, relevant legislation is required to protect whistle-blowers, accomplices andwitnesses. Moreover, for whistle-blowers guarantees of anonymity and confidentiality shall be in place. As
an example, in Armenia, Nepal and Pakistan, an electronic platform for anonymous reporting is in place
which enables hiding the IP address of the whistle-blower. As regards the economic threats, a prohibition ofunfair treatment towards whistle-blowers and the right of restitution and reimbursement of salary in caseof dismissal are in place in Japan, Armenia and Thailand. For witnesses and accomplices, the participants
agreed that in case of existing legal provisions, strong mechanisms for implementation, such as ensuringpersonal security, taking the protected person to another place of residence, altering appearance, changing
the workplace, etc., shall be ensured.
Participants also stated that the most effective way to create trust towards law-enforcement agencies isby raising the accountability and showing concrete results, as well as by strengthening their capacities, byorganizing systematic training and motivating the concerned officers. Concerning the issue of lengthy trials,
the group agreed that a mechanism of prioritizing cases is required.
The participants agreed that one of the most effective means to encourage people to report is providing
sufficient motivation. In this regard, some of the participants suggested a monetary reward mechanism. For
instance, in Pakistan a new law on whistle-blowing has been recently adopted which provides for monetary
rewards for whistle-blowers (20% of the recovered sum). The same provisions are in place in Kazakhstan.
Nevertheless, the participant from Kazakhstan has suggested to increase the percentage of the reward to
make it more attractive. The other group of participants stated that the motivation to report should not be
the monetary value, but the sense of public duty. And in this regard, educational and awareness-raisingmeasures should be systematically organized. The participants agreed on the solution that one of the effective
measures to encourage accomplices to report without fear of punishment is to consider the adoption ofmeasures that encourage cooperation with law enforcement, such as cooperative agreements in Japan.
185

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 110
B. Solutions and Practices to Ensure the Credibility of Testimony
Concerning the challenge of credibility of testimony of witnesses and accomplices, the participants statedthat detailed analysis of provided testimonials and data including documents, email, audio, video by means ofusing digital evidence, can be practiced. The relationships between witness, defendant and other related
persons are to be identified. Participants also have agreed to introduce the system of Japan, which makes
use of witness screens and video-link systems in order to prevent the witnesses and accomplices from being
influenced by the defendant and the public in court. Similarly, the participants agreed that in all countries inthis group, in order to ensure the credibility of testimony, a mechanism for incrimination of false testimony
exists. Some of the participants have suggested to cross-check the credibility with the use of lie detectors.
In order to overcome the unintentional challenges, the group has agreed to introduce speedy trial systems.
C. Facilitating Witness and Accomplice Cooperation with Criminal Justice Authorities
In order to facilitate accomplice cooperation, some participants stated that there should be exemption
from criminal liability. In that sense, participants have agreed to consider the use of the experience of theUnited States and the United Kingdom with respect to plea agreements, plea bargaining, deferred prosecutionagreements, as well as Japan’s introduction of cooperative agreements. The group also agreed that forparticular cases a mechanism on interrogating the witnesses and accomplices in the court without disclosing
his identifying information should be introduced. For this point also the participants agreed that putting up
a screen and video-link system in order to prevent the witnesses and accomplices from being influenced by
the defendant and the public in court should be applied.

IV. CONCLUSION
In this way, solutions and best practices were identified through group discussions. However, systematic
measures shall be taken in every country to ensure practical enforcement of suggested solutions. It is also
recommended to adjust and update measures regularly in order to cope with the changing situation.

186