REPORTS OF THE PROGRAMMEGROUP 2IDENTIFYING AND PUNISHING CORRUPT OFFENDERS II(EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO ACQUIRE NECESSARY COOPERATIONFROM RELEVANT PERSONS AND PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ENTITIESTHROUGH DETECTION, INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL)
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

AdviserMr. Jose Alexandre Pinto Nunes
Mr. Shingo Aoyama
Ms. Lalaine Delmendo Benitez
Ms. Maria da Graça de Vasconcelos
Mr. Manzur Ahmed
Mr. Sovannara Samreth
Mr. Chanthaly Douangvilay
Mr. Bold Perenlei
Mr. Timothy Gitua
Mr. Mitsuo Iwata
Mr. Tetsuro Sato
Prof. Shinichiro Iwashita(Brazil)(Japan)(Philippines)(Timor-Leste)(Bangladesh)(Cambodia)(Laos)(Mongolia)(Papua New Guinea)(Japan)(Japan)(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
The group elected Mr. Jose Alexandre Pinto Nunes as Chairman and Mr. Shingo Aoyama as Co-Chairman.
Rapporteurs are Lalaine Delmendo Benitez and Maria Graca De Vasconcelos. The group proceeded to discuss
the current situation of corruption in their respective countries.

II. CURRENT SITUATION OF CORRUPTION
The group decided that each participant would report on the current situations of corruption in theircountries. There were several specific cases of corruption cited by each participant. The consensus is toclassify these different problems into major issues relating them to specific criminal action.
The current situations of corruption were then classified under these major headings: irregularities
in the procurement process in the public sector; misappropriation; nepotism – appointment of unqualified
persons; abuse of official position/power; bribery; embezzlement of public funds/property; fraud; moneylaundering; illicit enrichment; interference by politicians; misconduct in office and trading in influence
The majority of the participants expressed that corruption in the public procurement process is consideredas the most problematic. It was observed that this is prevalent in the areas of public works, local government,
and bidding for services and supplies. These irregularities in the procurement process are related to the casesof bribery of government officials who accept bribes in order to award government contracts for public works,
services and supplies. This results in the award of contracts to undeserving bidders or contractors who
deliver substandard materials and services. This kind of corruption affects the delivery of public services
and the quality of services and materials. There are times that the projects are not completed on time orare not completed at all. These irregularities in the procurement process also give rise to other crimes likemisappropriation of funds, embezzlement, diversion of public funds, and the abuse of power.
Some cases of fraud that were cited are tax fraud and salary fraud. In salary fraud, employees receive
double salaries from different agencies. Cases of fraud may also involve payment of ghost employees
and ghost projects. There are also bank frauds where loans are given without sufficient collateral, false
supporting documents and funding of inexistent projects. This case of bank fraud also involved misconduct ofbank officials
It was observed by several participants that their specific cases of corruption will actually fall within the
major headings above. There were several opinions regarding money-laundering. Some consider it a crimein itself while others consider it as a result of other corrupt acts like embezzlement, fraud, bribery and illicit
enrichment.

156

15TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEREPORTS OF THE PROGRAMMEThe discussion about the impacts of corruption showed that the consequences, in general, are the samein every country.
The group listed the following impacts: implementation of law enforcement; people having difficulty
getting an efficient public service and facing its poor quality; big gaps between poor people and rich people;
negative effects on the quality of life; erosion of trust in the government; people are no longer concernedwith the quality of their work because the contractors bribed the government officials; increased costs ofcompanies because of the bribes they have to pay; losses to the public treasury when the price paid for
public works includes the bribe money given to officials; failure to recover these losses; non-completionof the contracted work; projects by government agencies are hampered always, like those sponsored by
the World Bank (sometimes they stop funding the projects); public works are not bid competitively; moral
degradation — connection between the criminals and the law enforcers; inequality in the distribution of
wealth, increased unemployment; politics is viewed as a major source of income instead of as a public
service; negative effects on the market prices; collusion between private and public officials, creation offictitious or infeasible companies because they only want to get money.
Analyzing the situations above, and based on the discussions by the group, the major consequencesof corruption can be summarized as follows: losses to the economy, losses to the public treasury, lack ofaccessibility of public services by the population and loss of trust in public officers.

III. CRIMINALIZATION
Most of the participants stated that their countries have implemented a majority of the provisions of the
UNCAC. Some countries expressed that the provisions on illegal enrichment and corruption in the private
sector are not yet implemented. The discussion covered the following points:
In some countries, laws on illicit enrichment exist but have not yet been implemented or this practice iscovered by the law on unlawful acquisition of wealth. There are countries where there is, as of yet, no law onillicit enrichment.
Embezzlement in the private sector can be punished by different provisions of law, which may be thegeneral criminal code or through specific laws. On matters of bank secrecy, there is access if a warrant isissued by a judge.
In most countries, there are, as of yet, no laws to punish bribery in the private sector. As such, corruption
in the private sector is not yet the subject of legislation or implementation.
Measures to freeze assets have not been sufficiently implemented. There is a need to elaborate more on
the process of such freezing and the need for coordination when different countries are involved.
In some countries there are, as of yet, no whistle-blower laws. These laws are relatively new to somecountries so that there has been no effective implementation. The same is true for the protection of
witnesses.
Specifically in Bangladesh, most are covered. There are laws on bribery and money-laundering. Thereis no law punishing foreign public officials involved in bribery. There is a lack of practical implementation.
Money-laundering laws exist but need more international cooperation to recover money and to collectevidence from foreign countries. There is a lack of implementation of Articles 16, 21, 41, 45, 47 and 49.
There is weak implementation of Articles 27, 32, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 48, 50, 51 and 53.
In Cambodia, a majority of the provisions of UNCAC exist. There is most probably a lack of implementationof Article 22 (embezzlement of property in the private sector). It was pointed out that money-laundering
seems to be a new problem for Cambodia. As such there is a recognized need to do more in criminalizing and in
improving implementation.
In Laos, bribery is not defined in a corruption law but is provided for in the general criminal law. Thereis a need to enact a corruption law. If foreign officials are bribed outside the territory of the country, the law

157

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.89

does not exercise jurisdiction over these foreign officials. The laws in Laos only punish bribery committed
within its territory. Likewise, bribery in the private sector is not defined in the law. There is no law on
extradition: only bilateral treaties with several countries.
In Mongolia, there is a lack of implementation of Article 16 (Bribery of foreign public officials andofficials of public international organizations), Article 18 (Trading in influence), Article 26 (Liability of legal
person) and there is partial implementation of Article 15 (Bribery of national public officials), Article 17(Embezzlement), Article 21 (Bribery in the private sector). The Criminal Code of Mongolia does not punish
offering bribes to public officials.
In Papua New Guinea there is no law yet on UNCAC Articles 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, 32, 33, 35 and 50.
There is no law on bribery by the private sector. They do have laws on stealing and embezzlement. No
specific law on illicit enrichment exists, but if there is illicit enrichment by committing another offence,then that law will apply. There is legislation on money-laundering and forfeiture of unlawfully acquired
wealth. Lack of resources and capacity for implementation is a problem. There is no law on the protection of
witnesses and whistle-blowers.
Bribery of foreign public officials and international organizations is not criminalized in Brazil.
In Japan most of the UNCAC articles are covered. However, bills concerning some of the issues thatare not covered are currently being deliberated: for example, the bill to punish Japanese who give bribes
to Japanese officials in foreign countries and the bill for the return of the proceeds of crime obtained by aforeign national which are kept in Japan by following a fixed adjudication or judgment made in that foreigncountry.
In Timor Leste, bribery in the private sector has not been criminalized. The anti-corruption law is still
under consideration by the parliament. The same is true in the case of illicit enrichment, which is still being
debated in the parliament. The anti-corruption law also aims to address the provision on the liability of legal
persons. Witness protection has been provided since 2008, but it has not yet been implemented due to thelack of resources. There is no law yet on whistle-blower protection. The filing of corruption complaints is
not encouraged because the superior officers misinterpret such filings as being against them.
In the Philippines, there is no law on bribery in the private sector.
As a general observation, the group cited the lack of implementation of existing laws despite the fact thata majority of the UNCAC provisions exist in each country; however, there is also a lack of implementationof specific offences or in the practical application of the existing laws. In a majority of the countries, it isobserved that bribery in the private sector has not yet been legislated.

IV. OBSTACLES IN THE DETECTION, INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION
With respect to detection, it was observed that there are factors that hinder effective detection,
investigation and prosecution. There is a lack of human resources, equipment, expertise, technicalknowledge of the staff and specialized skills to interrogate, interview and to analyze evidence. In somecases, investigators and prosecutors are not fully and expertly trained to do their jobs. As a consequence,
it takes too long to finish the investigation, and it takes time to dispatch an investigating team and initiate
prosecution. For lack of proper coordination, the prosecution and the investigation aspects remain
pending. In some cases, there is a need to get authority from the prosecution authority in order to start aninvestigation.
Further, there are disagreements on the evidence required between the investigators and the prosecutors.
There is also the problem of unwilling witnesses who are afraid to testify or are threatened not to testify.
Parallel to that, there is the problem of a lack of complaints by citizens about corruption acts, many times
due to the difficulties of making the complaint or an absence of knowledge on how they can do it.

15815TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEREPORTS OF THE PROGRAMME

In some cases complainants do not fully understand confidentiality in the investigation of cases. As aresult, the investigation is exposed to media interference and political interference. Also, the important
evidence may not be brought out or will be lost or hidden. This media interference will unnecessarily attract
the attention of other agencies jeopardizing the investigation. Where powerful politicians are involved, they
can afford to employ means to threaten witnesses or destroy the evidence or even bribe the investigatorsand prosecutors.
Likewise, there is also the problem of very slow judicial response. The bench or the judges are slow to
act on cases, and the judicial processes are too cumbersome. Trials are delayed for months and years andcases keep piling up. Sometimes a court proceeding can also be very costly on the part of the complainants
and the witnesses. The law can be an impediment itself in providing that an accused is to be presumed
innocent until proven guilty. The delay in the disposition of cases also results in the loss of witnesses who
may die or choose to hide or retract their statements.
On the aspect of transnational transactions or overseas dealings, the process of gathering evidence is
too cumbersome and requires special skills and equipment. Add to it the financial cost of gathering overseas
documents and summoning persons and entities overseas.

V. MEASURES TO OVERCOME SOME OF THE OBSTACLES
In the preceding topic, the group identified various obstacles to detection, investigation and prosecutionof corruption offences. Considering the lack of time to discuss measures related to all of these obstacles, thegroup decided to focus the discussion on the following measures.

A. With respect to difficulty of people to file their complaints — reporter-friendly mechanisms toencourage reporting by citizens and raising public awareness of such measures
The discussion in the group was focused on the best system to be adopted to make it easy for citizens tofile or express their complaints. There is a choice between a centralized or a decentralized system.
There were arguments defending the advantages of each system, and also showing their weaknesses.
Referring to a centralized system, many participants argued that this system allows the citizen to havetrust in an agency, creating a kind of relationship between the citizen and the public officer that will make theperson feel safe to report the facts that he/she knows. Also, having a centralized system, according to someparticipants, prevents the repetitious filing of complaints or many agencies receiving the same complaints
and adopting investigation measures, all at the same time. It was also raised that centralization allows thesecrecy of the information, considering that few people will know that a fact was revealed. Also, it would bebetter for the management of the information and be able to compare with other informations or complaints
that already exist.
The weaknesses of this centralized system pointed out by some participants are the difficulties forcomplainants to reach the agency which may not be present in the entire country. Many times, people want
to report personally but it would demand a great effort, time and resources for them to reach the agency.
Participants considered that many countries have isolated cities, with difficult accessibility. These situations
would make it harder for a person to report to the authorities. A possible remedy for this weakness is tohave many sectoral offices in the countryside.
The decentralized system was considered good for many participants because it allows that a complaint
can be sent to many agencies. It can be to the public prosecution service or to the police department. In thissituation, in case the receiving office does not adopt measures, other offices can begin an investigation. So it
prevents the absence of investigation of a complaint. Also, it was mentioned that by this system it is easierfor the citizens to make their complaints. It occurs because, considering the presence of the agencies, police
department and public prosecution service in many cities, the citizen will have a place near his home toaccess an agency that can receive his complaint.
The majority of the participants concluded that the decentralized system is better. However, both
systems should provide different means of complaining such as hotlines, internet, letters, etc.

159

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.89

The discussion of this topic was restricted to the receiver of the complaints, not including the agencies orauthorities with powers to investigate the facts.
As measures to raise public awareness of the means to complain, the group listed the following:
advertisements in media (newspaper, radio, TV); handbooks; workshops in schools and associations; training tolocal officers to inform village populations; sports; teams to provide law in the provinces.

B. Witnesses and/or Whistle-blower Protection
Regarding witnesses and whistle-blowers, to make it difficult or impossible for offenders to retaliate
against them, the group understood that the main measure is the establishment of a protection programmeby an act. This programme must include, at least, relocation of the witness in the city or to another city andchange of the witness’s identity. Also related to the whistle-blower, the group considered that it is essential
to maintain the secrecy of the identities and information provided.
As a measure to reduce fear through avoidance of face-to-face confrontation with the defendant, thegroup agreed that the video-conference seems to be a good instrument. Considering that this system
demands a great investment that many countries cannot afford, it was suggested that the defendant can beremoved from the courtroom during the testimony of the witness.
On the topic of criminalization and punishment of obstruction of justice, the group concluded that there isa need to establish a specific offence related to this fact. This offence cannot displace another specific offence
committed with the objective to prevent the witness’s testimony, such as physical violence or menace.

C. Creating incentives for people who provide substantial cooperation in an investigation orprosecution
On this topic, the group discussed whether it is best to provide immunity from prosecution or the
mitigation of punishment. Some participants defended the idea that immunity is a good measure because it
allows the person to disclose many facts and evidence with the guarantee that he/she will not be prosecuted.
Other participants considered that offering immunity is a disproportionate measure because a person thatcommitted a crime must be punished. People must fear that committing a crime entails punishment. They
should collaborate with the investigation and prosecution of the offenders. The mitigation of punishment,
for these participants, is enough of a benefit to them. The offender knows that his/her collaboration will be
rewarded receiving less punishment, and society will also have an advantage by making the offender suffer
punishment, even with a reduced penalty.
Another measure that was listed is the offering of a financial reward to people who collaborate withinvestigators. But the group decided that this measure is applicable only for people who have not participatedin the crime. If the collaborating person is an offender, then he/she cannot be rewarded with money.

D. Effective structure/team of investigators and ensuring the secrecy of investigation
On this topic, the group centered the discussions on the aspect of advantages and disadvantages of asystem with a structure or team of investigators that are specialized in corruption cases.
The discussions showed that many countries have a specialized structure or team to investigate corruption
cases, not necessarily as a centralized agency of investigation. Some other countries have special agencies withpowers to investigate corruption.
The countries without a special agency have in their structure more than one agency that can treat thecases of corruption, like police and public prosecution services. In this configuration, there is not necessarilya special team of investigators that are dedicated to investigate corruption. In general, this existence
depends on the size of the local office of the agency.
In the biggest offices, in general, there is this division of power, making some investigators work onlywith corruption cases.
On the other side, there are those countries with one agency that has powers to investigate cases of160

15TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEREPORTS OF THE PROGRAMME

corruption. These agencies only handle the subject of corruption, leaving other kinds of crime to the police
force. In this system, the discussions showed that depending on the country, this central agency can be
the exclusive one with powers over these kinds of infractions. In other countries, the agency has powers
to investigate only corruption, but other agencies, like police, can also conduct investigations about thissubject.
According to the discussions, the group observed that every country works, when possible, based on themodel of specialization of investigators for corruption offences. The variation consists on the centralization,or not, of the investigation in only one agency.
The specialization was seen by the group as a system with many advantages. Each kind of crime has
its specific techniques of investigation, its means of formation of evidence. The specialization enables theofficers to better handle investigations by mastering the techniques and the lines of investigations that theseoffences demand. This is based on the fact that they work, in a general way, with the same kind of evidence,
allowing the investigators to analyze the evidence with more detailed eyes. Likewise, specialization provides
the use of the same working routines, that are different from those of other crimes and this condition
enables more agility to the investigation.
The group analyzed the structure of these special teams, seeking the types of investigators and professionals
that compose them. This was based on the situation that many investigations about corruption need technicalanalysis on documents or facts, such as engineering, architecture or accounting.
The conclusion is that the special structures do not have professionals with specialized knowledge, butthese professionals can be requested from other agencies to make the specific analysis demanded on thatinvestigation.
As means of investigation, considering this need of specialized professionals, the group discussed theformation of task forces. Some countries related that these task forces are formed to investigate specificoffences, without a characteristic of permanence. They are temporary because the purpose is not generalinvestigation, but the sensitive ones that demand specialized work that the investigators cannot supply.
There was discussion about who will lead the task force and problems that can occur. These problems canbe the differences on the view of its components about the investigation’s diligence or lines of investigation.
Regarding this problem, it was observed that the investigation is conducted by the investigation officer,
the one with power to do it. The other actors that compose the task force, in general, execute diligence intheir legal duties — as always — but with the request or orientation of the investigator. This is the one thatshows the objectives that are being looked for in that investigation and what is important as evidence.
It was also observed that a task force, considering that different members/people do not come from thesame investigation agency, cannot guarantee the secrecy of the investigation. This problem is a risk thatexists even if a task force is not used, because the agencies, in general, do not have the necessary structure
to provide all the investigation needs, like the technical analysis, discussed above. The violation of secrecy
can occur, in fact, but it is prohibited as a crime in many countries.

VI. ADJUDICATION OF CORRUPTION OFFENCES
Related to speedy trial, the discussion demonstrated that the problems of non-speedy-trials are not
only limited to corruption cases, but to all crimes. The problems are in the penal process, and also in thejurisprudence, that give too much protection for the defendant. One example is the possibility of using many
appeals that make the trial too slow. The defendant can question many acts in the process and appeal to thevarious courts, which results in the paralyzation of the trial in many cases.
Based on this observation, the group tried to focus the discussion on measures that can be directed only
to corruption trials. It was observed that the specialization of judges and courts to try only corruption cases
is a measure that can improve the speed of the trial.

161

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.89

Some countries already have some specialized judges and courts on this subject — or for other kinds ofcrimes — and it was observed that it allows a speedier trial. It was discussed by a member of the group thatthe specialization cannot solve the problem because in this case the judge will have many processes and will
not be able to conduct the trial in a reasonable time. The group understood that despite many processes bewith one judge, if he analyzes only one subject he can work speedier than if he needs to judge processes onother subjects. This observation of the group is grounded on the fact that the work in only one subject, or inlimited subjects, allows for better productivity because the person does not have to handle different kinds ofevaluations of evidences, or conduct several procedures.
Otherwise, the specialization must be followed by the improvement of the structure of the judicial
service, with the designation of a number of judges enough to handle these cases, and increasing the numberof the justice officers and their equipment. Without this improvement, the specialization by itself, as an
isolated measure, and may not be able to produce the desired result. This is because separating the trial of
corruption from the other crimes, but keeping the same structure that exists to process all kind of crimes,
can provoke the effect that was mentioned by one of the members — the repression of the processes withfew judges.
These measures are related to the organization of the judiciary system, and seem to be able to be
adopted by countries.
Beyond that, a member talked about the establishment of a time limit for the conclusion of the trial, tomake it speedier, considering that the judge must give his decision in that time. But it was not understood asa useful measure because if there are many cases and many processes, the judge may not be able to conduct
trial within that time. So the time will not be, in practice, observed. Also, considering the situation related
above that the defendants have many appeals to address decisions during the trial, it also can result inexceeding the time limit.
As a consequence, the group concluded that it is necessary to adopt measures that prevent the defendantfrom making the trial slow, because it is too common that the defendant uses all of the mechanisms that thelaw allows to prevent the normal course of the trial.
It was discussed that in the Japanese system, there is a pre-trial conference. In this phase, judges,
prosecutors and the private attorney of the defendant discuss the facts that need to be proved and theevidence that will be produced at trial. In such cases, the parties bring to the court only the witnesses,
or other kinds of evidence, that are related to the facts and aspects of the accusation or the defence. This
procedure, to the group, seemed to be a good measure, because it prevents the defendant from asking forhearing many witnesses or for the production of evidence that will not be relevant for the trial.

VII. CONCLUSIONAt the end of the discussions, the group realized that the collaboration of both the citizens and the people
who participated in the crimes is important for the investigation of corruption. For having this collaboration
it is necessary to develop measures that encourage the reporting of corruption, investigation and the
production of evidence. The measures to be adopted should ensure the security of the people collaborating.
At the same time, it is agreed that each government represented in the group should put more efforts into
realizing and ratifying applicable laws and practices in the fight against corruption as specified under the
UNCAC.

162