THE LATEST REGIONAL TRENDS IN CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVE
COUNTERMEASURES BY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AUTHORITIES
Vilavong Phomkong * and Thepphathai Phanka †I.

INTRODUCTION

Laos is one of the members of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption(UNCAC) and one of the members of the South East Asian Parties Against Corruption (SEAPAC). Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on socioeconomic development, distorts markets and erodes the quality of life. It undermines democracy
and the rule of law. This evil phenomenon is found in every country. The Government of Lao
PDR actively has been trying to prevent and combat corruption, promote good governance and toensure transparency in state governance in order to provide basic services for equality and justice,such as creating and improving of principles, regulations, laws and various legislation related to
the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. In order to prevent the loss of state property,
to prevent fraud committed against the state, and to prevent harm to society and legitimate rights
and interests of the citizens, Lao PDR is fighting corruption by prosecuting offenders andprotecting the innocent. The aim is to make state agencies transparent, strong and able to beinspected at all times, contributing to political stability, economic growth and stability, maintainsocial peace, order and justice to reduce the likelihood of corruption. Thus, the Government of
Lao PDR has been undertaking efforts to promote bilateral and multilateral international
cooperation to exchange knowledge and technical information by training programmes, seminars
and workshops on anti-corruption development.
Therefore, to share information and exchange knowledge on the topic of the seminar, thispaper will address two of the latest trends in corruption and effective measures to prosecutecriminals: fraudulent cases involving financial transactions and abuse by employees.
II. PRINCIPLES OF CONDUCTING CORRUPTION CASES
For the implementation of corruption proceedings, the State Inspectorate and AntiCorruption Authority (SIAA) has undertaken a holistic approach to investigate corruption
through its roles and duties as defined by the law. Corruption cases in Lao PDR are based on two
laws: the Penal Law and the Anti-Corruption Law. First of all, we would like to introduce theprocess of corruption proceedings in the Lao PDR.

*†

Head of Internal Inspection, Department of Inspection, Office of the Supreme People’s Prosecutor, Laos.
Deputy Director, Anti-Corruption Department, State Inspection and Anti-Corruption Authority, Laos.

- 75 -

A.
1.
-

Corruption Inspections
The Reason for the Inspection
When reliable evidence of corruption is found;
Notification, report, proposal, complaint of corruption;
When an official or his or her family members possess unexplained wealth.

2. Inspection Procedure- Investigate notices, reports, proposals, complaints and data collection if deemed necessary;- Prepare and formulate a realistic inspection plan by coordinating with other sectors andrelevant localities;- Examine documents and entitlements of individuals or organizations involved, such as
financial supervision, accounting, receipts, expenses, or loans;- Invitations to organizational representatives or related parties to explain or clarify;- Conclusion, evaluate and report the results of the inspection.
3. Inspection Schedules- The Central Anti-Corruption Authority, in principle, may not conduct its inspection for morethan 90 days, but if the inspection is not completed, it may continue for a 30-day period, incase there are difficulties related to other sectors that can be extended, but not longer than
180 days;- For the Anti-Corruption Agency of Ministries-Agencies, the province / municipality may notexceed 60 days from the date of inspection; in case of difficulty, they can continue for 30
days;- For the anti-corruption agency of districts, municipalities may not exceed 30 days from thedate of inspection, in the case of difficulties in remote areas can be extended for 15 days;
4. Resolution of the Inspection- For a violation of less than five million kip, the agency is required to warn or discipline themas required by law in Articles 56 and 57;- Investigation is conducted and concluded, and then the case is submitted to the head of theProsecutor's Office for consideration of a court order if it is a criminal offence pursuant toarticles 58 to 61.
5.

Compliance with the Anti-Corruption Body
Organizations that have received the Anti-Corruption Proposals under Article 31 mustcomply within the prescribed timeframe; if they fail to comply with the proposal, the AntiCorruption Unit has the right to propose the relevant matters, as the case may be. Noncompliance with the proposal is considered a violation of the law.
III. INVESTIGATION OF CORRUPTION CASES
Investigations of corruption cases must be used to investigate methods and prevention
measures as defined in the Penal Code.

- 76 -

1.

Four Phases
The institutional system of the criminal justice system is the same as the State Inspection
and Anti-Corruption Authority, which is divided into four phases:- Central level: The State Inspectorate and Anti-Corruption Authority is responsible, with the
Department of Investigation of Corruption as the Secretariat;- Ministry-Agency Level: The Department of Inspection is responsible, with the Corruption
Division as the Secretariat;- The provincial, municipal level: the state inspection and anti-corruption agencies ofprovinces are responsible, with the anti-corruption and corruption investigation sector as the
Secretariat;- District, Municipal and City Level: The State Audit and Anti-Corruption Agency of theDistrict is responsible, with the anti-corruption and corruption investigation unit as the
Secretariat.
2.
-

Duties and Rights of Investigation Agencies Handling Corruption Cases
Receive and keep a record of any offence;
Report promptly to the Chief Prosecutor on the offence;Issue an order to open an investigation, submit a statement of the order and report it to theprosecutor immediately;
Conduct investigations into employees with corrupt behaviour that are based on his / hermanagement rights;
Use restricted legal measures, including the release of detained suspects and written reports
to the Chief Prosecutor;
Appeal the orders of the Chief Justice Officer to the Chief Prosecutor;
Coordinate with other relevant agencies;
Conclude the investigation and formulate the case with the Chief Prosecutor.

3.

Duties and Scope of Investigation Officials
The corrupt officials are staff of the State Inspectorate and Anti-Corruption Authority withthe following duties and scope:- Receiving and recording notices, proposals, reports, or complaints about corruption;- Proposing a state inspection and anti-corruption agency to issue a request, order, orderrelease of suspicious suspects, suspicious orders or criminal allegations (for ministries andagencies are requested by government agencies, municipalities, and provinces for provincial
inspection);- Inform the accused of rights and the obligation to conduct the investigation;- Obtain statements from suspects, plaintiffs, offenders, victims, witnesses and other persons
involved;- Check and verify and collect evidence on corruption of authority;- Maintain the centre of corruption;- Finding, capturing, detaining, releasing a detainee and detecting a person, making
accusations of suspects and detainees;- 77 -

- Coordinate with relevant agencies, inspect vehicles, arrests by the Chief of the Public
Prosecutor's Office or the People's Court;- Summarize and report on the results of the investigation; Investigate the State Audit andAnti-Corruption Unit.
4.

Standards of the Investigating Officials in Corruption Cases
To be honest, legal, ethical, knowledgeable, capable, professional, experienced ininvestigation, and to be able to maintain confidentiality.
5.

Investigation Procedure
Causes of Investigation: As a result of the inspection, there is a complete set of criminal
offences as defined in the criminal law.
6.
-

Investigation Procedures in Corruption Cases
Ordering the opening of investigations;
Ordering not to open investigations;
Investigation proceedings.
IV. THE CONSIDERATIONS OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WHEN
DETERMINING WHETHER TO PROSECUTE THE OFFENDER IN COURT

The rights and duties of public prosecutors are to conduct monitoring, inspection of law
enforcement activities of the Investigation Agency and to prosecute the offenders in court. The
head of the prosecution agency must study the received case from the investigating body or theprosecutor for not more than 15 days from the date of the litigation and must issue one of thefollowing orders:-

If the investigation case is not yet complete, the head of the public prosecution agency
must return the case documents to the investigation body along with the additional
investigative issues;
If there is a reason to suspend the investigation as determined by the law, Article 146;
If there is a clear cause of the case, as provided in the law, Article 148;
If there is any indication that the measures used by the investigating officer have notbeen consistent with the circumstances of the case.
V. CASE PROCEEDINGS IN COURT

If there is sufficient evidence, the prosecution body shall make a summary of theinvestigation results, complete the case file and then prosecute the case in court within threeworking days from the date of the order. When accepting a criminal case for consideration, thecourt will only accept the criminal record for further consideration with the order of the head ofprosecutor.
- The court will accept a copy of a criminal case for consideration only when there has
been an order from the head public prosecutor to prosecute the offenders in court;- 78 -

- The timetable for the consideration of the verdict of the first instance court is not morethan thirty days;- Court measures: The Court has the right to use investigative methods and prevention
measures as required by law.
VI. CONDUCTING CORRUPTION CASES
A. General Conditions
After receiving firm information and evidence that an act constituting corruption has beencommitted, the State must examine the case, including data collection on the situation ofcorruption in a deposit institution. The head of the agency has appointed a committee toencourage and monitor the business operations of deposit institutions. Through the tracking offinancial transactions, transactions that were not disclosed can be identified, such as in the caseof a closed customer’s loan account, which resulted in a total loss of 26,879,786,000 kip. To
resolve the issue, the head of the agency reports to the President of the State Inspectorate andAnti-Corruption Authority (SIAA) for guidelines and asks the head of the decision-making bodyto appoint an investigating team to open an investigation into corrupt officials and other relevant
persons.
B. Investigation Proceedings
From the information and evidence of the commission to encourage and monitor thebusiness operations of the deposit institution, the Investigation Team has made its plans to carryout the duties, with the preparation of the information and the names of the offenders toinvestigate the case. Subsequently, there were 12 investigations of staff and related persons, ofwhich 10 staff were alleged to have engaged in corruption in accordance with the AntiCorruption Law, Article 11: Acts that Constitute Corruption and, Article 58: Penal Measures andCriminal Law, Article 174: Corruption and Two Crimes there are alleged that Corruption in
Criminal Law, Article 17: Joint Offence and Article 174: Corruption. The accused said that they
had paid the institution's money of 1,018,318,000 kip, 475,820,340 kip, interest 199,908,607 kip,
totalling 675,728,947 kip, with a loan of 17 institutions with 500,000,000 kip in the form of a
new loan opened with a new loan account.
C. Content
During the investigation of two corruption cases, the accused said that they had depositedmoney with the deposit institution by used customers loan closed lender account to open a newloan account.
- Accused 1: He withdrew the institution's money in the amount of 1,018,318,000 kip;
- Accused 2: She withdrew the institution's money in the amount of 1,173,985,000 kip;
- Accused 3: He borrowed a total of 18,200,000 kip, 36 times additional withdrawals
totalling 498,600,000 kip;
- Accused 4: She borrowed money from Institute 2 accounts with her names 1 account
5,000,000 kip. The withdrawal itself was 49 times in cash 146,191,000 kip and issued the- 79 -

name of her husband 01 balance 30,000,000 Kip has withdrawn without approval 29
times in 252,110,127 kip total 433,301,127 kip. Additionally, she withdrew her
customers’ loan and closed the loan account to open a new loan account of her 4 accounts
were 90,000,000 kip;
- Accused 5: She borrowed money from Institutions of 6 accounts with 142,964,500 kip,
which 1 of the borrowing accounts of the borrowed customers that finished paid, but she
used account that to be condition for lent themselves to loan;- Accused 6: She has loaned with the institute of 7 accounts is 170,352,000 Kip, but only
one account has correct by law in the amount of 5,000,000 Kip but she has withdrawn
several times in cash 90,200,000 Kip. Additionally, she has written a cash withdrawal and
Sign instead of customers closed lender account for relatives or clan that about 70 to 80
accounts. The amount of cash written with the minimum cash withdrawal is 20,000,000
Kip, up to 35,000,000 kip.
- Accused 7: He has borrowed with the Institute 3 accounts amount of 10,000,000 Kip andwithdrew the cash at the bank where he was responsible and requested lender account by
his name was closed account amount 80,000,000 kip;
- Accused 8: She has consulted the institution's loans to their friends who have beenworking in the institution, and they have taken up 22,500,000 kip without making a loan
agreement;- Accused 9: She has borrowed money from Institution 04 accounts. The account has avalid loan agreement of 2 accounts, Account 1, Amount of Approved 15,000,000 Kip,
withdrawn 22 times in cash of 104,300,000 Kip, Account 2 Approved Amount
20,000,000 Kip, withdrawn 5 times in 90,200,000 Kip in total 229,500,000 Kip And theother 2 accounts are closed accounts, they have opened a new loan account of 25,000,000
kip, withdrawn 01 times cash 22,500,000 Kip and the second accounts amount approved
25,000,000 Kip, 01 times more money was withdrawn 22,500,000, total case 95,000,000
Kip;- Accused 10: Concerned with 2 projects: Institutional Programme Management and Officeconstruction. To improve the excellent service system so that it has a relationship with asoftware company valued at US $ 200,000 and the company would pay for commission
fee 330,000,000 kip. Then the company added value from US $ 200,000 to US $ 300,000
to get over US $ 100,000 in commission share. The office construction project valued at
4,190,000,000 kip, the construction company has raised 10% of the construction cost of
419,000,000 kip for commission fee;
- Accused 11: He has told the officer that he had borrowed money from the Savings
Institute 52 The checking account amounted to 1.629.000.000 kip. Each loan wasborrowed without a loan agreement, but the withdrawal was written on every cash
withdrawal. About Auctions construction office building institutional money value of
4,190,000,000 Kip to accept the agreement preliminary not bid if the company its- 80 -

winning bid to offer money to the committee responsible for the 10% of the total value ofthe project is 419,000,000 kip and pay 3 For the period 1 had written cash to extract
financial institutions 2 leaves of 100,000,000 kip period 2 Paid after inspection tasks tocomplete construction contracts 50% is paid 1,674,000,000 Kip given 93,300,000 Kip 3rd
instalment after inspection tasks to complete construction contracts 100% money
1,256,700,000 kip donates 125,700,000 Kip;
- Accused 12: Provided the Agent: Before signing the Installment Agreement and the
Deposit Institution Programme, the Representative of the Institute contacted andpresented to them that if the programme was installed, how much the bank's banking
system would be installed, they replied that US $ 200,000 would pay 330,000,000 kip.
One week later, a representative of the Institute came to offer them a raise from US$ 200,000 to US $ 300,000 to get more than US $ 100,000, they agreed upon theinstitution's proposal and signed a contract. In addition to the previous investigations, theInvestigative Investigations Unit conducted a search of the site, its offices and its
identities, and issued a warranty order and order under the Orders and Orders and haveverified the documents of his / her property.
D. Observation-Evaluation
Through investigations, evidence, statements made by the accused and related persons, theiractions are criminal offences under the Criminal Code of Penal Code Article 174 and the AntiCorruption Act Article 11 and Article 58 of which the offences of the alleged offenders are:1.

Abuse of Power
Abuse of position, power and duty to take State property, collective property or individual
property and jointly violating an agreement between State officials and the contracting company
and other concerned persons to create conditions to win the bid or concession for a certain State
activity for personal benefit and causing damage to the interests of the State and society or rights
and interests of citizens. According to the Anti-Corruption article 16 and the Penal Code, Article
174 expresses the actual behaviour of:- Abuse of position, power and duty to withdraw money according to the list of liability
accounts under his/her responsibility.
- Take the deposited a closed-end customer account, re-open a cash account, write cash
withdrawal, sign up to receive cash from an account holder, and withdraw cash.
- Get cash from customers who pay the cost and interest on the loan.
2.

Swindling of State Property
The companies engaging in trickery, deceit or fraud by any means to cause a person in
charge of any State property to hand over to himself, such as creating contracts for installment
and a deposit management service programme with a firm that agreed to offer a $ 200,000
installation fee of US $ 300,000 by an unknown depositary institution to get more than $ 100,000
in cash.

- 81 -

Together, the parties have been engaging in trickery, deceit or fraud by any means to clear
bank deposits with a lucrative or non-collateralized loan scheme, with the approval of the loan
holder and the closing of a lender's loan account for a cash rebate.
3.

Giving Bribes
Proposed bribes to 10% of the value of construction of a depository office of 419 million
kip; has provided deliberate assistance in joint fraud, violating the Anti-Corruption Act, Article
13 and the revised Criminal Code, Article 17, and Article 174 of the Code of Conduct. The costof installing a deposit at a deposit institution from US $ 200,000 is US $ 300,000, which they
provide for deliberate assistance and should be accorded legal responsibility.
E. Proposal
Through research of data, evidence, documents of the case thoroughly, comprehensive,
objectively, with transparency, and correctly according to its scope of rights and duties and theprocedures as stipulated in the laws, including being highly accountable for the conduct of its
responsibilities under the laws and subject to inspection by the National Assembly. So, when we
state that the evidence is strong enough and confirms that the accused are to be charged withcriminal allegations of corruption as defined in the law against corruption Article 11 and 58 and
the Criminal Law Article 174, the head of the investigation of corruption sends the case to thechief prosecutor for legal proceedings.
F. Summary of Investigation Result
After the inspection and investigation, if there appears to be solid information and evidence,
the investigating agency makes a summary of the inspection and investigation result, completes
the file of the corruption case and then sends it to the public prosecutor to consider bringing aprosecution of the case in court.

- 82 -