TWELFTH REGIONAL SEMINAR ON GOOD GOVERNANCE FOR
SOUTHEAST ASIAN COUNTRIES

Hosted by UNAFEI
With the support of the Supreme People’s Procuracy of Viet Nam
27-29 November 2018, Da Nang, Viet Nam

March 2019TOKYO, JAPAN-1-

The views expressed in this publication are those of the respective presenters and authors only,and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNAFEI, the Government of Japan, orother organizations to which those persons belong.

Takeshi Seto
Director
United Nations
Asia and Far East Institutefor the Prevention of Crime andthe Treatment of Offenders(UNAFEI)
2-1-28 Mokuseinomori, Akishima-shi, Tokyo 196-8570, Japan
http://www.unafei.or.jp
unafei@i.moj.go.jp-2-

FOREWORD
It is my great pleasure and privilege to present this report of the Twelfth Regional Seminaron Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries, which was held in Da Nang, Viet Namfrom 27–29 November 2018. The Good Governance Seminar was held in Viet Nam for thesecond time, and, we were once again deeply impressed and touched by the warm hospitality
afforded to us by our Vietnamese hosts.
The main theme of the Seminar was The Latest Regional Trends in Corruption and Effective
Countermeasures by Criminal Justice Authorities. The Seminar was attended by two visiting
experts—one from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and one from
Malaysia—and 19 criminal justice practitioners from the countries of Brunei Darussalam,
Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand andViet Nam. The Seminar was co-hosted by UNAFEI and the Supreme People’s Procuracy of theSocialist Republic of Viet Nam (SPP).
Corruption is a complex social, political and economic phenomenon that affects all countries.
Corruption undermines democratic institutions, slows economic development and contributes togovernmental instability. As with other regions in the world, the fight against corruption inSoutheast Asian countries has taken on an international dimension. The main theme of the
Twelfth Seminar focused on providing updates on the latest anti-corruption measures andcorruption-related trends across Southeast Asia.
The Seminar explored existing and emerging corruption trends in the participating countries,
identified challenges which frustrate Mutual Legal Assistance and shared best practices for anticorruption enforcement in the participating countries. Through discussion of issues such asprivate-sector corruption and corporate criminal liability, proactive asset confiscation andrecovery techniques, the utilization of special investigation measures, extensive use ofinternational cooperation, among others, the participants exchanged knowledge, experiences,
effective strategies, and best practices in the field of anti-corruption. The Chair’s Summary,published in this report, details the key conclusions and recommendations of the Seminar. In
addition, the Seminar enabled the participants to develop personal and professional contacts
between anti-corruption authorities and investigators in Southeast Asia.
It is a pleasure to publish this Report of the Seminar as part of UNAFEI’s mission, entrusted
to it by the United Nations, to widely disseminate meaningful information on criminal justicepolicy. Finally, on behalf of UNAFEI, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to theSupreme People’s Procuracy of Viet Nam for their tremendous support in co-hosting the Twelfth
Regional Seminar.
Takeshi Seto
Director, UNAFEI
March 2019

-3-

-4-

INDEX
THE LATEST REGIONAL TRENDS IN CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVE
COUNTERMEASURES BY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AUTHORITIESIntroduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Opening Remarks by Mr. Takeshi Seto, Director, UNAFEI ................................................... 9Opening Remarks by Mr. Tran Cong Phan, Deputy Prosecutor General, Supreme
People’s Procuracy of Viet Nam ........................................................................................... 11
Keynote Address by Mr. Takeshi Seto, Deputy Director, UNAFEI ..................................... 13
Chair’s Summary .......................................................................................................................... 19
Visiting Expert's Paper.................................................................................................................. 27
Visiting Expert, Mr. Mohamad Zamri bin Zainul Abidin, Deputy Commissioner,
Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission ......................................................................... 29
Country Presentation Papers ......................................................................................................... 34
Brunei Darussalam .................................................................................................................... 35
Cambodia .................................................................................................................................. 51
Indonesia ................................................................................................................................... 56
Lao PDR .................................................................................................................................... 75
Malaysia .................................................................................................................................... 83
Myanmar ................................................................................................................................... 91
Philippines ............................................................................................................................... 103
Singapore................................................................................................................................. 114
Thailand................................................................................................................................... 131
Viet Nam ................................................................................................................................. 136
List of Participants, Speakers and Organizers ............................................................................ 146
Seminar Schedule........................................................................................................................ 149-5-

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 151
Presentation Slides, Dr. Claire Armelle Leger, Anti-Corruption Analyst, Anti-Corruption
Division, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Mutual Legal
Assistance in Asia and the Pacific: Experiences in 31 Jurisdictions .................................. 152
Presentation Slides, Mr. Mohamad Zamri bin Zainul Abidin, Deputy Commissioner,
Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission, Latest Regional Trends in Corruption andEffective Countermeasures by Criminal Justice Authorities—Malaysian Perspective ....... 168
Supplemental Report, Ms. Nguyen Cam Tu, LLM, Prosecutor Assistant, SPP
and Mr. Nguyen Hai Bang, LLM, Examiner, High People’s Court in Ha Noi,
Corruption Crimes in Viet Nam and the Roles of the Supreme People’s Procuracyof Viet Nam in Dealing with Requests for Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters
Relating to Corruption Cases .............................................................................................. 203
Supplemental Report, Dr. Nguyen Duc Hanh, Hanoi University for Prosecutors,
Corruption in the Banking Sector: Experiences, Challenges, Trends,
Solutions and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 207
Photographs.......................................................................................................................... 215-6-

INTRODUCTION

Opening Remarks by
Mr. Takeshi Seto
Director of UNAFEI***
Mr. Tran Cong Phan
Deputy Prosecutor General
Supreme People’s Procuracy
Socialist Republic of Viet Nam***
Keynote Address by
Mr. Takeshi Seto
Director of UNAFEI

-7-

-8-

OPENING REMARKS
Takeshi Seto *The Honourable Dr. Tran Con Phan, Deputy Prosecutor General of the Supreme People’s
Procuracy of Viet Nam, the Honourable Mr. ASAZUMA Shinichi, Deputy Chief of Mission,
Embassy of Japan in Viet Nam, honourable guests, distinguished experts and participants, ladies
and gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure and privilege for me to announce the opening of the Twelfth Regional
Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries. I would like to extend my heartfelt
welcome to our honourable guests, distinguished speakers and participants who have come tojoin this significant forum. I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest
appreciation to the government of Viet Nam, especially to the Supreme People’s Procuracy ofViet Nam, for their great contribution and assistance in co-hosting this seminar.
UNAFEI is one of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme
Network Institutes (PNI), established in 1962 by an agreement between the United Nations andthe Government of Japan. The PNI consists of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime(UNODC) in Vienna and several interregional and regional institutes and specialized centres
around the world. UNAFEI's main activities are to hold international training courses andseminars for criminal justice practitioners from around the world and to undertake research in thefield of the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders. Every year, UNAFEI offers four
multinational training courses, each of which addresses a different subject. In choosing thespecific topic to be addressed in each programme, every effort is made to incorporate the priority
issues identified by the United Nations. As a result, we find ourselves more frequently andregularly choosing topics related to the challenges posed by transnational organized crime andcorruption.
This sets the background for the present seminar. The Regional Seminar on Good
Governance for Southeast Asian Countries is an initiative, begun in 2007, in order to enhance
our capacity-building and networking efforts in the field of good governance and anti-corruption.
Every year, we choose one topic of substantive importance in line with the United Nations
Convention against Corruption and invite participants from Southeast Asian countries fordiscussion. This time, the main theme of the seminar is “The Latest Regional Trends in
Corruption and Effective Countermeasures by Criminal Justice Authorities”. UNAFEI has
hosted the seminar for 11 years to prevent and combat corruption. Our previous Seminar dealt
with the best practices of investigation, prosecution, adjudication and prevention of corruption toreview and recognize the developments in the field of anti-corruption over the past decade.
Based on the outcome of the 11th seminar, I believe it is worth reviewing the latest corruption*

Director, United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.

-9-trends in each participating country, identifying problems which need to be addressed andexploring the way forward by reviewing and recognizing the developments in the field of anticorruption over the past decade.
I look forward to seeing this seminar provide a useful forum to exchange expertise andexperience in our common endeavour against corruption, contributing further to the promotion ofgood governance in Southeast Asia.
Thank you very much for your attention.

- 10 -

OPENING REMARKS
Dr. Tran Cong Phan *Mr. Seto Takeshi, Director, United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of
Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI),Mr. Shinichi Asazuma, Deputy Chief of Mission, Embassy of Japan to Viet Nam,Distinguished guests,
Ladies and gentlemen,
The Supreme People’s Procuracy (SPP) of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam closelycooperated with the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime andthe Treatment of Offenders to successfully co-organize the Eleventh Good Governance Seminarfor Southeast Asian Countries from 17 October to 19 October 2017 in Ha Noi. The Eleventh
Seminar focused on the theme of Best Practices in Anti-Corruption: A Decade of Institutionaland Practical Development in Southeast Asia.
Today, it is a great honour for the SPP of Viet Nam to keep cooperating with UNAFEI to
co-host the Good Governance Seminar for Southeast Asian Countries for the second time, thetwelfth Seminar, in the glamorous city of Da Nang, one of the most livable cities in Viet Nam.
On this occasion, on behalf of the leadership of the SPP of Viet Nam, I would like to give thewarmest welcome to all of participants and the distinguished guests attending the Twelfth
Seminar; wishing all of your good health, happiness and success.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Corruption has become a global problem that gradually spoils the institutions of democracy
and rule of law of each country. The countermeasures against corruption have been tougher andmore effective in the Southeast Asian countries generally and in Viet Nam particularly, as it has
been done in other regions worldwide.
Through co-organizing the international and regional Seminars or Training courses,
UNAFEI and the judicial agencies of Japan have been the fellow-travellers with the Southeast
Asian countries in the fight against corruption over the past decade. The SPP of Viet Nam highly
appreciates and expresses the gratitude to UNAFEI and the judicial agencies of Japan for theirkind cooperation and their dedicated support.

*

Deputy Prosecutor General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy of Viet Nam.

- 11 -

Based on the accomplishment of the Eleventh Seminar organized in Ha Noi last year, at the
Twelfth Seminar this year, we will focus our attention on the theme of “The Latest Regional
Trends in Corruption and Effective Countermeasures by Criminal Justice Authorities”. I hopethat, with the above-mentioned theme, our meaningful Seminar will be a legal science forum inthe region for law enforcement officers, legal experts and all participants to share information
about the latest trends of corruption in each country, to clarify the problems to be solved, tointroduce the best practices and effective countermeasures taken by criminal justice authorities
and to propose the direction and solutions for further effectively combating corruption crime.
Ladies and gentlemen,
To demonstrate the hardest determination and the strongest effort of the Party and State ofViet Nam devoted in the fight against corruption, the law enforcement agencies of Viet Nam
have detected, initiated, investigated, prosecuted and adjudicated a number of large-scalecorruption, and economic cases over the past years. These cases related to offenders who had
committed crime by using artifice with extremely serious degree or by transnationally using
high-tech. Corruption in Viet Nam has recently arisen in the fields of finance, banking, publicasset management, infrastructure-building investments, etc., Therefore, prevention and the fightagainst corruption are considered as the common responsibility of the whole political system andone of the most important, urgent and long-term tasks during the process of socio-economic
development and building the State of the rule of law in Viet Nam.
Viet Nam has been putting a lot of effort into the improvement of legal framework on
prevention and the fight against corruption. The National Assembly (or the Parliament) of Viet
Nam adopted the Law on Prevention and Fight against Corruption (Revised) on 20 November
2018. It will officially come into effect on 1 July 2019. The revised Law stipulates in detail avariety of corruption acts, the prevention and detection of corruption in agencies, organizations
and units, and the responsibilities of the heads of agencies, organizations, and units in the workof prevention and fight against corruption.
With the hardest determination and the strongest effort put into the prevention and fightagainst corruption, the SPP of Viet Nam, the Central Authority of the Socialist Republic of Viet
Nam in Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, is willing to further strengthen cooperation
with judicial agencies of ASEAN member states and Japan for the more effective prevention andfight against corruption and other types of crime in the coming time.
Based on the traditional friendship and cooperation among ASEAN member states andJapan, as well as the close ties among agencies participating in the Seminar and UNAFEI, I
firmly believe that the Twelfth Good Governance Seminar for Southeast Asian Countries willachieve success and obtain the designed objectives.
Finally, I would like to express my best wishes for the success of our Twelfth Good
Governance Seminar for Southeast Asian Countries. To Mr. Seto Takeshi, Director of UNAFEI
and all of you, I wish for your good health, happiness and successful careers.
Thank you very much.

- 12 -

KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Takeshi Seto *Dr. Tran Con Phan, honourable Deputy Prosecutor General of the Supreme People’s
Procuracy of Viet Nam,Distinguished members and staff of the SPP,Distinguished delegates, experts and guests,
Ladies and gentlemen,First, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all the representatives from Southeast
Asian countries and visiting experts for their dedicated preparation and forthcoming
contributions to this seminar. Also, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to theSupreme People’s Procuracy of Viet Nam for co-hosting this Twelfth Good Governance Seminar,
for their dedicated efforts, and for their warm hospitality in welcoming us.
It is my great honour and privilege to be here before you to deliver the keynote speech as the
Director of UNAFEI. Personally, I am particularly grateful to attend this seminar again, as I
participated in the First Good Governance Seminar in Thailand 11 years ago as the Deputy
Director of UNAFEI. The first seminar has remained in my memory as a truly unforgettable andexciting experience.
Ladies and gentlemen,This regional seminar began in 2007, just a few years after the adoption of the United
Nations Convention Against Corruption, otherwise known as UNCAC, in 2003, and its entry into
force in 2005. This seminar was launched, in order to enhance the capacities of anti-corruption
agencies and to establish and strengthen the network of competent authorities within Southeast
Asia. This annual seminar has surely contributed to the development of effective
countermeasures against corruption in each participating country, by sharing experiences andmaintaining close relationships among our respective agencies and among us as practitioners.
Ladies and gentlemen,This Twelfth Seminar, upon consultation with our partner, the Supreme People’s Procuracyof Viet Nam, is entitled “The Latest Regional Trends in Corruption and Effective
Countermeasures by Criminal Justice Authorities”. Last year, at the Eleventh Seminar, we*Director, United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders(UNAFEI).

- 13 -

focused on institutional and practical developments to fight corruption that took place over the
past decade in the Southeast Asian Region. As stated in the keynote speech at the Eleventh
Seminar last year, by our former Director, Keisuke Senta, the past ten years since the first
seminar in 2007, can be described as the “UNCAC decade”. Starting with the accession by
Cambodia in 2007, and culminating with the ratification by Myanmar in 2012, all eleven
Southeast Asian countries, including Timor-Leste, have become State Parties to UNCAC. In
addition, Japan finally ratified UNCAC at the end of this period, in 2017.
Without doubt, efforts towards the implementation of UNCAC led to many legislative
improvements and the enhancement of investigative and prosecutorial capacity and skills of anticorruption authorities in the region. As we reviewed at the previous seminar, we observed
tremendous advances in the adoption of implementing legislation, including laws on thecriminalization of corruption offences, asset recovery, and mutual legal assistance andextradition. Taking a few examples, Malaysia enacted its new Anti-Corruption Law in 2009,
which established a new anti-corruption body, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission,
known as the MACC, and has undergone a number of legislative developments to criminalize
specific corruption offences, introduce plea bargaining, strengthen asset forfeiture and recovery,
and witness and whistle-blower protection. Cambodia has established an anti-corruption
framework through a series of laws such as the Code of Criminal Procedure 2007, the Criminal
Code 2009, the Law on Anti-Corruption 2010, the 2011 amendment thereto and the Law on
Public Procurement 2012. Myanmar adopted the Anti-Corruption Law in 2013 and the AntiMoney-Laundering Law in 2014.
In addition to these legislative developments, all countries made great steps towards the
adoption of national anti-corruption strategies, establishing anti-corruption frameworks, andimplementing effective anti-corruption enforcement—all of which facilitated the investigationand prosecution of corruption offences in practice.
Here, I would like to make a brief observation on some of the interesting steps taken in thisregard by each representing country. Over the years, the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Brunei
Darussalam, which is the country’s sole independent investigative authority, has invested increating specialized officers for information technology, accounting and legal expertise from theviewpoint of effective evidence management. Following the evolving trends of corrupt
transactions, the Bureau’s investigative measures have shifted from conventional methods tomore proactive and innovative ones such as wiretapping, undercover operations,telecommunications interception and consensual recordings.
Cambodia established the Anti-Corruption Institution (ACI), which has two bodies: the
National Council against Corruption (NCAC) and the Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU). The NCAC
is an advisory body involved in formulation and recommendation of anti-corruption policies andstrategies. The ACU is an investigative body that has exclusive authority to investigate
corruption cases, and has the power, for instance, to arrest, obtain bank records, subpoena
documents, conduct wiretapping, and freeze assets.
In Indonesia—although very few convictions had been rendered against corporations forcorrupt conduct due to ambiguities of previous regulations on corporate liability—Supreme- 14 -

Court Regulation No. 13 in 2016 clarified the conditions for corporate liability. Pursuant to theregulation, liability is triggered by a criminal act done by any person who is employed by or has
some other relationship with the corporation, both in respect of domestic and foreign
corporations.
Laos structured the anti-corruption framework in four layers: the national level through theState Inspection and Anti-Corruption Authority (SIAA), the ministry and agency level, theprovincial level, and the district level. Over the past decade, the SIAA has coordinatedcorruption prevention and enforcement efforts, prioritizing prevention and encouraging public
participation to combat corruption. Measures for prevention include anti-corruption education at
all levels, anti-corruption promotion by the mass media, and declaration of assets and income bypublic officials.
In Malaysia, the Anti-Corruption Commission has developed a number of best practices foranti-corruption investigation. Important practices include establishment of the Malaysian AntiCorruption Academy to provide training in advanced investigation techniques, the use of video
technology during interviews and interrogations, the implementation of team-based investigation,
private-sector investigation, intelligence-based investigation, introduction of a technology-based
complaint management system, and enhancement of forensic-accounting skills. In this seminar,
Mr. Mohamad Zamri Bin Zainul Abidin, our visiting expert from the MACC, will lecture on thekeys to successful witness and whistle-blower protection in corruption cases. I believe that his
lecture will bring us valuable insights and knowledge in dealing with corruption crimes.
Myanmar has undertaken significant efforts over the past decade to enhance anti-corruption
enforcement. The Anti-Corruption Commission has the power to conduct investigations and to
take action against offenders who commit corruption. The Commission can examine financial
records, issue prosecution orders and confiscation orders of money and property, and provide
witness protection.
The Philippines has a number of best practices in terms of implementation of UNCAC’s
provisions, in particular, those related to law enforcement, such as the Witness Protection,
Incentive and Rewards System, the use of special anti-graft courts known as Sandiganbayan,
among others.
In Singapore, the CPIB is the only agency authorized to investigate corruption and related
offences. The CPIB is a founding member of the new International Anti-Corruption
Coordination Centre (IACCC) launched in July 2017. The IACCC, serves to improveinformation sharing and coordinate law enforcement actions between law enforcement officers
of its member countries. In terms of initiatives to address corruption in the private sector, theCPIB developed “PACT”, a practical guidebook for businesses in Singapore which sets out toguide business owners in Singapore in developing and implementing anti-corruption systems
within their companies.
In Thailand, a new type of corruption called “policy corruption” was reported. Policy
corruption involves the creation of illegal schemes or management mechanisms for certain
beneficiaries. The National Anti-Corruption Commission, established in 1997, expanded its- 15 -

power to engage in mutual legal assistance. In addition to a Criminal Division for Persons
Holding Political Positions to adjudicate cases involving high-ranking level public officials
including ministers and members of parliament, the Supreme Court has established the Central
Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases to deal with cases involving other public
officials.
Viet Nam has made efforts in applying measures in criminal laws to freeze and confiscateproceeds of corruption, to distrain and seize property and to impose fines for the purpose ofrecovering them, as well as administrative and civil measures provided in civil laws, at relevant
stages of proceedings, such as investigation, prosecution and adjudication.
Ladies and gentlemen,
As I summarized, in the past decade, we have seen significant developments in the Southeast
Asian countries in the legislation, institutional frameworks, strategies and practices in anticorruption prevention, investigation, prosecution and adjudication. However, during the past
decade, our society has drastically changed. For instance, rapid progress of information
technology and its communication tools have brought about massive and interactive information
flows worldwide through a variety of media, as well as an increase in cross-border financialtransactions by various means, which have reached a level far greater than what we had expected
ten years ago.
Despite the efforts and considerable level of developments that have been made by criminal
justice authorities in this region, due to negative impacts stemming from recent rapid social
development, corruption has become more complicated and sophisticated, and has become
highly secretive in nature, making it more difficult to detect, investigate and prosecute. Moreover,the increasing trend towards the transnationalization of corrupt practices has made these taskseven more complicated and difficult. We must recognize that, following this “UNCAC decade”,
we have now entered a new phase in the fight against corruption. Simply relying on conventional
methods to fight corruption may no longer be sufficient to suppress the increasingly transnationaland complex nature of corruption.
In order to respond to new and forthcoming challenges, we should examine the current trendof corruption and share experience to tackle it. In this regard, this seminar is designed to share
information on the current trends in corruption typologies observed in each country, exchange
investigative and prosecutorial experiences and explore the way forward to address the identified
challenges.
I may not be able to give a full overview of forthcoming challenges, yet it is clear that, in
this new era of anti-corruption enforcement, practitioners will continue to face traditional
challenges as new challenges arise. These new challenges may include: insufficient investigation
skills to respond to new trends; insufficient legal tools and equipment to collect admissible
evidence, including evidence in electronic form; poor interaction between intelligence andcriminal justice officials; differences in systems and practices in cases involving international
elements; the lack of modern equipment; the lack of legal basis for special investigation- 16 -

techniques; dealing with underground banking systems; and the dissipation of illicit assets prior
to confiscation.
In regard to challenges pertaining to international cooperation, Dr. Claire Armelle Leger, ourvisiting expert from the OECD, will lecture on common challenges in, and best practices of,mutual legal assistance in the region based on her expertise gained through the Anti-corruption
Asia-Pacific Initiative. I am certain that her analysis will provide helpful clues to successful
MLA practice.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Corruption has become increasingly transnational. Of course, this means that international
cooperation is increasingly important. But it also means that corruption trends in one country
may appear in other countries. From such perspective, it is effective and helpful to share with
one another knowledge and experience of current corruption trends. Through such exercise, we
may be able to prepare for new modus operandi and make use of other countries’ experiences,
once we come across similar corruption allegations. Further, introducing other countries’
effective anti-corruption practices may well result in formulating and implementing good anticorruption measures in our own countries. Therefore, it is quite valuable to share each country’s
experience and expertise in this seminar in the fight against corruption.
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is evident that many of the challenges that we face in Japan in combating corruption are
also challenges for other developed and developing countries. On the other hand, it is also clearthat the causes of corruption are deeply connected with each jurisdiction’s own customs, culture,
economy and other social environments. It will continue to be quite a challenge for each country
to address all underlying social and economic factors to prevent and suppress corruption. Further,
it would be impossible to collectively respond to all the challenges without due regard todiversity among jurisdictions. In order to respond, each country is expected to address its own
challenges in a manner suited to its own legal system, customs, culture, economy and social
environments, making use of the knowledge and experience shared in this seminar as a valuablebasis.
Ladies and gentlemen,
After its adoption in 2003, Japan ratified UNCAC in 2017. Meanwhile, UNAFEI, as a
United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme Network Institute, hasconducted annual multilateral UNAFEI-UNCAC training courses for criminal justicepractitioners, which aim at facilitating effective implementation of UNCAC, as well as thisannual Good Governance Seminars. Such activities contribute to the promotion andimplementation of United Nations standards and norms, including UNCAC, and contribute to theachievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular, Goal 16.5, to substantiallyreduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.

- 17 -

UNAFEI, through these training courses and seminars, has endeavoured to support
participating countries around the world in preventing and combating corruption, withconsiderable focus on Southeast Asian countries. I am sure that these courses and seminars haveoffered good opportunities to share knowledge and experiences for fighting corruption
effectively. Moreover, relationships built among the participants facilitate and enhanceinternational cooperation in the effort to prevent and fight corruption.
I strongly believe that UNAFEI’s courses and seminars have largely facilitated eachcountry’s efforts in improving its criminal justice system and practices in the fight against
corruption. Given its importance, I am fully convinced that UNAFEI’s continuous efforts in thefield of capacity-building for criminal justice practitioners have contributed to enhancing theregion’s anti-corruption measures and have played an important role in our collective fightagainst corruption. Bearing this in mind, UNAFEI will continue to hold these training courses
and seminars to enhance our collective capacity to fight corruption.
Ladies and gentlemen,
In this Twelfth Seminar, the knowledge and experience of nine participating countries will
be exchanged and discussed. Facing a new era of complex transnational corruption, closer
cooperation will add more value than ever to the fight against corruption. Let us continue towork hand in hand in this tough and endless fight.
In closing, expressing my sincere hope and expectation for successful and fruitful
discussions at this Good Governance Seminar and my heartfelt thanks to all of the participants
for attending, and again my deepest gratitude to the Supreme People’s Procuracy of Viet Nam
for co-hosting this seminar in Da Nang, I would like to conclude my keynote address.
Thank you for your kind attention.

- 18 -

CHAIR’S SUMMARYTwelfth Regional Seminar on Good Governancefor Southeast Asian Countries
Da Nang, Viet Nam
27 – 29 November 2018

GENERAL
1. The Twelfth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries, co-hosted
by the Supreme People’s Procuracy of Viet Nam (SPP) and the United Nations Asia and Far East
Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI), was held in Da
Nang, Viet Nam from 27 to 29 November 2018. Mr. Takeshi Seto, Director of UNAFEI, served
as the Chair of the Seminar. Officials and experts from the following jurisdictions attended theseminar: Brunei Darussalam, the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Republic of Indonesia, Japan, theLao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Union of Myanmar, the Republic of thePhilippines, the Republic of Singapore, the Kingdom of Thailand and the Socialist Republic ofViet Nam.
OPENING CEREMONY
2. Mr. TAKESHI SETO, Director of UNAFEI and Dr. TRAN CONG PHAN, Deputy Procurator Generaldelivered opening addresses, welcoming the participants, introducing the theme of The Latest
Regional Trends in Corruption and Effective Countermeasures by Criminal Justice Authorities
and emphasizing the importance of reviewing and recognizing advancements in anti-corruption
practices through the sharing of knowledge, skills and strategies from the ASEAN region andbeyond. Director Seto and Dr. Tran Cong Phan both addressed the importance of international
cooperation in combating transnational crime and corruption.
3. MR. SHINICHI ASAZUMA, Deputy Chief of Mission of the Embassy of Japan in Viet Nam,
expressed the sincere gratitude of the government of Japan to the SPP and UNAFEI for their
dedicated preparation for the Seminar. He stressed the importance of the rule of law in fighting
corruption, noting that corruption is a significant factor in hindering social and economic
development, as well as strengthening relationships between the participating countries.
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
4. DIRECTOR SETO delivered his keynote, addressing the importance of international cooperation. In
the decade following the adoption of UNCAC, many countries have developed their anticorruption strategies and practices by, for example, establishing special anti-corruption agencies
and courts, implementing prevention measures, and employing special investigation measures,such as undercover operations, telecommunications interception, and enhancing witness
protection. However, drastic societal changes over the past ten years, including the rapid- 19 -

expansion of information and communications technologies and cross-border financialtransactions, have led to a new era of transnational corruption. Simply relying on conventional
methods to fight corruption may no longer be sufficient to suppress the increasingly transnationaland complex nature of corruption. In addition to developing new countermeasures, anticorruption practitioners must work more closely than ever to overcome transnational corruption
with the aim of ensuring sustainable social and economic development.
VISITING EXPERTS’ LECTURES
5. DR. CLAIRE ARMELLE LEGER, Anti-Corruption Analyst, Anti-Corruption Division, Directorate
for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,delivered her lecture on the topic of Mutual Legal Assistance in Asia and the Pacific:
Experiences in 31 Jurisdictions. Dr. Leger introduced the OECD Anticorruption Initiative for
Asia-Pacific, including the results of a regional survey on challenges and best practices for
effective Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA).
Common Challenges to Effective MLA in Corruption Cases
The first challenge is the legal basis for cooperation, which can be based on multilateral orbilateral treaties or domestic law. If two countries do not have a treaty, article 46 of UNCAC canserve as a basis. Second, differences in legal and procedural frameworks were reported byseveral countries as posing challenges to obtaining MLA due to misunderstanding of theapplicable legal basis, grounds for requests, legal and procedural requirements, among others.
Third, although many countries use English, language barriers remain, as some countries lacktranslation resources. Fourth, some requests lack sufficient descriptions of the assistancerequested. In that case, the ability to communicate through informal means can help the efficient
processing of requests. Fifth, some countries reported delays, insufficient responses, or receiving
no response at all to requests. While most requests are fulfilled within 6 months to 1 year, delaysin the provision of MLA frustrate efficient international cooperation and law enforcement,
enabling shell companies to disband, offenders to transfer and conceal corruption proceeds, andoffenders and witnesses to relocate. Sixth, resource issues were also reported as barriers toeffective MLA. The greater need for MLA has increased financial and other burdens on anticorruption enforcement agencies, such as processing a greater number of MLA requests, theneed for more staff and training programmes, and greater need for technology and equipment.
Finally, traditional grounds for refusing MLA include dual criminality, evidentiary andinformation issues, among other grounds. According to the survey, the most cited reason forrefusal was the failure of the request to meet evidentiary requirements of the requested state.
Evidentiary issues come into play as a practical matter as well. If necessary documentation is notincluded in the request, it may be impossible to execute, even if the information is not legallyrequired. While dual criminality can be a hurdle, many jurisdictions take the conduct-based
approach, meaning that as long as the conduct constitutes an offence in the requested state, thedual criminality requirement is deemed to be met.
Best Practices for MLA in Corruption Cases
First, networks and relationships lead to trust and effective communication, but they take time todevelop. Countries are encouraged to engage in regular bilateral meetings among law
enforcement officials, as well as networking and exchange of practices. Second, requests must be- 20 -

accompanied by supporting information that provides executing authorities with (i) adequate
grounds to undertake the requested action and (ii) necessary facts and other details. Training on
MLA practices and request writing is also important. Third, consultations between parties areencouraged under Article 48 of UNCAC. Law enforcement officials should consider
consultations at all stages of the process: from pre-request to consultation after the request is
submitted. Consultations should be viewed as complimentary to the request writing process.
Fourth, transmission and prioritization of requests is important, as several governmental bodies
may be involved in processing the request, and clear procedures are essential. Finally, modern
technology permits the efficient tracking of incoming and outgoing MLA requests. While anumber of countries have such case management tools, other jurisdictions primarily rely on inperson contacts; the ideal approach to case management combines these two approaches.
Practical Tools for Facilitating Effective MLA
To facilitate the MLA process, all jurisdictions should consider, where possible in accordancewith law, engaging in direct law enforcement cooperation, spontaneous exchanges of
information, and the utilization of international networks. Direct cooperation between law
enforcement agencies, such as anti-corruption authorities, FIUs, police forces, tax authorities,
and prosecution authorities, is indispensable to investigating transnational corruption. However,the MLA process is formal and bureaucratic. Informal cooperation between law enforcement
agencies can lead to valuable intelligence to further an investigation, such as obtaining legal
advice about the process, company records, general information about persons or companies,
information needed to facilitate witness interviews, and so on. Additionally, many jurisdictions
are recognizing the importance of spontaneous exchanges of information. The primary goal ofsuch exchanges is to serve the interests of the receiving state, but the receiving state is obligatedto maintain confidentiality. Finally, practitioners should make use of international networks tofacilitate assistance, such as holding periodic meetings, involvement in international or regional
networks, and stationing liaison officers abroad. Informal and spontaneous exchanges of
information must only be provided in accordance with a jurisdiction’s legal framework.
6. MR. MOHAMAD ZAMRI BIN ZAINUL ABIDIN, Deputy Commissioner, Malaysia Anti-Corruption
Commission (MACC), delivered his lecture on the topic of The Latest Regional Trends in
Corruption and Effective Countermeasures by Criminal Justice Authorities—Malaysian
Perspectives. While prosecuting offenders for corruption is an important step, this traditional
approach is insufficient to combat corruption. Anti-corruption practitioners must prioritize theconfiscation of assets obtained through corruption and pursue corporate liability. In Malaysia,
these priorities are reflected in the MACC’s four operating divisions: the AMLA Division, theHigh Level Task Force, Forensic and Financial Expertise, and Joint Operations. Mr. Zamri
introduced three cases to further demonstrate the issues faced in Malaysia and the MACC’s anticorruption approaches. In the first case, smuggling was introduced as a common form ofcorruption faced in Malaysia, particularly in reference to avoiding customs duties in Free Trade
Zones in which imported goods are underdeclared and smuggled out of warehouses. To counter
this practice, the MACC stationed undercover officers in the Free Trade Zone to identify andtrack smuggled goods, gathered intelligence on the bribery of customs officials, and conductedsimultaneous arrests of key suspects. Other key factors to disrupting this scheme included
gathering financial information, working with and protecting informants and whistle-blowers,
conducting Intelligence Based Investigation (IBI) and conducting parallel investigations into

- 21 -

each criminal offence and money laundering. In the second case, a transnational case in which
the corruption took place in Hong Kong, the MACC obtained suspicious transaction reports andother banking information to detect the flow of the bribes, but the criminals changed their modus
operandi by using proxies to transfer bribe money via cash. Thus, the use of informants wasimportant to investigate the case and follow the cash flow. When attempting to trace bribemoney, the MACC looks at the criminal’s family tree to identify which proxies may be inpossession of the illicit funds, and persons of interest typically include the criminal’s spouse,children, mistresses, etc. Furthermore, suspects need to be investigated with consideration of thesource of the bribe money, money laundering, and tax evasion. Finally, Mr. Zamri introduced ahigh-profile corruption case, in which a former Prime Minister of Malaysia received bribe money.
The MACC collaborated with at least seven countries to investigate the case. These countries
established an international task force to facilitate the exchange of information. The MACC also
learned information about the scheme through court cases in other jurisdictions, when important
information became part of the public domain. Based on the information collected using thesemeasures, the former Prime Minister was arrested in July 2018, his residence was searched andassets were seized, including a $250 million superyacht. The Prime Minister was charged in
September 2018, along with his wife, and his lawyer, as well as the former Deputy Prime
Minister. The amount seized in Malaysia was over 286,000,000 ringgit (191 accounts);
Singapore returned SGD15 million; and the superyacht was returned. Based on these high-value
forfeitures, more assets were voluntary returned.
COUNTRY PRESENTATIONS
7. BRUNEI DARUSSALAM: The delegation reported that fuel smuggling is a common problem, andthe bribery of customs officers is frequently one of the means for smuggling the fuel. The fuelsmuggling case illustrated the use of undercover operations, video surveillance, and joint
operations. Other forms of corruption include public procurement corruption, bribery of public
officials and schemes to defraud the state. Brunei Darussalam also places great emphasis on
corruption education and awareness programmes for the government and the private sector, withthe objective of instilling integrity and core values and promoting awareness of fighting
corruption in day-to-day dealings. The ACB has launched education programmes for primarythrough tertiary levels of education and has incorporated Corruption Prevention Education into
the National Curriculum.
8. CAMBODIA: The fight against corruption in public education has been a recent trend, and great
efforts have been taken by the ACU to monitor the administration of high school graduation
exams. Monitoring is performed by 196 ACU staff members (one per testing centre) and nearly
5,000 volunteers (one per exam room). The integrity of judges and public officials remains achallenge in Cambodia, as illustrated by the embezzlement case presented, in which theSecretary General of the Ministry of Post and Telecommunication was found guilty andsentenced to imprisonment and fines in the amount of 200,000 USD, and 500,000 USD was
confiscated from his bank account.
9.

INDONESIA: Stressing the impact of corruption on economic and social development, thedelegation introduced Indonesia’s strategies for corruption prevention and law enforcement,
including enhanced measures to institute e-procurement, protect whistle-blowers, accelerate the- 22 -

resolution of cases, the establishment of the TP4P and TP4D initiatives and the Special Task
Force for Countermeasure Acts and Disposal of Corruption Case (Satgasus P3TPK), etc. These
efforts recovered nearly 475 billion rupiah in 2017. The delegation reported on the misuse of
legitimate business transactions as a latest corruption trend. The e-ID case, in which fraudulent
companies were established for the specific purpose of submitting losing bids in the public
procurement process, resulted in the loss of approximately 2.3 billion rupiah. Other schemes
include set-off debt and the use of money changers to conceal illicit money transfers.
10. JAPAN (UNAFEI): The most prevalent form of corruption in Japan is bid rigging in public
procurement. A case involving four big construction companies was introduced. In 2018, Japan
introduced “cooperative agreements” (a kind of plea agreement) as an investigative measure,which is useful in corruption cases.
11. LAOS: Corruption among public officials remains a challenge in Laos, resulting in significant
financial losses to the state. Forms of corruption include abuse of position, power and duty,
swindling state property, and bribery. Corruption in the financial system was also reported as asignificant problem, through which offenders open and close loan accounts as a form ofcorruption. To address these problems, Laos requires public officials at all levels to submit asset
declarations. Moreover, Laos is making efforts to promote public understanding and awarenessof corruption in its education system from the kindergarten level to high school, increase
capacity and anti-corruption awareness of public officials at all levels, increase research on
corruption, adopt stricter laws and regulations, implement the National Anti-Corruption Strategy
and cooperate with other countries.
12. MALAYSIA: Corruption offences in Malaysia include receiving and giving gratification, false
claims, abuse of power, money laundering and other penal code offences. In addition toprosecution of corruption cases, the MACC places great emphasis on the seizure and forfeitureof the proceeds of corruption with and without prosecution. Due to strict banking rules in
Malaysia, criminals are avoiding financial institutions by storing massive amounts of cash intheir homes. Four cases were introduced, demonstrating the characteristics of the most common
forms of corruption: misuse of public funds, involvement of huge amounts of cash, involvementof lawyers and dummy documents, and the use of proxies. The delegation addressed operational
and preventive countermeasures including effective investigation management techniques,“Corruption-Free Pledges”, Integrity Units etc.
13. MYANMAR: Corruption among public officials remains widespread in Myanmar. A trend indeveloping leads in corruption cases is the investigation of credible news reports of corruption.
The delegation also reported the use of administrative actions and rules to prevent corruption,such as establishing rules on the acceptance of gifts by public officials and their family members.
Moreover, the Myanmar Investment Commission issued the Anti-Corruption Code of Ethics forprivate-sector companies. Three bribery cases were introduced, dealt with by the AntiCorruption Commission, addressing the examination of bank records, witness testimony, anddiscovering corruption leads based on “notorious news”.
14. PHILIPPINES: Corruption is a constant concern in the Philippines, and the delegation reported
numerous high-profile cases involving legislators and former presidents. From 1979 to 2016,- 23 -

53.58% of 33,772 corruption cases involved malversation and graft committed by high-ranking
officials. Corruption in the Philippines generally includes bribery, kickbacks, abuse of function,
influence peddling and illicit enrichment, as well as a number of other forms unique to thePhilippines, such as technical malversation, political dynasty, “ghost” projects, etc. To counter
corruption, the Philippines has developed effective prevention strategies and programmes
developed through broad-based partnerships. Prevention measures include inter-agency
partnerships, strengthening legislation, enhanced transparency, integrity programmes, taking asectoral approach to licensing and permitting, digitization of systems, merit-based incentive
programmes, and the creation of an anti-corruption hotline. Several law enforcement measuresand international cooperation and asset recovery measures were also reported.
15. SINGAPORE: Corruption in Singapore occurs predominately in the private sector, such as inconstruction, wholesale and retail businesses, warehousing, and logistics. In response, Singapore
has undertaken measures to engage the private sector in anti-corruption efforts. The CPIB placesemphasis on disgorging illicit gains by pursuing money laundering offences, as highlighted by
the introduction of cases involving money laundering and the confiscation of unexplained wealth.
In the current era of transnational corruption, working with other countries to seize and freeze
assets is a key priority. An evolving challenge is the tracking and tracing of crypto-currencies.
The participant from the Attorney General’s Chambers reviewed seminal cases in the sentencing
of private-sector corruption cases and explained Singapore’s legislative approach to inchoate
corruption offences, in which an attempt, or aiding and abetting, to commit a corrupt act isdeemed as commitment of the corrupt act itself. Potential future developments include theprosecution’s proposed introduction of sentencing matrices for corruption crimes and possible
legislative amendments that enhance penalties for corruption.
16. THAILAND: In July 2018, the new Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E. 2561 came into force.
The new law (i) expands the coverage of the law to include “Public Officers” (including certain
judges and officers of independent organizations, and other officials prescribed by law); (ii)requires the review of corruption cases by the National Anti-Corruption Commission; (iii)
requires the transfer of all corruption arrestees to the NACC office in Bangkok within 48 hours;and (iv) provides for time limits in the process of filing corruption cases in court. The “Temple
Corruption Scheme”, which involved defrauding the government of public funds and took placein temples throughout Thailand, was introduced to illustrate the complexity of corruption
schemes. Problems faced in Thailand include the lack of manpower of investigators, time limits
under the new organic law, and the complexity and difficulty of the extradition process. In
response, the NACC is appointing more than 600 new investigators, and specialized corruption
courts have recently been opened in Bangkok and 9 other regions.
17. VIET NAM: Property embezzlement has been, and will continue to be, a common corruption
crime in Viet Nam, especially in the private sector. The Criminal Code 2005 has been revised inorder to deal with the current corruption situation in Viet Nam and to meet the public’s
requirements for, and interest in, the legal reform process. The presentation from Viet Nam
addressed the supervision of investigation, prosecution and adjudication of embezzlement cases.
After introducing the substantive law and elements of embezzlement, practical tips on matters tobe proven and evidence required to prove embezzlement were presented. Key matters during thesupervision of the investigation process include determination of the legal foundation for- 24 -

instituting criminal proceedings, collecting documents and evidence through search and seizure,preparation and interrogation of offenders, taking testimony of witnesses, conducting appraisals
to establish damages caused by the corruption, and drafting the indictment. Prosecutors alsoneed to improve their trial preparation, practice and presentation skills, such as conducting athorough review of all documents, evidence, and witness statements, preparing for and making
arguments at trial, making rebuttals and other responses.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
18. Corruption undermines the rule of law, erodes public confidence in the state, and hinders
sustainable social and economic development. While the widespread adoption of UNCAC has
led to improved anti-corruption enforcement, the increasingly transnational and complex natureof corruption has increased the challenges faced by anti-corruption practitioners, particularly inthe area of international cooperation. While anti-corruption authorities struggle to overcome
challenges in obtaining MLA—which range from different legal and procedural frameworks tolanguage barriers—delays in the provision of assistance enable criminals to conceal the proceedsof corruption and evade justice. Many countries continue to face traditional forms of corruption,such as bribery, embezzlement, and smuggling. Meanwhile, new modi operandi have been
evolving, such as avoiding traditional financial systems through the misuse of various forms oflegitimate business transactions, the role of lawyers in corruption schemes, set-off debt, the useof money changers to transfer illicit funds, and the use of cryptocurrencies for corruption.
Among these trends, private-sector corruption is becoming a greater priority in many
jurisdictions.
19. To overcome these challenges, all countries are encouraged to: (i) enhance efforts to engage ininternational cooperation, and, in doing so, strengthen the use of informal cooperation
mechanisms, direct law enforcement cooperation, and networking among anti-corruption
agencies; (ii) proactively seize and confiscate the proceeds of corruption and related assets; (iii)utilize special investigation measures, such as telecommunications interception, undercover
operations, cooperative agreements, etc.; (iv) provide training to respond to new corruption
trends; and (v) continue anti-corruption prevention efforts, including through public education
and awareness programmes.

29 NOVEMBER 2018
DA NANG, VIET NAM- 25 -

- 26 -VISITING EXPERT’S PAPER

Mr. Mohamad Zamri bin Zainul Abidin
Deputy Commissioner
Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission- 27 -

- 28 -

THE LATEST REGIONAL TRENDS IN CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVE
COUNTERMEASURES BY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AUTHORITIESMohamad Zamri Bin Zainul Abidin *I.

INTRODUCTION

As we all know, crime is evolving and so do the corruption trends. Traditionally, corruption
refers to moral impurity, but the concept of corruption has changed over time and varies acrosscultures and different jurisdictions. Corruption is a phenomenon that can occur in any country in
the world. No matter whether the country is poor or prosperous, democratic or authoritarian, bigor small, it cannot avoid corruption. Corruption is one such problem that has been prevalent inour country for ages. Dishonesty of the people in power and bribery at various levels is whatleads to corruption. What people do not realize is that their attempts at small personal gains are
greatly affecting the country's economic and social development.
Forms of corruption vary but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism,
patronage, influence peddling, graft, and embezzlement. Corruption may facilitate criminal
enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and human trafficking, though it is not
restricted to these activities.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) is one of the anti-corruption agencies
in the world that is venturing to combat corruption. What I am going to share here is more thanmost people know: how we receive information, conduct investigations and case projects andthe end results. Corruption trends are evolving, people are more educated, smarter and, with thehelp of the new technologies, it is even easier to engage in corruption. To keep abreast with it,
we need to stay ahead of the criminals.
II. PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF CORRUPTION
While great information can be received from whistle-blowers, corruption often goesunchallenged when people do not speak out about it. Witness accounts offer invaluable insights
into corruption and are powerful tools in the fight against it. From exposing multi-million-dollar
financial frauds to dangerous medical practices, whistle-blowers play a crucial role in saving
resources and even lives.
But in some countries, blowing the whistle can carry high personal risk — particularly when
there is little legal protection against dismissal, humiliation or even physical abuse. Controls on
information, libel and defamation laws, and inadequate investigation of whistle-blowers' claims
can all deter people from speaking out.
*

Deputy Commissioner, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, Malaysia.

- 29 -

Whistle-blowers are less likely to report workplace misconduct when their employers do notprovide clear internal reporting channels. And in some settings, whistle-blowing carries
connotations of betrayal rather than being seen as a benefit to the public. Ultimately, societies,
institutions and citizens lose out when there is no one willing to cry foul in the face of corruption.
The Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 was passed by Parliament in June 2010 and brought
into force on 15 December 2010. The law was enacted to combat corruption and otherwrongdoing by encouraging and facilitating disclosures of improper conduct in the public andprivate sectors, to protect persons making those disclosures from detrimental action, to provide
for the matter disclosed to be investigated and to provide remedies connected therewith. The
objective of this act is to give protection to the whistle-blower in the form of confidentiality of
their information, immunity from civil and criminal action and protection from detrimental
action being taken against them.
The Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 provides protection to whistle-blowers who
voluntarily come forward to report or reveal information on corruption activities. This Act also
encourages the public from all sectors to disclose corruption related activities. The identity of thewhistle-blower and the information provided are kept confidential from any party. Whistleblowers are also given immunity from any civil, criminal or disciplinary action due to revealing
the act of corruption.
The law covers any member of the public and private sectors who discloses wrongdoing,such as abuse of authority, violation of laws and ethical standards, danger to public health orsafety, gross waste, illegality and mismanagement. The disclosure should be made in "goodfaith" based on "honest and reasonable grounds at the material time" without necessitating hard
evidence from the whistle-blower. The duty of gathering evidence will be tasked to theinvestigation unit of the enforcement agencies to ensure that the whistleblower is notcompromised. However, whistleblowers can provide evidence if it is legally available throughthe course of their work.
Disclosure of confidential information is punishable by fine not exceeding RM 50,000 or
imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or both. A whistle-blower will not be subject toany civil action or criminal liability, and no administrative process can be taken against thewhistle-blower for making disclosure of improper conduct. Under the act, no person shall take
detrimental action against any whistle-blower or person related to or associated with the whistleblower in reprisal for a disclosure of improper conduct.
III. POWERFUL INFORMATION OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER
A. OPS B2'OPS B2', is a project-based investigation under the Special Taskforce (STF), Attorney
General Chambers (AGC) and being reported directly to the ex-AG and monitored by the MACC
Chief Commissioner and his Deputy (Operations).

- 30 -

This case had started in 2012, and information about the case was derived from the whistleblower regarding the abuse of facilities in Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) by organized syndicates
involving smuggling of some high-risk items such as alcohol and cigarettes. Furthermore, there
is also information from the public which revealed that the syndicates were involved directly inthe smuggling activities in PKFZ by bringing in items such as alcohol and non-taxable cigarettes
into the Malaysian market. Thus, the STF with MACC have come together in comprehensiveplanning to ensure and implement this task as a project-based case using "Intelligence &Analysis Based Investigation (IABI)". In this case, thorough covert operations had been done fora period of more than 1 year. The purpose of the covert operations is to ensure the modus
operandi and smuggling activities are clearly shown.
Instead of covert operations, we have also ventured into data analysis. We have derived thedata from the PKFZ system which is ZBI (Import) and ZB2 (Export) and Malaysian Customs
which is Kl, K2 and K8 forms from the 'target' companies themselves, showing that from 2011 to2014 there were losses of customs duties in the amount of MYR 2 billion. Bank data (suspects
personal and company accounts), CTR, STR and ITIS from Bank Negara Malaysia also played a
big role in this analysis. All were merged together in order for us to obtain the most accurate
indicative decisions before the operations launch.
We have also initiated our 'Undercover Officer' (UCO) programme as value added to data
analysis. Two officers were planted as general workers in PKFZ and were tasked to monitor the
movement of the transport and containers in and out from the warehouse in PKFZ. Livemonitoring was also captured through CCTV from our bogus warehouse and the use of technicaldevices such as vehicle movement GPS (trackers) and cameras.
This operation involved almost 150 MACC personnel from a few states and divisions in
MACC including the Prosecution Division.
The major operations launched on 3 September 2014. There was also involvement from theRoyal Malaysian Police (RMP), Bukit Aman Special Branch. It was a collaborative operation
launched together called 'Op Sting'. RMP assisted MACC to stop all the suspects’ lorries(Alcohol loading) headed out from PKFZ. RMP also assisted by interrogating the suspects on thesmuggling issues and corrupt payments to the customs officials.
The operations lasted for a month after the launch date. It later followed Ops B2 Phase 1,
Phase 2 and Phase 3. In the operation itself, there were 10 public persons being arrested and 34
customs officials remanded. Out of 10 arrested public persons, 6 of them were protected under
the Witness Protection Programme for 3 months.
Throughout the investigations, 32 senior customs officials and 1 public person were charged
under Section 17 a of the MACC Act 2009 and the Penal Code in Kuala Lumpur and Shah Alam
Sessions Court involving bribery of MYR 1,098,401 for 212 charges.
MACC managed to seize as cash in the amount of MYR 2,172,388.00, jewelry, 4 luxury
cars, 4 lorries, alcohol products valued at MYR 200,000.00 and froze the suspects’ bankaccounts with the value of MYR 18,132,337.00.

- 31 -

This is a parallel investigation of predicate offences under the MACC Act 2009 and Anti
Money Laundering offence of AMLATFPUAA 2001.
MACC is also proposing to Royal Malaysian Customs to enhance their ability in monitoringand handling the process of importing goods to the Free Trade Area (FTA) through the policy
review with the assistance from MACC Consultation and Inspections Divisions. This is toimprove the existing system and procedures and to avoid lack of monitoring in port and FTA.
B. OPS BS
At the end of 2014, MACC received information from another whistle-blower regarding
smuggling issues involving cigarettes, alcohol, cooking oil, diesel, petrol and human trafficking
in Sabah. This is due to corruption issues related to enforcement agencies there; as a result,
Malaysia lost billions of Ringgit in taxes avoided by the culprits.
Hence, the renamed STF called the AML Task Force instructed MACC to continue anothercovert operations analysis on smuggling in Sabah. Monitoring had been done in Sabah for about
8 months. 527 individual accounts and 361 company accounts were investigated throughout theperiods, which were later presented to the former Malaysian Attorney General, Tan Sri Gani
Patail. Then MACC was instructed to lead the operations under codename "OPS BS".
It was a joint operation consisting of MACC, Inland Revenue Board (IRB), Royal Malaysian
Police (RMP), Royal Malaysian Customs (RMC), Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM),
Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Malaysia (IQDNKK), Central Bank of
Malaysia (BNM), Cyber Securities Malaysia (CSM) and Eastern Sabah Security Command(ESSCOM). Technically this major operation involved 400 personnel from all the participating
agencies. Almost the same analysis approach was used in this operation, such as the use of CTR,
STR and ITIS data, RMC data, IRB data and data from CCM. This data was combined to ensure
the right target would be raided on the operation day.
The operations launched on 15 May 2015 concurrently in some Districts throughout Sabah
which included LABUAN, KOTA KNABALU, KENINGAU, TAWAU, SANDAKAN,
SEMPORNA. On the same day, the amount of the frozen accounts totaled MYR
559,486,123,000.00, involving 1,623 accounts of individuals and companies. 51 locations wereraided, and 3 people were arrested.
MACC seized cash for MYR 465,428.53, jewelry and other currencies worth more than
MYR 1 million. MACC Sabah (State office) opened an investigation specifically for corruption
payments to public officials.
RMC also managed to seize 20 containers containing alcohol products and 600 master casesof cigarettes and their transportation. The KPDNKK also seized 746,871.3 liters of diesel, diesel
smuggling goods with the approximate confiscated value of MYR 1,025,614.38. For thisoperation itself, the IRB managed to collect taxes of more than MYR 30 million.

- 32 -

C. OPS BORION
Ops Borion involved one of the most high-ranked politicians in Sabah (Sabah's former Chief
Minister). In this case, MACC had applied various approaches in the method of investigation,
which was tailored from the quality information of the whistle-blower and informers, the use oftechnical informational data from the Financial Intelligence and Investigation Division (FIED) of
the Central Bank of Malaysia (formerly known as the Financial Investigation Unit (FIU)), covert
investigations, international joint operations and the biggest mass arrest in MACC history.
One of the most crucial roles of the FIED is to spearhead the National efforts in combating
money laundering and serious crime by providing value-added contributions to national andinternational supervisory and enforcement agencies, formulation and implementation of acomprehensive national anti-money-laundering regime and promoting awareness of money
laundering and terrorism financing issues.
The database supplied (CTR/STR/ITIS) was fully utilized in analysing and specifying thecase. Instead of being a Chief Minister (CM), he also held a position at the Foundation of Sabah
Trust Fund. From 2003 to 2009, he awarded 147 timber concessions to his 8 proxies through 28
companies, and the payment was directed to Singapore and Hong Kong. The corrupt payments
were later being paid by the contractors to one of his trusted proxy UBS AG accounts in Hong
Kong, which is the total amount of USD 47.6 million. There were three (3) accounts opened forthis purpose in 2006 and 2007. The proxy who is also a prominent lawyer in Sabah was tied by
the document called "Letter of Trust", and the deeds stated that this former CM was thebeneficiary of the said accounts.
In March 2008, the trusted proxy was instructed to transfer all the funds from UBS AG
Hong Kong to UBS AG Zurich. The transactions were discovered by JFIU Hong Kong in preSTR disclosure and were disallowed. This investigation was also being conducted by the
Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Hong Kong whereby they had made an"ex-parte application" in the High Court of Hong Kong involving the three accounts and thefunds stated. The applications were granted, and its last from 30 October 2008 and wascontinued twice until 21 October 2011.
MACC launched an operation in May 2010, and 8 proxies were arrested. The arrest was
conducted in Sabah, and the remand proceeding was conducted in Putrajaya. All of the proxies
were remanded for 7 to 11 days; all of them cooperated with MACC during the remand period.
On 5 November 2018, this former CM was charged in Kuala Lumpur Session Court for 35
corruption charges under Section I I(a) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 for receiving bribes
amounting to USD 63 million or MYR 243 million. The court allowed him to be released on bailfor MYR 2 million and both his passport and diplomatic passport were surrendered to the court.

- 33 -

COUNTRY PRESENTATION PAPERS

Ms. Hajah Rozaimah bint Haji Abd Rahman & Ms. Yeo Mian Yie, Brunei Darussalam***
Mr. Nuon Sothimon & Mr. Tan Senarong, Cambodia***
Mr. Fauzy Marasabessy & Ms. Arin Karniasari, Indonesia***
Mr. Vilavong Phomkong & Mr. Thepphathai Phanka, Lao PDR***
Mr. Azhari Bin Karim & Mr. Premraj Isaac Dawson Martin Victor, Malaysia***
Mr. Kap Tluang & Mr. Aung Khant, Myanmar***
Mr. Melchor Arthur Hernandez Carandang & Ms. Jennifer Angeles Balboa-Cahig, Philippines***
Mr. Lam Seow Kin & Ms. Chew Xizhi Stephanie, Singapore***
Ms. Tharanee Konchanat Davison, Thailand***
Mr. Nguyen Dang Thang & Mr. Nguyen Duc Bang, Viet Nam- 34 -

BRUNEI DARUSSALAM’S PERSPECTIVE: THE LATEST REGIONAL
TRENDS IN CORRUPTION & EFFECTIVE COUNTERMEASURES
Sharon Yeo Mian Yie *Capt (Rtd) Hajah Rozaimah Haji Abd Rahman †I.

INTRODUCTION

Corruption, broadly defined, is the single greatest obstacle to economic and social
development around the world. The devastating effects of corruption can evidently be seen fromthe stifled economic growth and stagnant social conditions suffered primarily by the low-income
earners within the masses. The huge financial disparity within the different levels of society
resulting from corrupt practices by those in power or in positions of trust is an ever-increasingproblem faced by nations worldwide. Corruption distorts markets, stunts economic growth,debases democracy and undermines the rule of law. Corruption is not a problem exclusive to the
public sector. It also affects the activities in the private sector, either in transactions involving
private sector actors only or in public-private sector engagements.
A. Brunei Darussalam’s Stance on Corruption
Under the leadership of His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah
Ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Haji Omar ‘Ali Saifuddien Sa’adul Khairi Waddien, the Sultan and Yang
Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Darussalam is a nation that places great emphasis on
the need to continuously fight corruption. Combatting the evils associated with corruption is oneof the utmost priorities of the Government of Brunei Darussalam in its efforts to promote
progress in all areas, such as good governance, economic growth and social development.
His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah Ibni Al-Marhum Sultan
Haji Omar ‘Ali Saifuddien Sa’adul Khairi Waddien, the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei
Darussalam has often highlighted the grave impact of corruption on the overall development of
the Government, the private sector and the society at large.
In a Titah in conjunction with Brunei Darussalam’s 33rd National Day Celebration, 2017,
His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah Ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Haji
Omar ‘Ali Saifuddien Sa’adul Khairi Waddien, the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei
Darussalam addressed the nation as follows –Although we have the infrastructure, technology, equipment, mechanism and a goodsystem, if our intention is not good, the outcome will also be not good. For instance,
if there is corruption in the government, it will drag the nation towards a bad state,even though the workforce is highly skillful or comprised of scholars. We should*†

Deputy Senior Counsel, Criminal Justice Division, Attorney General’s Chambers, Brunei Darussalam.
Counsel, Criminal Justice Division, Attorney General’s Chambers, Brunei Darussalam.

- 35 -

control this to prevent the nation from experiencing undesirable developments. We
have been seeing or hearing about many untoward incidents taking place everywheresuch as breach of trust, corruption and so on. Places affected by these ills facevarious sorts of difficulties. In this context, Brunei should be vigilant and learn
lessons from it.
B. Anti-Corruption Laws
Committed to eradicate corruption from all walks of life, Brunei Darussalam enacted theEmergency (Prevention of Corruption) Order, 1981. This Order then soon became known as thePrevention of Corruption Act (“PCA”), Chapter 131.
To this very day, this legal framework has significantly contributed towards the nation’s
fight against corruption. Cases involving alleged corrupt activities have been investigated andprosecuted under the various offences prescribed in the said PCA.
LEGALPROVISION

OFFENCEPENALTY

Section 5

Corruption

Fine of $30,000 and imprisonment for
7 years

Section 6

Corrupt transaction with agents(a) Corruptly
accepts/obtains or agrees
to accept or attempts toobtain(b) Corruptly
givesor
agrees to give or offers

Fine of $30,000 and imprisonment for
7 years

Corrupt transaction under Section
5 or 6 relates to a contract or
proposal for a contract with any
public bodyFine of $30,000 and imprisonment for
10 years

Section 9

Corruptly procuring withdrawal oftenders

Fine of $30,000 and imprisonment for
7 years

Section 10

Bribery of member of legislature

Fine of $30,000 and imprisonment for
7 years

Section 11

Bribery of member of public bodyFine of $30,000 and imprisonment for
7 years

Section 12

Possession
property

Fine of $30,000 and imprisonment for
7 years

Section 7

ofunexplained- 36 -An Amended Order to the PCA came into force on 22 September 2015, to which these
additional provisions were inserted:LEGAL
PROVISION

OFFENCEPENALTY

Section 12 A

Public officer’s use of public funds
for private purposes, giving undue
preferential treatment and misusing
information

Fine of $30,000 and imprisonment
for 7 years

Section 12B

Public officer’s wilful misconduct
or neglect of duty to such a degree
as to amount to an abuse of publictrust in the officer holder

Fine of $30,000 and imprisonment
for 7 years

C. The Anti-Corruption Bureau
The Anti-Corruption Bureau (“ACB”) is a specialized, independent body established on 1st
February 1982 entrusted with the main function to investigate into complaints against corruption.
Under the PCA, the ACB is also conferred with powers to investigate other offences under the
Penal Code, Chapter 22 and other written laws which had been disclosed during the course ofinvestigations into corruption matters. In executing its function, the ACB has employed 3 core
strategies to combat corruption namely investigation, prevention and education.
Under the provision of Section 3 of the PCA, His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuanof Brunei Darussalam shall appoint a Director who will be responsible for the direction andadministration of the ACB. The provision also stipulates that the Director of ACB is not subject
to any other person apart from His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei
Darussalam.
Since its creation, the ACB has investigated a large number of cases involving a range ofoffences varying from petty to grand corruption, as well as other Penal Code offences, such as
forgery, criminal breach of trust, money-laundering as well as investigations involving foreign
jurisdictions. The ACB is also actively engaged in promoting awareness programmes so as toeducate the mass society of the dangers of corruption and to instil core values of integrity,
responsibility, accountability and trustworthiness.
The ACB’s close cooperation with foreign enforcement agencies has significantly
contributed in the effective investigation of corruption and corruption related offences.

- 37 -

II. LATEST TRENDS IN CORRUPTION: BRUNEI DARUSSALAM’S PERSPECTIVE
A. Statistics of Cases Investigated by the ACB Concluded before the Courts of Brunei
Darussalam between January 2016 and October 2018
As with other jurisdictions, the investigation and prosecution of corruption cases in Brunei
Darussalam sometimes take a significant period of time to complete, due to the nature andcomplexity of corruption offences. Long protracted trials are also sometimes due to theunavailability of the Court, the Prosecution and the Defence to have the matters heard all at once.
Often the entire corrupt operations are undertaken under the cover of darkness and in amanner which reveals a systematic pattern of sinister premeditation – thus making suchoperations difficult to detect.
Below are the statistics of cases investigated by the ACB which have been concluded before
the Courts of Brunei Darussalam within the period from January 2016 to October 2018:

Key:
•
•
•
•
•

Section 6(a) of the PCA – corruptly accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain gratification
as an inducement or reward.
Section 6(b) of the PCA – corruptly gives or agrees to give or offers any gratification as an inducement or
reward.
Section 7(1) of the PCA - Corrupt transaction under Section 5 or 6 relates to a contract or proposal for acontract with any public body.
Section 165 of the Penal Code – Public servant obtaining a valuable thing, without consideration, fromperson concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant.
Section 409 of the Penal Code – Criminal breach of trust by public servant.

B. Recent Corruption Cases in Brunei Darussalam
1. A Royal Brunei Customs & Excise Officer: Mohd Sanip Bin Ura v Public Prosecutor(Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2016)
Mohd Sanip bin Ura (“Sanip Ura”) was a Royal Brunei Customs and Excise Officer whose
duty included border control to prevent prohibited and restricted goods to be imported or- 38 -

exported. At the time of the offence, Sanip Ura was posted at the Brunei–Malaysia Control postnear the border of Miri, Malaysia. As an oil rich country, fuel is subsidized by the Governmentof Brunei Darussalam. The price of Dieseline fuel is BND 0.31 (USD 0.21) per litre. As with all
subsidies, the export of fuel is prohibited.
Due to the low cost of fuel compared to that of our neighbouring country, fuel smuggling isa prevalent offence in Brunei Darussalam. The modus operandi of the fuel smuggling syndicate
is to obtain a few Brunei Darussalam registered cars to buy fuel at the fuel station closest to theborder between Brunei Darussalam and Malaysia. These cars are then required to cross theborder to the nearest pit-stop for the fuel smuggling operator to syphon the fuel from the fueltank of the said cars. This routine is then repeated by the said cars for a number of times in asingle day.
Some of these cars had modified fuel tanks to increase the maximum capacity of fuel inorder to avoid arousing suspicion at the Brunei Darussalam – Malaysia border.
In a joint operation between the ACB and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission(MACC), undercover agents were used to pose as fuel smugglers to bribe Customs Officers in
Brunei Darussalam. In November 2008, a legitimate fuel smuggler Kan was approached by
officers from the MACC who had been jointly investigating him together with the ACB. Kan
had been smuggling fuel and bribing Customs Officers since 2007. Kan was instructed tocontinue his fuel smuggling activities with another officer from MACC by the name of Lee.
In early December 2008, Kan introduced Lee to Sanip Ura at a coffeeshop in Kuala Belait,in Brunei Darussalam. During that meeting Sanip Ura told Lee that he had to pay him money atthe end of every month based on the number of cars used to smuggle diesoline. If the car had amodified fuel tank, Lee had to pay $100.00 for each car and if the car’s fuel tank was unmodified,
Lee had to pay $50.00. Sanip Ura instructed that Lee pay him at a later date and asked Lee not tomake arrangements with anyone else.
In mid-January 2009, Sanip Ura contacted Kan to ask Lee to pay him the monies that were
due to him. Two meetings were arranged between Sanip Ura and Lee at a coffeeshop in Kuala
Belait. During the first meeting, Lee who was wired with a pinhole camera gave Sanip Ura$200.00. Sanip Ura reminded Lee that he was supposed to pay $350 for 4 cars and Lee informed
Sanip Ura that he will pay the balance on the next day. Video recording from the pinhole camera
was tendered showing Lee holding money in his hand, followed by footage showing the absenceof money in his hand as evidence of the handover.
During the meeting the day after, Lee who was again wired with a pinhole camera met with
Sanip Ura at the same coffeeshop. Lee handed over $150 to Sanip Ura. The video recording thatwas tendered in Court showed Lee holding out the money in his hand and also showed footage of
Lee handing over the money to Sanip Ura. It was at this meeting that Sanip Ura informed Lee
that he was going to Miri, Malaysia and that he wanted Lee to arrange for him a young sexy
Filipina prostitute and to provide him with Viagra tablets.

- 39 -

Lee and Kan arranged for a Filipina prostitute to meet with Sanip Ura at a hotel in Miri,
Malaysia and also purchased Viagra tablets for Sanip Ura. A video recording of the sex between
Sanip Ura and the said Filipina prostitute was tendered in evidence.
Sanip Ura was charged with two counts under section 6(a) of the PCA for accepting thebribe of $350 and gratification in the form of sexual service from a fuel smuggler and also twocounts under Section 165 of the Penal Code for obtaining cash and sexual services withoutvaluable consideration. Sanip Ura requested a trial and in 2016, he was convicted of all 4 charges
and was sentenced to 12 months custodial sentence for each count under section 6(a) of the PCA
charge and 6 months custodial sentence for each count under Section 165 of the Penal Code. The
sentences were ordered to be served concurrently; therefore the total sentence was 12 months.
Sanip Ura appealed against the conviction and sentence. On appeal, the Appellate Court heldthat the conviction and sentence were proper, thereby dismissing his appeal.
2.

An Education Officer: Hj Juhari bin Hj Muda @ Usop v Public Prosecutor(Criminal Motion No. 28 of 2016)
Hj Juhari bin Hj Muda (“Hj Juhari”), a Senior Education Officer was the Acting Head of the
School Feeding Scheme and Hostel Section at the Ministry of Education. One of the tasks of the
School Feeding Scheme and Hostel Section was to obtain tenders from independent vendors forcontractual agreements to supply foods and drinks to schools within Brunei Darussalam. Hj
Juhari was also the Chairperson of the Internal Meeting at the School Feeding Scheme andHostel Section whose duty was to ensure all tender documents are in order before submission to
the Ministry of Education Mini Tender Board.
At the time in question, the Ministry of Education had just released an advertisement
inviting prospective tenderers to tender for the supply of foods and drinks to a particular schoolin Brunei Darussalam for a period of 3 years. One Pg Hj Damit was a businessman who was
trading under several business names. He was interested in obtaining a tender contract for the
supply of food and drink to the school in Brunei for 3 years.
Pg Hj Damit submitted a few tenders under several different business names at competitive
prices. At that time, Pg Hj Damit had a staff working under him by the name of Nurul Huda who
informed him that she knew a person who can obtain the contract for him. Nurul Huda
approached her friend Bibi to inform her that a business was interested in securing the tender
contract for the 3 years’ supply of foods and drinks to the school. Nurul Huda informed Bibi thatPg Hj Damit was willing to pay for securing the contract. Pg Hj Damit did not want Hj Juhari toknow that he was the tenderer.
Bibi then approached Hj Juhari and asked him to check on the status of the tender documentthat was submitted by Pg Hj Damit. Bibi informed Hj Juhari that the tenderer was her relative. In
a subsequent WhatsApp conversation between Bibi and Hj Juhari, Bibi informed him that thetenderer was willing to pay 5k if the tender contract was granted. Hj Juhari then arranged for
Bibi to meet up with him and showed Bibi how much profit the tenderer would gain if they wereawarded the contract. He asked Bibi to ask the tenderer for a higher sum of $50,000.

- 40 -

In subsequent WhatsApp messages between Bibi and Hj Juhari, Bibi texted him stating thefigure “25”. Bibi said Hj Juhari then called her to demand for $40,000, which was to be made in
two payment instalments. Hj Juhari informed Bibi that he had to pay people in the Internal
meeting for them to agree to Pg Hj Damit’s tender.
Nurul Huda, on behalf of Pg Hj Damit, then asked Bibi to renegotiate for a one-time
payment of $35,000 only. Bibi sent a WhatsApp text to Hj Juhari stating “35”. After stating thisfigure, Hj Juhari replied saying that he will check with the others. According to Bibi, Hj Juharithen called her the next day to inform her that he agreed with the proposed payment of $35,000.
On the same day, Hj Juhari also sent a WhatsApp text to Bibi to ask her if she could meet him
before his 5:30 pm meeting. According to Bibi, that was when she met with Hj Juhari to pay him
the said sum of $35,000.
The matter was reported to the ACB, and Hj Juhari was charged with an offence of corruptly
accepting bribe contrary to Section 6(a) of the PCA. Several witnesses were called to Court totestify that Hj Juhari recommended two companies, one of which was Pg Hj Damit’s company,
during the School Feeding Scheme and Hostel Section Internal Meeting. Witnesses also gave
evidence that subsequently, in the Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting which was held for the purposeof deciding which company to award the 3-year supply of foods and drinks contract, the Director
adopted the Internal Meeting’s recommendation.
During the trial, the WhatsApp conversation between Bibi and Hj Juhari was extracted using
the IT Forensic Oxygen UFED software. This was helpful in painting the bigger picture
especially when Hj Juhari denied ever taking money from Bibi and claimed that he did not knowwhat the figures “25” and “35” meant even though a few messages before this she had madereference to “5k”.
Hj Juhari was convicted after trial and was sentenced to 2 years, custodial sentence and was
also ordered to pay a penalty of $35,000 or to serve an additional “in default” sentence of 6months. He appealed against his conviction and sentence, but the Appellate Court held that theconviction and sentence were proper.
3.

Musfada Enterprise – BSP Corruption
In 2009, Musfada Enterprise, a registered vendor of the Brunei Shell Petroleum Company
Sdn Bhd (BSP) was discovered to be involved in corrupt practices with employees of BSP.
Musfada Enterprise was the sole supplier of a fictitious ‘Vitrone Degreaser’, a detergent createdby Musfada Enterprise. Investigation from the ACB revealed that Musfada Enterprise bought
Falchem Degreaser, which was produced in Singapore through a “kitchenware supplier”. Once
Falchem Degreaser arrived in Brunei, Musfada Enterprise physically altered the name of
Falchem Degreaser to Vitrone Degreaser and supplied it to BSP as an exclusive brand from 2007
to 2009. This Vitrone Degreaser was used for cleaning oil spills and dirt from the various oil
tanks in BSP. The supplies of Vitrone Degreaser were based on quotation or ad hoc basis with nolong-term contract.

- 41 -

Investigation by the ACB revealed that BSP had placed orders and paid for 5,835 drums of
Vitrone Degreasers but only 383 were actually delivered to BSP. Each Drum cost BND $1,400,
equivalent to USD $1,1015.54.
Musfada Enterprise was managed by a man named David Chong who had two men working
under him, Thomas Ling and Steve Liew, who each played a pivotal role in defrauding BSP. In
the fraudulent scheme that was run by David Chong, both Steve Liew and Thomas Ling were to
pay commissions (bribes) to BSP employees who created or expedited the approval of workorders, purchase requisitions and purchase orders in the BSP Procurement process. Once thepurchase orders were approved, Musfada Enterprise would send delivery orders to the relevant
BSP employees. Such BSP employees would then sign the delivery orders to acknowledge thedeliveries, notwithstanding the fact that there had been no deliveries or only partial deliveries
made. For goods that were delivered the commission paid was usually 30% of the price forgoods that were delivered, whereas for goods that were not delivered the commission paid was
50% of the price for the goods that were not delivered.
The BSP employees who merely created the Purchase Orders and were not aware of thedelivery of the items were usually rewarded with a 3% commission based on the number ofPurchase Orders created in a month. The commission was payable at the end of every month.
The BSP employee who signed the Delivery Order would usually get $100 to $200 for eachsigned Delivery Order without inspection of the goods delivered. From the period of 2015 to date,
Brunei Darussalam has prosecuted only 8 BSP employees out of a total of 31 employees, whoeach had a different role in the BSP Procurement process that had allowed Musfada Enterprise to
defraud BSP into losing BND $7,354,200 equivalent to USD $5,332,352. The diagram below
shows an overview of the work flow of the BSP’s Procurement Process and the role that theeight employees played in the process.

- 42 -

The 8 employees were charged and sentenced as follows:(i) Public v Prosecutor v Aidah binti Tengah (HCCT No. 5 of 2015)
Aidah binti Tengah (“Aidah Tengah”) was charged with a total of 20 charges in respect of a
total gratification of $200,200. She pleaded guilty mid-way through the trial to 15 charges inrespect of gratification in the sum of $189,500 and was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment. She
was also ordered to pay Prosecution’s costs and a penalty. On appeal (CA No. 18 of 2016) the
sentence was reduced to 3 years because Aidah Tengah was held not to be fully involved in thewhole fraudulent scheme — her exposure to the corruption was only limited to her part in thecreation of the purchase orders. The sentence was also reduced because Aidah Tengah had
rehabilitated herself.
(ii) Public Prosecutor v Latifah binti Junaidi (HCCT No. 18 of 2015)
Latifah binti Junaidi was charged with a total of 102 charges in respect of a total
gratification of $51,407. She pleaded guilty at the first day of trial to 35 charges in respect ofgratification in the sum of $36,073. She was sentenced to 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment
and was also ordered to pay Prosecution’s costs and a penalty. On appeal against the sentence(CA No. 4 of 2017), the Court of Appeal held that sentence imposed was proper.
(iii) Public Prosecutor v Asnah binti Sairan (Criminal Trial No. 907 of 2015)
Asnah binti Sairan was charged with a total of 16 charges in respect of a total gratification of$28,300. She requested a trial and was found guilty and sentenced to a custodial sentence of 4

- 43 -

years and 6 months. She has filed an appeal against both conviction and sentence, which is yet tobe heard and determined by the Appellate Court.
(iv) Public Prosecutor v Sabeli bin Ismail (MCCT No. 909 of 2015)
Sabeli bin Ismail was charged with a total of 11 charges for corruptly accepting bribes
totalling $51,850. He pleaded guilty at the first day of trial to 6 charges in respect of gratificationin the sum of $30,250. He was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment and was ordered to pay
Prosecution’s costs and a penalty. On appeal (HACM No. 38 of 2016), the sentence of 4 years’
imprisonment was upheld. The Court held that Sabeli bin Ismail had played a pivotal role in the
fraud against BSP.
(v) Public Prosecutor v Mohd Faisal bin Hj Ismail (MCCT No. 911 of 2015)
Mohd Faisal bin Hj Ismail was charged with 26 counts of corruptly accepting bribe totallingto the sum of $52,695. Following conviction after trial, a custodial sentence of 6 years was
imposed and he was ordered to pay Prosecution’s costs and a penalty. Mohd Faisal bin Hj Ismail
elected not to appeal the conviction on sentence.
(vi) Public Prosecutor v Muhd Azam Zaki bin Md Zain (HCCT No. 6 of 2015)
Muhd Azam Zaki bin Md Zain was charged with 13 counts of corruptly accepting bribes
totalling $110,100. Upon conviction on his own guilty plea to 5 counts in respect of gratificationin the sum of $88,200, he was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. On appeal the Court held thatthe sentence imposed was proper as he was involved in the full part of the plan and had accepted
considerable gratification.
(vii) Public Prosecutor v Rosli Simon (MCCT No. 910 of 2015)
Rosli Simon was charged with 11 counts of corruptly accepting bribes totalling $65,800.
Following conviction after trial, the Court imposed a custodial sentence of 6 years and ordered
Rosli Simon to pay Prosecution’s costs and a penalty. He filed a criminal motion out of time
(Criminal Motion No. 33 of 2017) to apply for leave to appeal against his sentence. On appeal it
was held that the sentence imposed of 6 years’ imprisonment was proper.
(viii) Public Prosecutor v Salehen Marsal (HCCT No. 7 of 2015)
Salehen Marsal was charged with 49 counts of corruptly accepting bribes totalling$200,872.13. He requested a trial and was convicted on all 49 counts. Salehen Marsal was
imposed with a sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment and was ordered to pay Prosecution’s costs
and a penalty. On appeal (CA No. 2 of 2017), the sentence of 6 years was upheld as Salehen washeld to be aware of the full extent of the criminal scheme.
4.

Bribing Government Officers.
In 2017, Nauaz Ali was a foreign national who was working in Brunei Darussalam. During
an operational raid, he was found in possession of an expired Brunei National Registration
Identification Card by the policeman on duty. Nauaz pleaded with the policeman to not takeaction against him and offered the said policeman $20. The policeman reported the matter andNauaz was subsequently charged for an offence of bribing a policeman under Section 6(b) of the
PCA. He pleaded guilty at first instance and was sentenced to a custodial sentence of 8 months.

- 44 -

Another foreign national, Pathmanathan Jegan Muhammad Saifullah bin Abdullah who wasserving a custodial sentence for another offence, bribed a prison officer to allow him to use theofficer’s mobile phone with the promise to pay him 200 euros that will be wired to his accountfrom his family in his home country. He was charged with the offence of bribing a prison officer
under Section 6(b) of the PCA. Upon conviction on a guilty plea, he was sentenced to 12 months’
imprisonment.
III. EFFECTIVE COUNTERMEASURES
Brunei Darussalam is not in isolation in its fight against corruption. In addition toformulating its own policies, Brunei Darussalam has also adopted best practices shared by its
regional and international counterparts. Engagement in collaborative work with other foreign
enforcement agencies has further enhanced Brunei Darussalam’s capability in effectively
combating corruption.
Brunei Darussalam has employed various countermeasures. In particular, Brunei
Darussalam has embarked on a series of extensive anti-corruption awareness programmes for all
levels of society. As custodian of the PCA, the ACB has been instrumental in promoting, atvarious levels of the Government and the private sector, and within the nation’s multi-tiered
education system, such programmes that instil concepts and principles of integrity,
accountability, responsibility and trustworthiness. Public outreach programmes have also been
conducted for the purposes of increasing anti-corruption awareness among the general public.
The ACB has further devoted special attention to working with young people and children as
part of a strategy to prevent corruption.
A. Effective Education and Awareness Programmes for Government and the Private
SectorInter alia, the objectives of the education and awareness programmes for the Government
and the private sector are as follows:• to instill integrity and core values; and• to promote awareness of the importance to fight any corrupt elements in their day-to-day
dealings.
In executing its duties as the main agency entrusted and empowered to tackle corruption, the
ACB has been holding dialogues and delivering talks to the following:• To officers and staff of Government Ministries and Departments;• To newly recruited Government officers and staff during Public Service Induction
Courses;• To newly appointed diplomatic missions of Brunei Darussalam abroad; and• To officers and staff of statutory bodies, GLCs and private companies.

- 45 -

B. Effective Education and Awareness Programmes for Students at Primary, Secondary
and Tertiary Levels
Brunei Darussalam has identified the children and youth as a class of individuals requiring a
specialist, carefully tailored anti-corruption awareness approach. The objectives of suchawareness programmes are:
• To inculcate good values at early childhood so as to serve as a basic platform forproducing future responsible adults with core values such as integrity, accountability,
responsibility and trustworthiness.
• To generate a more educated society with anti-corruption awareness in the longer term.
Schools provide a practical and conducive platform of opportunity to achieve these aims byeducation. As part of its wider and continuous outreach preventive effort to the young generation,
in January 2006, the ACB launched the inclusion of Corruption Prevention Education (CPE) in
the National Curriculum. This project is a landmark national programme to include anticorruption and prevention education in public education curriculum. This programme wasinitiated by the ACB with the joint effort of the Curriculum Development Department, Ministryof Education. The CPE books and training materials were made in phases and have completed its
modules from Year 1 in 2006 to Year 6 in 2012.
Anti-corruption lessons are taught to school students as part of their civic studies. Students
continue to learn in greater depth the dangers of corruption and the importance of battling its
elements from seeping through the veins of society as they progress to tertiary education. At thehigher institutions, such anti-corruption lessons are embedded in the Malay Islamic Monarchy(Brunei Darussalam’s national philosophy) tertiary course module.
The ACB also frequently delivers talks to students, teachers, lecturers and members of staff
in Primary and Secondary Schools, as well as Universities. The ACB, in collaboration with theCentre for Promotion of Knowledge and Language Learning of the Sultan Sharif Ali Islamic
University has also organized an oratory competition for higher institution students in Brunei
Darussalam, with the theme “The Role of Higher Institution Students in Combating Corruption.”
C. Effective Education and Awareness Programmes for the General Public
It is vital for members of the general public to be instilled with core values which are
fundamental to the social and economic development of the nation. The ACB, in playing its roleas the pivotal agency in eradicating corruption, has continuously delivered anti-corruption
awareness talks to village heads and communities.
As a nation which practices Islamic principles in all aspects of life and governance, theharms associated with corruption are often highlighted in the religious context. To commemorate
International Anti-Corruption Day, every year the Friday Prayer Sermon will touch upon theimportance of fighting corruption in all segments of the society. The Sermon will be read out inall mosques throughout Brunei Darussalam. Islamic literatures addressing the ills of corruption- 46 -

are also made available by the ACB in mosques throughout Brunei Darussalam. Religious talks
on corruption as a vice are also often held by religious scholars.
The national television and radio channels also air anti-corruption tickers as effective andrapid means to promote anti-corruption awareness amongst members of the public.
D. Effective Preventive Measures
As a means of preventing corruption, Brunei Darussalam has set in place a number of checkand balance mechanisms. Realizing that offences of corruption are difficult to detect and prove,as part of good governance, audits in both the Government sector the private sector are
conducted from time to time.
Procurement of assets and services often entail tedious down-selection and award processes
involving a number of individuals in positions of power and trust. As such, by having in place
Procurement Tender Boards, corrupt elements can be minimalized or completely eliminated.
Depending on the value of procurement, the down-selection and award processes may even haveto undergo scrutiny through a multi-tiered Procurement Tender Board.
Brunei Darussalam has also made it a regulation for members of the public service todeclare any such gifts received from third parties in their course of duties. Such practice is also
widely adopted in the private sector as an effective means of ensuring their employees are notpersuaded to act preferentially to the givers of such gifts.
E. Effective Measures for Prosecuting Corruption
The Criminal Justice Division of the Attorney General’s Chambers has a specialized team of
Prosecutors conducting the prosecution of corruption cases. By having a specialized team,dedicated to the analysis, assessment and prosecution of corruption cases, it is envisaged that
more successful outcomes can be obtained in respect of corruption cases which are brought
before the Courts of Brunei Darussalam.
To ensure that the Attorney General’s Chambers provide high quality prosecution and legal
advisory services, it is crucial to have continuous training for Prosecutors. Frequent participationof Prosecutors in regional corruption seminars and conferences has proven to be an effective
measure in broadening the Prosecutors’ knowledge and expertise. Such participations have alsosignificantly enhanced cooperation between the local Prosecutors and Prosecutors from otherjurisdictions. Therefore, the Attorney General’s Chambers will continue to give suchopportunities and exposures to its Prosecutors.
As part of promoting life-long learning experience, while at the same time focusing on
capacity-building in respect of corruption-offence specialists, the Attorney General’s Chambers
have also continued to encourage its Prosecutors to enrol in master’s degree programmes which
offer corruption and money-laundering modules.
Another measure to ensure effective prosecution of corruption cases is by nurturing close
ties and cooperation between the Prosecutors and the ACB. The Legal Clinic has been
introduced early this year with the objective of providing an avenue for the Investigating Officers- 47 -

to discuss their cases with the Prosecutors on a more frequent basis. Dialogues between theProsecutors and the ACB are also held so as to enable both parties to discuss issues pertaining to
the investigation and prosecution of corruption cases. It is also used as a platform to explain
judgments of the Courts of Brunei Darussalam so that moving forward, both the ACB and theProsecutors can learn and develop from the issues raised and remarked by the Courts.
The use of technology has also greatly assisted in the effective prosecution of corruption
cases. IT Forensic technology has enabled the extraction of data and information pertaining to
the corrupt activities. Advanced communication technology has also made it possible for thelocation tracking of corrupt individuals.
F. Effective Measures for Asset Recovery and International Cooperation
1. Asset Recovery and the International Framework
In Brunei Darussalam, the legislative framework that allows for asset recovery both within
Brunei Darussalam and abroad is provided for in the Criminal Asset Recovery Order (2012) andthe Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Order (2005). One of the most effective measures ininternational asset recovery is the existence of close networking between the Prosecutors andtheir international counterparts. The close network provides a platform for the expeditious
processing of international requests through both formal and informal channels. It is realized that
especially with the International Mutual Legal Assistance request, informal cooperation can
speed up the process of a request for assistance.
Another effective measure for ensuring successful asset recovery is by way of providing
adequate information to the foreign authorities when submitting requests for mutual legal
assistance. In order to address this need to provide adequate information, there must be aneffective mechanism that can facilitate the gathering of intelligence and collection of evidence.
Benefitting from existing close international relations, Brunei Darussalam’s enforcement
agencies such as the ACB and the Royal Brunei Police Force are able to tap the resources andexpertise of their international counterparts, which directly and indirectly contribute towards thegathering of reliable intelligence and collection of adequate evidence, sufficient to enable therequested foreign authorities to identify the types of assistance to render to Brunei Darussalam.
2.

Successful Asset Recovery and International Cooperation
One example of Brunei Darussalam’s successful asset recovery through international
cooperation was the recovery of assets from David Chong’s account in Singapore.
MUSFADA ENTERPRISE (DAVID CHONG) – Newspaper Report
The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) has recovered over BND$600,000
from the bank accounts in Singapore of a key Brunei Shell Petroleum
contractor, who was jailed for bribery in November 2013.
The case marked the first time the Government of Brunei Darussalam has
enforced an asset recovery order through the use of Mutual Legal Assistance,
the AGC said in a press statement.

- 48 -

The AGC said the recovery of the proceeds of the corruption case served as“a reminder that criminals who hide their money and assets overseas are notuntouchable”.
The contractor, Malaysian national David Chong, who was the manager ofMusfada Enterprise, was found guilty of multiple counts of bribing Shell
employees in what was described by the High Court as a case involving“syndicated corruption on the large scale” between 2005 and 2009. The case
was investigated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau.
In addition to Chong’s total jail term of six years and four months, the judge
in the case, Judicial Commissioner John Gareth Lugar-Mawson, had made a
Benefit Recovery Order under the Criminal Asset Recovery Order (CARO) inorder to recover funds held in Chong’s bank accounts in Singapore.
The AGC and the Attorney General’s Chambers of Singapore, both of whichfunction as the Mutual Legal Assistance Secretariats of their respective
nations, had carried out extensive cooperative work to enforce the Benefit
Recovery Order.
“The money is to be paid into the Criminal Assets Confiscation Fund,established under CARO which is managed by the Permanent Secretary of the
Ministry of Finance,” the AGC said.
The AGC said the recovery of proceeds from the crime highlighted theimportance of mutual legal assistance.
The successful enforcement of the Benefit Recovery Order, as demonstrated in the aforesaid
criminal case, is also testament to the comprehensive and robust legal international cooperation
framework that Brunei Darussalam possesses through laws such as the Mutual Assistance in
Criminal Matters Order (MACMO) and the Criminal Asset Recovery Order, as well as the strong
and long-standing working relationship between the Attorney General’s Chambers of Brunei
Darussalam and Singapore.
IV. CONCLUSIONAs clearly illustrated from the aforesaid corruption cases, Brunei Darussalam adopts a ‘zero
tolerance’ policy towards corruption. Irrespective of the amounts of bribes and gratifications
offered or received, the Government of Brunei Darussalam sternly deals with such corrupt
individuals by instituting prosecution against them before the Courts of Brunei Darussalam. The
Courts of Brunei Darussalam have also demonstrated their firm stance against corruption andtheir resolve to deter others from committing corruption and corruption-related offences throughthe severe penalties imposed.
In his Titah in conjunction with the 2008 New Year Celebration, His Majesty the Sultan andYang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam stressed as follows:- 49 -

Do not assume ‘petty corruption’ does not matter, but keep in mind the risks. Small orbig, little or lot, are all equally a disease, which can adversely affect the country. A
country drowning in corruption is an unfortunate country.

- 50 -BEST PRACTICES IN ANTI-CORRUPTION IN THE KINGDOM OF
CAMBODIA: PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION IN HIGH SCHOOL EXAMS
Sothimon Nuon* and Senarong Tan†

I. ANTI-CORRUPTION UNIT
A. Background
The Royal Government of Cambodia first established the Unit Against Corrupt Practices on
27 October 1999, and later on the Unit was restructured and renamed the Anti-Corruption Uniton 22 August 2006 under the supervision of the Office of the Council of Ministers. On 17 April
2010, the first Anti-Corruption Law was promulgated and the Anti-Corruption Institution wasestablished.
B. Anti-Corruption Institution
The Anti-Corruption Institution is composed of two bodies: the National Council Against
Corruption and the Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU). The ACU is the operating body under which
there are two general departments, each of which is composed of four departments. At present,
the ACU is only located in the capital, Phnom Penh. By law, anti-corruption office branches may
be established in the provinces.
*The National Council Against Corruption has the following main duties:- Set anti-corruption strategies and policies- Provide opinions and recommendations for the ACU- Monitor the work of the ACU- Receive oral and written monthly work reports by the ACU- Make reports on the anti-corruption work to the Prime Minister.
*The Anti-Corruption Unit has the following main duties:- To work independently and serve as the operating body against corruption- The only competent authority to investigate all forms of corruption- Create an action plan against corruption in line with the strategy and policy of the
National Council Against Corruption- Lead the work of prevention and fighting corruption- Keep confidential all information sources related to corruption (in principle, it isbetter to lose a case than to break confidentiality)- Take appropriate measures to protect individuals who provide information related tocorruption.

*†

Deputy Director General, General Department Operations, Anti-Corruption Unit, Cambodia.
Prosecutor, General Prosecution’s Department, Attached to Court of Appeal, Cambodia.

- 51 -

C. Rights and Investigative Power of the ACU- ACU officials are empowered as Judicial Police Officers- Investigate all kinds of corruption and other offences involving facts related to thecorruption being investigated.
- Investigate other offences as ordered by a court- The President of the ACU or his representative is empowered to lead and coordinate themission of corruption investigation in the name of the prosecution to the point of thearrest of suspects- After the arrest, the prosecution plays the role as stipulated in the provisions of the
Criminal Procedure Code- Once the investigation is completed, the ACU shall refer all investigation work to theprosecution for further action in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal
Procedure Code- If there are sufficient corruption leads, the ACU is empowered to:






Check and observe bank accounts and other similar accounts
Check and order the provision or copying of authentic documents or individual
documents, or all banking, financial and commercial-related documents
Monitor, oversee, eavesdrop, record sound, take photos, and engage in phone
tapping
Check documents, including those stored in an electronic system
Conduct operations aimed at collecting flagrant evidence

The above measures will not be considered as violations of professional secrets. Bank
secrecy is not sufficient justification for failing to provide evidence related to corruption offences
under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Law.
-

The court shall quickly start the trial of corruption cases
Request relevant authorities to suspend the work of individuals for whom sufficientevidence of corruption has been found
Request the competent authority to extradite suspects who abscond abroad
Request the Royal Government to order the General Prosecutor of the Appeals Court or
the Prosecutor of a municipal or provincial court to freeze the assets of individuals who
commit corruption offences.
Detain suspects at any convenient place in addition to the ACU detention rooms orrequest the competent authority to take custody of the suspect.

D. Mechanism to Deal with Complaints- The ACU has not set any form of making complaints. The public can lodge complaints
in any form.
- The ACU accepts all kinds of complaints, anonymous or identified, related to corruption- All complaints go through the complaint office- Some particular complaints, urgent or special, may go directly to the ACU President- All complaints received shall be submitted the next day at the Analysis Meeting(Breakfast Meeting) every morning.

- 52 -

-Complainants or representatives are invited on a voluntary basis to take part in the
Analysis Meeting.

E. Asset and Liability Declaration Regime- Members of the Senate, the National Assembly and the Royal Government- Armed forces, police officers (rank of colonel), civil servants (rank of department
director)- Judges, prosecutors, notaries public, clerks and bailiffs- All ACU staff and leaders
The declaration shall be made every two years, 30 days after taking office and 30 days
before leaving office. In case the declaration cannot be made before leaving office due todismissal, the declaration shall be made 30 days after the dismissal.
F. Disciplinary and Internal Control Board- ACU staff may not dine out without giving notice or permission from the ACU
President and Chairman of the Disciplinary and Internal Control Board (except family
dining)- No need to report in case of dining out between ACU staff but payment shall be equallyshared or the higher ranking person must bear the payment.
- A gift worth more than 25 dollars shall not be accepted but, if received, must bereported to the President and the Chairman of the Board- Gifts not accepted shall also be reported.
G. Internal Investigation Section
This section is under the supervision of the President of the ACU and is entrusted with thework of overseeing and monitoring the work and activities of all ACU staff to spot irregularities.
II. OBSERVATION OF HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION EXAMS
A. Background
In Cambodia, general education ends at grade 12 where students must pass a strict exam
before they start university. The ACU started to cooperate with the the Ministry of Education,
Youth and Sports to observe high school exams since 2014. The exam takes place in all 25
provinces and the capital.
1.

Work Procedures
The national high school exam for academic year 2018 took place from 20-21 August with a
total number of 117,062 candidates. There are 196 exam centres including 4,718 rooms
throughout the country. As the ACU office is only located in the capital, Phnom Penh, and has asmall number of staff, volunteers are invited to take part in the observation along with the ACU
staff. The ACU staff lead the observation work. The volunteers include university students, civil
servants, monks, civil society organizations, foreigners etc. who need to perform the work inaccordance with the law and regulations.

- 53 -

In principle, one exam room needs one volunteer to do the observation, and one exam centre
needs one ACU official to take charge of the observation.
For this academic year 2018 there were 4,718 volunteers plus some reserve volunteers. 196
ACU staff members have been deployed to all 196 exam centres throughout the country plus two
ACU leaders who are responsible for overseeing the observation work in each province.
2.

Conditions and Benefits for Volunteers
All volunteers are responsible for their own expenses during the observation work, and they
may not have any conflict of interest (no relatives sitting for exam at the exam centre they workfor). Meanwhile, the volunteers must go through an orientation training course before theirobservation work starts. As benefits, volunteers are provided with appreciation certificates and abanquet after the observation work.
3.

Rights, Privileges and Duties of Volunteers
Volunteers are entitled to use phones and recording instruments within the exam centre whileother people, such as invigilators (exam supervisors), are not allowed to use them. Moreover,they can move freely in the exam centre and enter the exam room in case of flagrant corruption.
Volunteers are to take notes and report irregularities to the competent agents, especially the ACU
officials at the centre. Finally, they have to make an evaluation of the process of the exam.
B. Observation (During Exam, Paper Marking and Result Announcement)
1. During the Exam
The volunteers observe all kinds of irregularities occurring outside and inside the exam
centre and inside the exam room, for example, cheating or circulating answers. If there is any
irregularity, they shall report it to the right people for proper action. The observation of the exam
room is to ensure there is no cheating.
2.

Marking Process
During the marking process, volunteers are not invited to take part, as at this stage fewer
people are needed to observe. The ACU officials take sole responsibility for the observation. We
observe the exam paper coding, the sealing of exam papers and rooms. We also observe theopening of the sealed exam papers and rooms. For the observation of the performance of themarking of exams by teachers, one ACU official is needed to observe each teacher marking
exams, standing side by side (verifying the answer keys and the marking). And to makeeverything more secure, CCTV is installed to monitor the marking process.
3.

Computerizing of Marks
At this stage people are computerizing the candidates’ marks. To make everything run
smoothly, the ACU officials observe the computerized marking process in case there are any
marking errors on the paper and or on the computer. At the end of each marking session, the
ACU also observes the opening and closing of the sealed marking rooms.
4.

Announcement of Results
Before the exam results are officially released by the Ministry of Education, Youth andSport, the ACU officials engage in last minute cooperation by verifying the marks on the- 54 -

computer with the marks on the result list of candidates to make sure the right marks arerecorded for the right person.
III. AN ACTUAL CORRUPTION CASE
A. Factual Summary (2 June 2014)
This case is related to a government official who was working in the Ministry of Post andTelecommunication. In his position as a Secretary General, he was collecting one hundred
thousand US dollars from the Ministry account. This amount of money was deposited by the
Cambodia Advance Telecommunication Co. Ltd. (CADCOMMS), which is operating its
business in Cambodia. The Ministry of Post and Telecommunication had requested the AntiCorruption Unit to conduct an investigation into the disappearance of this amount of money. The
Anti-Corruption Unit found that a large amount of money in a closed envelope was collected by
the Secretary General, and the ACU also found more of his assets which he had not declared
truthfully to the ACU. On 10 October 2014, he was found guilty and convicted by the Phnom
Penh Municipal Court. He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of 200,000 US
dollars. 500,000 US dollars were confiscated from his account.
B. Court Judgment
On 17 November 2014, this case file was appealed by the accused, and the Court of Appeals
upheld the verdict of the lower court. In July 2016, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of
the Court of Appeals. Currently, he is serving his sentence in the Phnom Penh Correctional
Center.
IV. CONCLUSION
Since our taking part in the observation of high school exams in 2014, one can see theimprovement in the quality of the students, as they dedicate more time to their studies. This new
trend has drawn support from parents and the society as a whole and from the students
themselves. In the past, students took risks bringing along copies and other related documents,
but now one can see only a very few among 1,000 try unsuccessfully to take risks. The reform
not only encourages grade 12 students to work hard but also students at all levels including grade
1. The ACU does not only engage in the observation of grade 12 exams but also exams forjudges, clerks, lawyers, civil servants, bidding, etc., which, as a result, has led to the same
remarkable achievements obtained as for high school exams.

- 55 -

CORRUPTION PREVENTION AND ERADICATION STRATEGYWITH REPRESIVE AND PREVENTIVE EFFORTS
Fauzy Marasabessy *I.

INTRODUCTION

Indonesia is known as a country with various advantages: its natural resources, demographic
size and strategic position on the world map. However, all the benefits are not directly
proportional to the acceleration of development and increase of people’s prosperity. Fromvarious possibilities as a driving factor, one of them is corruption. The problems faced byIndonesia related to corruption have been described by World Bank East Asia:
Indonesia suffers from a very poor international reputation regarding corruption,
ranking near the bottom alongside the most corrupt countries in the world. It isalso perceived as doing worse over time in controlling corruption. Indonesians
agree. They liken corruption to a “disease to combat, denouncing every known
case.” While these perceptions may be overly influenced by the new openness ofa democratic Indonesia, corruption is high and imposes severe social andeconomic costs. It also contributes to citizens’ loss of trust in governments.
Greed eventually destabilized this careful construct, and the country has paid aheavy price in terms of a sharp accumulation of public debt, a damaged
environment and above all, weak and corrupt institutions. 1
However, it should be appreciated that eradicating corruption has become more progressivein the last decade since the fall of the Suharto regime. Following the reform era, corruption
prevention and eradication (CPE) have become part of the main focus of the Indonesian
government.
The determination to carry out CPE began with the establishment of new implementing
agencies such as the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the Financial Transactions
Analysis and Report Center (PPATK), the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK) and anumber of Anti Corruption Task Forces arround the country by Police Departements and theAttorney General Office. Government initiated and consolidated many policies, andsimultaneously internalized community awareness.

*

Head of Section at Subdirectorte Taxation Violation of Prosecuting Directorate of Junior Attorney General forSpecial Crimes Office, Indonesia.
1
World Bank East Asia Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit <http://siteresources.worldbank.org>
accessed 17 Nov. 2018, Combating Corruption in Indonesia Enhancing Accountability for Development October 20,
2003, page 27.

- 56 -

The Attorney General Office as the Public Prosecution Service is the government institutionthat exercises the power of the state specifically in terms of prosecutorial power. As an
institution with the authority in law enforcement and justice, the Attorney Service has a wider
core of duties and powers, from investigation of special crimes up to execution of court
sentences. These are added to the duties to maintain public order and stability, and supervision ofreligious and traditional beliefs which might be a threat to the state and the general public. 2
With numerous duties applying to the legal field, the Attorney Service, as one of Indonesia’s
law enforcement institutions, is demanded to perform law enforcement roles that are free from
corruption, collusion and nepotism, the upholding of the rule of law, the protection of the public
interest, as well as the preservation of human rights. Referring to Legislation No. 16/2014, theAttorney General Office, as a government institution exercising the prosecutorial power of thestate, must be independent in performing the functions, duties and powers, unbounded to any
influence, either from the governing power or other parties (article 2 paragraph (2) Legislation
No. 16/2004) in order to guarantee the professional service of the Attorneys. The order isdirecting the Attorney General duties and powers as stipulated in the article. 3
From year to year, the Public Prosecution Service is developing and reforming so
as to adjust itself in line with new legislation and to the expectations of the public.
Thus, in 2011 the Public Prosecution Service adopted a series of measures toensure maximum and optimal performance of its duties. With the passing of 2011,
the Public Prosecution Service needs to map out the various measures and efforts
that were adopted or made so as to identify the level of achievement of thetargets adopted at the start of the year. This is particularly true as regards the corebusiness of the Public Prosecution Service, namely, the handling of cases
involving crimes of corruption.
For the Public Prosecution Service, the effort to achieve targets that accord withthe expectations of the public is a far from easy challenge, but one that mustnevertheless be tackled. The Public Prosecution Service is all too aware that theprocess of dealing with cases is not as easy as some imagine. The frequency ofvarious types of crimes and violations is continuously increasing, as is thecomplexity of crimes. There have also been reforms of our modus operandi,
including as regards the proving of mens rea and actus reus. The issue of why
the Public Prosecution Service as an institution regularly faces constraints in theprosecution of crimes shall be one of the principal, often-discussed topics on thework of the Public Prosecution Service.
The challenges facing the Public Prosecution Service in the discharge of its
duties are not only external in nature, but also internal. Based on an internal
approach, the Public Prosecution Service is implementing reforms in all line
units, both at the center and in the regions, including as regards the Service’s
personnel. Meanwhile, the external challenges, such as criticism, are regarded by
2
3

Attorney General RI, Annual Report 2017
Ibid.

- 57 -

us as constructive and valuable input that is of great benefit to us in our efforts toreform the Public Prosecution Service. For that reason, the Public Prosecution
Service is engaged in a continuous process of change through the optimizationand honing of strategies for the handling of corruption cases so as to recover state
funds and increase state revenue. 4
According to article 30 of Law Number 16 of 2004 on the Public Prosecution Service, theduties and powers of the Public Prosecution Service in the criminal arena are as follows:a. To conduct prosecutions;b. To enforce judicial orders and decisions of final and conclusive effect;c. To conduct supervision of those serving conditional sentences, placed under
supervision orders, or released on parole;d. To investigate certain types of suspected crimes as stipulated by law;e. To complete certain types of case files, and for such purposes to conduct
additional investigations prior to the forwarding of such files to the court,
which investigations are in practice carried out in condition with theinvestigators. 5
Economic growth and national development as efforts to increase society's wealth, will
improve as long as the law is enforced. Otherwise, law could be functionable and accommodate
justice if economic growth and society's wealth are increasing. Good law enforcement in all
aspects can give chance and opportunity to development stake holders to make innovation andcreation without any fear.
Law should be responsible and anticipate changes in society. In the law enforcement context,
responding to and anticipating problems is known as prevention and repressive action if done
together. The conclusion about the connection between prevention and repressive action
basically makes sense, because preventive tasks could not be effective without firm repressive
action for any violations.
II. MAIN DISCUSSION
A. Corruption prevention and eradication (CPE) in Indonesia.
Prevention and eradication of corruption (CPE) as a national policy is a form of thegovernment's commitment to run a clean and dignified country. For that reason, it is thedetermination of law enforcement officials to implement it. The determination to implement theCPE is a persistent and strong commitment to create a government that is clean and has integrity.
Effort in CPE by the Government of Indonesia as explained by UNDOC Indonesia below:
Efforts in corruption prevention and eradication (CPE) actually began longago during the era of the Soekarno administration (with the enactment of
4
5

Public Prosecution Service of the Republic of Indonesia, 2011 Annual Report, page 2.
Ibid. at VIII.

- 58 -Government Regulation in Lieu of Law 24/1960 on the Prosecution,
Investigation, and Examination of the Crime of Corruption) up to theSoeharto administration (with the enactment of Law 3/1971 on Corruption
Eradication). During the era of reform, the efforts in CPE grew more
intensive after the government ratified the United Nations Convention
Against Corruption 2003 by Law 7/2006. In addition, the government also
issued a number of Presidential instructions as well as a mandate regarding
CPE and established several agencies to implement and support the CPE
efforts, such as the Corruption Eradication Commission, the Financial
Transactions Analysis and Report Centre, and the Witness & Victim
Protection Agency. Over the last four years, the Government has formulated a
National Strategy for Corruption Prevention and Eradication (Nastra CPE)
consisting of long-term objectives and medium term objectives. Nastra CPE
provides direction and a source of reference for the various CPE efforts which
is more comprehensive for all the stakeholders. Good reference is necessary
in order to have a concrete impact on the improvement of welfare, sustainable
development, and the consolidation of democracy. 6
According to the National Strategy, CPE has both a long-term vision and medium-term
vision. The vision for the long term (2012-2025) is: “to create an anti-corruption nation that is
supported by a system of cultural values with integrity”, whereas for the medium term (20122014) the vision is “to create a government that is free from corruption, and having the capacity
to prevent and take action against corruption and a system of integrity as a cultural values”. The
long-term vision and medium-term vision shall both be realized in all domains, that is, within thegovernment in a broad sense, the civil society, as well as the business world.
The vision is expressed in the following missions:a. To build and establish a system, mechanism, capacity for preventing andtaking action against corruption which is integrated on a national scale;b. To reform the national laws and regulations that support CPE in a consistent,
consolidated, and systematic manner;c. To build and consolidate a system and mechanism for confiscating the assets
gained by corruption through effective national and international cooperation;d. To build and internalize an anti-corruption culture among the government
structure and the society; ande. To develop and publicize a system for reporting the performances in
implementing Nastra CPE. 7
The Vision and Mission are then formulated into six strategies as follows:a. Prevention;
6

Government of Indonesia – Presidential Decree No 55 Year 2012 Annex National Strategy on Corruption
Prevention and Eradication 2012-2014 and 2012-2025, provided by UNODC Indonesia, page 3.

7- 59 -

b. Law enforcement;c. Harmonizing the Laws and Regulations;d. International Cooperation and Asset Return Based on Court Verdict;e. Anti-Corruption Education and Culture; and,f. Mechanism of Reporting Corruption Eradication Actions.
The two previous strategies, prevention and law enforcement, are the main themes of thispaper.
1.

Prevention
Corruption is still massive and systematic. Its practice can occur everywhere, withingovernment agencies, private agencies, and even in day-to-day life. In view of suchconditions, it is only fitting that the prevention of corruption be given the position ofpriority as the first strategy. Through a prevention strategy, it is hoped that other steps will
come forth as contributions for improvements in the future. This strategy is the answer toan approach which is more focused on repressive action. The paradigm for developmentof a repressive approach is that it provides a punitive effect on the perpetrator of the crimeof corruption. Unfortunately, however, the repressive approach has apparently not yet
been able to reduce corruptive behaviour and practice systematically and on a massive
scale. The success of the prevention strategy is measured by the increase in corruption
perception index value and the rate of starting businesses. 82.

Law Enforcement
There are still many corruption cases that have not yet been completely resolved, yet
the interest and attention of the public has been drawn to such cases for a long time, andthey expect to see a fair settlement. When law enforcement is inconsistent in its positive
law, it will consequently affect the degree of trust of the community towards the law and
its apparatus. When trust is weak, the public will be driven towards forming the opinion
that the law can no longer be trusted as a means for settling conflicts. People will tend tosettle their conflicts and problems in their own way which, unfortunately, is often in
opposition with the law. Also, when there are other parties who take advantage of thisinconsistency in law enforcement for their own interests, it aggravates the situation evenmore. The absence of trust in the community naturally creates a sense of dissatisfaction
and the feeling that the legal institutions and their apparatus are unfair. And at any time
when there are attempts to improve law enforcement in Indonesia, this condition will be
an obstacle in itself. For this reason, the settlement of corruption cases that have attracted
the attention of the public must, absolutely, be accelerated. The rate of success of thisstrategy is measured by the conviction rate in courts handling the cases of crime as acorruption. 9. . . .

8
9

Ibid.
Ibid.

- 60 -

The focus of priority activities related to improvement of law enforcement
mechanisms in order to improve public trust towards the authorities and law
enforcement agencies are:a.

Strengthening and improving the consistency of legal and administrative
sanctions for the actors as well as law enforcement officers who deviate andabuse their authority or carry out corruption crime.

b.

Strengthening of legal sanctions against abuse of authority, for instance byreturning assets of corruption and paying for damages caused by the said
abuse of authority.

c.

Strengthening the coordination of handling of corruption cases among law
enforcement agencies with the support of a comprehensive IT (e-law
enforcement).

d.

Anti-bribery and corruption regulations in the professional code of ethics forlawyers, public accountants, tax consultants etc.

e.

Giving heavier sanctions for bribery performed by professionals having
codes of ethics.

f.

Revocation of license, return of profit, and compensation for entrepreneurs /individuals who bribe.

g.

Application of reverse burden of proof on unexplained wealth.

h.

Facilitate the process of obtaining bank information by law enforcement
agencies in the framework of corruption eradication.

i.

Limiting remissions granted to perpetrators of corruption.

j. Consistency of law enforcement in all regions. 10
These efforts have begun to show results: The determination to eradicate corruption is
widespread throughout Indonesia. This is evident from the increased amount of state funds/assetsthat have been saved each year as the result of prevention and the settlement of corruption cases
brought to court. For comparison, the following chart shows the number of corruption cases
handled by the Indonesian National Police, the Indonesian Prosecution Service and the
Corruption Eradication Commission over the last four years: 11

10
11

Ibid.
Based on CEC RI Repression Division data.

- 61 -

Number of Corruption Cases
Handled by Law Enforcement Agencies
1000
800

911

876

833

600

628

400
200

371

273

80

0
2014

196

87

202

2015

96
2016

INP

AGO

123
2017

CEC

B. Team of Aide, Governance Security and Central Development (TP4P) and Team ofAide, Governance Security and Regional Development (TP4D) as a prevention effort.
In the presidential speech during the general assembly of the House of Representatives andthe Regional Representative Council on August 14, 2015, President Joko Widodo expressednational reconciliation as an effort to conclude the cases on severe violation against human rights
in the past by means of establishing a Reconciliatory Committee for the cases of severe violationof human rights. The Team of Aide, Governance Security and Central Development (TP4P) andthe Team of Aide, Governance Security and Regional Development (TP4D) serve as guardiansand security forces for the government and development to accelerate national development. The
decline in Indonesia's economic growth that reached 4.67% within the 2nd quarter of 2015
indicated weakening in the national economy.
As a response and to make concrete steps to eradicate corruption with prevention efforts, theAttorney General Office in performing the Attorney Service duties and powers on prevention,
established the Team of Aide, Governance Security and Central Development (TP4P) in the
Attorney General Office and the Team of Aide, Governance Security and Regional Development(TP4D) in the Provincial Attorney Services (KEJATI), and the District Attorney Services(KEJARI) throughout Indonesia with the objective to exhort acceleration in budget
disbursement. 12
To accelerate development in Indonesia, RI. Attorney General, H.M. Prasetyo always
encourages the members of his group to upgrade the performance of TP4P and TP4D.
Implementing an Attorney General order in the 2nd quarter of 2018, the number of TP4D
activities increased from 294 to 607 activities; meanwhile, TP4P increased from 19 to 28
activities. In line with the activities, project value also experienced an increase. With TP4D
assistance, IDR. 69,197 Billion succeeded and was secured from leakage and misuse, while
TP4D IDR. 20,174 Billion. The Attorney General said that TP4 was a means to put law
enforcement in line with state policies in implementing development.

12

Attorney General RI, Annual Report 2015 at 2-3.

- 62 -

C. The Special Task Force for Countermeasure Acts and Disposal of Corruption Cases(Satgassus P3TPK).
Performance of duties and functions in the special crime division is strongly related to thedevelopment agenda within the extent of the prevention and eradication of corruption as stated in
the 2015-2019 Mid-Term National Development Planning (RPJMN) that is directed tosynchronizing of regulations against corruption, intensification of international collaboration in
asset seizure, protection for justice collaborators, improving the effectiveness of various
strategies for the prevention and eradication of corruption in ministries, institutions, and local
government by means of employing the national strategy for the prevention and eradication ofcorruption education on anti-corruption and supervision of public service. Aligned with the
2012-2025 Long-Term National Strategy for the Prevention and Eradication of Corruption andthe 2012-2014 mid-term stated in Presidential Order No. 55/2012, the Attorney General Officehas been implementing preventive and countermeasure activities to eradicate corruption.
Preventive Measure in Eradication of Corruption Crime Cases throughout 2015, preventive
measures to eradicate corruption within the Attorney General Office have been done through thecoordination with all divisions (Special Crime, General Crime, Intelligence, Civil and State
Administrative, Supervision, Development). Implementation of activities comprise:







Ensuring transparency and accountability of The Attorney Service case disposal byusage of information technology based case disposal system;
Strengthening of Network for Anti-Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism Community(Jaringan Masyarakat Anti KKN);Management of e-Procurement for goods and service and certification for Goods andService Procurement Expert;
Delivered Legal Information and Outreach, which one of the materials wasCountermeasures Against Corruption and Preventive Actions;
Conducted mapping for corruption high risk corporations to eradicate corruption crime
cases;
Conducted outreach to all The Attorney Service networking on prosecution acts against
multiple layered crime cases of conjoined crimes of corruption and money laundering.

The concrete steps taken by the Attorney General Office in performing the Attorney Service
duties and powers in law enforcement by the Special Task Force for Countermeasure Acts andDisposal of Corruption Cases (Satgassus P3TPK), as an effort to strengthen the presence of thestate in eradication of corruption. Corruption is one of the many challenges that must be
confronted. To rise against the challenge, the Attorney General Office has formed the Special
Task Force for Countermeasure Acts and Disposal of Corruption Cases (Satgassus P3TPK) inthe Attorney General Office to perform countermeasures for corruption cases.
The establishment of P3TPK has also become the triggering effort to eradicate corruptionthat occurs within all of the Attorney Service task forces throughout Indonesia. The achievementof the countermeasure acts in corruption cases that occurred within the Attorney Service
taskforces throughout Indonesia is summarized as below:- 63 -

Achievement of Corruption Prosecution
Period January – July 2017 13

N
O

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
13

PROSECUTION
By Cases Origin

RECOVEREDSTATE’SWEALTH(IDR)

ATTORNEY OFFICE

AG for Special
PoliceCrimesDepartement
Department

2
AG.FOR
SPECIAL
CRIMES
N.A.D (ACEH)NORTH SUMATERAWEST SUMATERA
RIAU
JAMBI
SOUTH SUMATERABENGKULULAMPUNG
DKI JAKARTA
WEST JAVACENTRAL JAVA
D.I. YOGYAKARTAEAST JAVA
BALI
NTB
NTT
WEST KALIMANTANCENTRAL KALIMANTANSOUTH KALIMANTANEAST KALIMANTANNORTH SULAWESICENTRAL SULAWESISOUTH EAST SULAWESISOUTH SULAWESIMALUKU
PAPUA

3
44

4
16

5
192,711,823,105.00

18
46
4
23
22
27
8
15
33
26
22
17
82
9
8
22
16
28
8
21
9
17
39
59
16
55

9
29
14
23
16
5
12
21
25
26
28
4
57
5
12
14
5
15
8
14
12
12
10
49
6
29

6,629,105,846.00
150,000,000.00
321,195,535.00
27,958,827,795.32
1,286,558,522.00
2,051,763,174.00
2,740,323,354.00
2,441,227,332.35
3,743,314,500.00
1,802,870,296.90
7,203,653,558.47
851,593,200.00
87,366,341,726.00
6,414,647,572.00
647,555,475.07
1,977,253,942.00
6,094,063,940.42
6,577,913,475.03
18,042,219,383.93
7,938,829,525.00
4,289,133,561.00
0.00
2,190,859,700.00
53,059,383,608.00
670,080,000.00
2,298,308,122.00

Based on Directorate of Prosecution, Junior Attorney of Special Crimes Office data.

- 64 -

28 BANTEN
29 BANGKA BELITUNG
30 GORONTALO
31 NORTH MALUKU
32 KEP. RIAUAMOUNT

9
10
4
9
6
732

6
4
2
4
4
496

3,601,581,473.20
2,717,056,923.00
0.00
17,626,803,257.00
3,056,904,166.00
474,461,192,068.69

Countermeasures still have strategic value to regain public trust in institutional performanceof the Attorney Service. From the aspect of implementation, the Attorney Service has attempted
to carry out ‘at cost system’ in providing budget to operate the acts of countermeasures against
corruption. The Attorney Service set the conditions of existence of qualitative improvement in
the handling of corruption crime cases, from the phase of investigation, examination, prosecution
and execution, so as to make the eradication of corruption not merely about the increased
numbers of cases disposed but also about the observation of the quality of case management.
Eradication of corruption is not only to enable penalization of the perpetrators but also to enable
the recovery of loss to the state’s wealth. Wealth and assets of the perpetrators will be
confiscated for evidence to be deliberated in the charge for restitution. Reformative steps of
bestowing full power to each Head of Provincial Attorney Service and Head of District Attorney
Service as leaders at the regional level for controlling the handling of corruption case crimes
were expected to enable smooth and faster handling of corruption crime cases devoid of the needto endure lengthy bureaucratic lines without abandoning local wisdom by putting conscience
forward and delivering proper reports of the implementation to the superior level.
III.

CONCLUSION

Law enforcement needs to be supported by an adequate regulatory framework to ensure that
law enforcement can fulfill the public’s need for justice and that suspected criminals ofcorruption are not fleeing, until corrupted state assets are safe. Supervision of the institutions,
officials, and the elements of law enforcement related professions, also needs to be reinforced
through public participation. Public participation, either as complainant or witness, is still notsupported by legal protection that should be duly received. Complaint mechanisms for thecommunity are not well established, as well as transparency of settlement of corruption cases.
These factors increasingly worsen existing conditions. In view of such conditions, the corrective
measures with strategies that can address these issues are urgently needed in order to optimize
law enforcement. Therefore, in addition to the efforts in corruption prevention, it is reasonable
that law enforcement be placed as the second pillar of the Nastra-CPE. Objective Completion ofcorruption cases consistently and in accordance to the applicable laws to restore public trust in
just and transparent law enforcement.
This law enforcement process starts from the process of submitting a complaint, to preinvestigation, investigation, prosecution until execution of verdict. The success of this strategy ismeasured through the achievements of the Corruption Law Enforcement Index, which covers
five sub-indicators as follows:- 65 -

a) Percentage of the settlement of corruption complaints, accounted from thenumber of corruption complaints raised to the pre-investigation stage
compared with the total number of complaints received by law enforcement
officers;b) Percentage of the settlement of corruption pre-investigations, accounted
from the number of corruption pre-investigations raised to the investigation
stage compared with the total number of corruption cases under preinvestigation;c) Percentage of the settlement of investigations, accounted from the numberof corruption investigations raised to the prosecution stage compared withthe total number of corruption cases under investigation;d) Conviction Rate, accounted from the number of guilty verdicts on
corruption cases compared with handover of corruption case dossier to thecourt;e) Percentage of the settlement of execution of verdicts, accounted from thenumber of verdicts in execution (body) compared with the total number oflegally binding corruption case verdicts. In its implementation, this strategy
requires good support and coordination from the concerned law
enforcement agencies, including the Police, the Attorney’s Office, the KPK
and the Supreme Court. 14
Aligned with the 2012-2025 Long-Term National Strategy for the Prevention and
Eradication of Corruption and the 2012-2014 mid-term stated in Presidential Order No. 55/2012,
the Attorney General Office has been implementing preventive and countermeasure activities toeradicate corruption. Preventive Measures in Eradication of Corruption Crime Cases throughout
2015, preventive measures to eradicate corruption within the Attorney General Office have been
done through the coordination with all divisions (Special Crime, General Crime, Intelligence,
Civil and State Administrative, Supervision, Development). Implementation of activities
comprised:







Ensuring transparency and accountability of the Attorney Service case disposal by usageof the information-technology-based case disposal system;
Strengthening of the Network for Anti-Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism Community(Jaringan Masyarakat Anti KKN);Management of e-Procurement for goods and service and certification for Goods andService Procurement Expert;
Delivered Legal Information and Outreach, which one of the materials wasCountermeasures Against Corruption and Preventive Actions;
Conducted mapping for corruption at high-risk corporations to eradicate corruption
crime cases;
Conducted outreach to all the Attorney Service networking on prosecution acts against
multiple layered crime cases of conjoined crimes of corruption and money laundering.

14

Government of Indonesia – Presidential Decree No 55 Year 2012 Annex National Strategy on Corruption
Prevention and Eradication 2012-2014 and 2012-2025, provided by UNODC Indonesia.

- 66 -

REFERENCES
Attorney General RI, Annual Report 2017.
Dinoroy Marganda Aritonang The Model of Public Official Dismissal to Eradicate Corruption inIndonesia. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/.
Goverment of Indonesia – Presidential Decree No 55 Year 2012 Annex National Strategy on
Corruption Prevention and Eradication 2012-2014 and 2012-2025 English Translation
provided by UNODC Indonesia.
Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia, Rencana Strategis(Renstra) Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia
Tahun 2015-2019.
Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia, Laporan Tahun 2015.
Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia, Laporan Tahun 2016.
Supeno, Hadi. 2009. Korupsi di Daerah: Kesaksian, Pengalaman, dan Pengakuan. Yogyakarta:
Total Media.
Thontowi, Jawahir. 2011. The Prospect of Corruption Eradication: A Comparative Study
Between KPK and Other Law Enforcers. Yogyakarta: Universitas Islam Indonesia.
World Bank East Asia Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit Combating
Corruption in Indonesia Enhancing Accountability for Development, October 20, 2003.
World Wide Web Foundation and Transparency International, Open Data And The Fight Against
Corruption In Indonesia http://webfoundation.org/docs/2017/04/2017.

- 67 -

MISUSE OF LEGITIMATE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS BETWEENCOUNTRIES AS THE LATEST CORRUPTION METHOD
Arin Karniasari *I. INTRODUCTION
Corruption eradication has always been and will always be a commitment for theIndonesian government. The Indonesian National Police, the Indonesian Prosecution Service
and the Corruption Eradication Commission, as the state institutions which are authorized toinvestigate corruption, are working together to eliminate corruption acts in Indonesia. As an
illustration of their efforts, the following chart shows the number of corruption cases handled
by the Indonesian National Police, the Indonesian Prosecution Service and the Corruption
Eradication Commission over the last four years: 1
Number of Corruption Cases
1000
800

911

600

876

833
628

400
200
0

273

80
2014

196

202

87
2015

96
2016

INP

IPS

371

123
2017

CEC

Those corruption cases occurred in various administrative sectors which relate to goods
and services procurement conspiracy, licensing conspiracy, bribery, extortion and budget
manipulation 2 perpetrated by various professions such as members of parliament, ministers,
governors, mayors/regents, high-level officials, judges, prosecutors, policemen, advocates,
businessman and corporations, 3 which are categorized as “legal subjects” by the Law on
Corruption Eradication.
However, despite the abundant cases handled by Indonesian law enforcement apparatus,
it does not mean that the efforts to investigate and prosecute those cases were easy. The
criminals have and will always try to develop their methods in committing corrupt acts, asmentioned by an adage which says that criminals are always one step ahead of law
enforcement. The development of civilizations and Industrial Revolution 4.0, which was
supported by the advancement of information technology, has created more complex,
sophisticated, faster, globalized and undetected methods of crime. This has encouraged the*Prosecutor, Corruption Eradication Commission, Republic of Indonesia.
Based on CEC RI Repression Division data.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
1

- 68 -

criminal to modify the method to steal the state’s wealth and the ways they commit bribery.
The old school methods are applied less.
Instead of receiving bribe money directly into their bank accounts or by hard cash, they
disguise the bribe transaction as a legitimate business transaction which involves several bankaccounts and which somehow seems unrelated to the perpetrators. These transactions aremeant to deceive law enforcement so it looks as though those transactions were legal business
transactions. To that effect, the bribe transactions remain undetected by The IndonesianFinancial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (INTRAC).
The most interesting part of these bribe transactions is that they are committed throughlegitimate business transactions not only involving domestic companies but also overseas
companies. Therefore, good cooperation among law enforcement in domestic and foreign
jurisdictions is one of the keys to successfully tracking bribe money and revealing the case.
Regarding the latest corruption trends in Indonesia, this paper will discuss the misuse of
legitimate business transactions as the latest corruption method in our recent cases.
II. MAIN DISCUSSION
A. The Authority of Indonesian Law Enforcement Apparatus in Handling Corruption
Cases
Modus operandi of corrupt acts is becoming more sophisticated and difficult to detect
nowadays. Thus, in order to reveal the case, the law enforcement agencies in Indonesia needto optimize the implementation of their authority as mentioned in Law number 8, year 1981
on Criminal Procedure, Law number 31, year 1999 on Corruption Eradication and Law
number 30, year 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission, which provides special
authority for investigators, prosecutors and judges as follows:a.

to submit requests for statements from banks regarding the financial condition of thesuspect or defendant to the Governor of the Bank Indonesia, as the law enforcement
authorities may request that banks freeze any accounts in the name of the suspect ordefendant if said accounts contain the proceeds of crime; 4b.

to add electronic evidence or any recorded data or information which can be seen,read or heard that is relevant as proof; 5c.

The investigators and prosecutors of the CEC are authorized to tap communicationlines and record conversations, request data on the wealth and tax details of asuspect or defendant from relevant institutions, temporarily suspend financialtransactions, trade transactions and other forms of contracts, or to temporarily annul
permits, licenses and concessions owned by suspects or defendants connected tocorruption cases currently being investigated; 6

4

Article 29 Law number 31, year 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption, which subsequently changed andsupplemented Law number 20, year 2001.
5
Article 26A, Ibid.
6
Article 12 Law number 30, year 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission.

- 69 -

d.

request assistance from Interpol Indonesia or the law enforcement institutions ofother nations to conduct searches, arrest and confiscations in foreign countries; also
may request assistance from the police or other relevant institutions to conductarrests, confinements, raids and confiscations in corruption cases currently underinvestigation. 7

Furthermore, cooperation between law enforcement or other relevant institutions indomestic and foreign countries, whether conducted through formal or informal mechanisms,
are needed to ease the effort to disclose the misuse of legitimate business transactions inreceiving bribe money as the latest corruption method.
B. Misuse of Legitimate Business Transactions by Set Off Debt as the Latest
Corruption Method
There were cases handled by the CEC which utilized legitimate business transactions by
set off debt as the method for the perpetrators to handover the bribe money, i.e.:
1.

The e-ID Case
Corruption in e-ID procurement occurred from 2010 – 2012. The e-ID project was
intended to provide biometric IDs to all Indonesian citizens 17 years old and above. The e-ID
corruption caused the state to lose approximately IDR 2.3 trillion of the project budget ofaround IDR 5.9 trillion. Based on the Audit Board of Indonesia’s report, the state’s loss wasdue to the mark-up pricing scheme which was more than 100% on software and hardware
devices, card printing, and also on the Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS)
device and its license.
The corruption started since the Indonesian Ministry of Home Affairs planned the e-ID
project as a part of the State’s Budget in 2010. There was a conspiracy between Irman andSugiharto as high-level officials in the Ministry of Home Affairs with Andi Agustinus aka
Andi Narogong (AA), Anang Sugiana Sugihardjo (ASS), Johannes Marliem (JM) and PT(entrepreneurs), Setya Novanto as the Head of the House of Representatives and otherparliament members in order to arrange the e-ID project to be financed by the State’s Budget
instead of being financed using foreign grants. The aforementioned entrepreneurs also asked
Setya Novanto and other parliament members to oversee and facilitate the e-ID projectbudget’s discussion in the House of Representatives. For that reason, the entrepreneurs agreed
to provide some money to Setya Novanto and other members of the parliament. To support
the corrupt acts, the entrepreneurs and the Head of the House of Representatives manipulated
the e-ID project procurement by creating a consortium (PNRI consortium) which was
designed to win the procurement process.
Along with the PNRI consortium, the perpetrators also agreed to create another 2 (two)consortia, which were only intended to join the procurement process as a dummy bidders.
These 2 (two) other consortia, namely the Murakabi and the Astragraphia consortia were
never meant to win the procurement. They set up all the documents, prices and bids so that in
the end they would only slightly lose to the PNRI consortium to camouflage the conspiracy.
Furthermore, in order to gain money for the bribe, the perpetrators (the government
officials, i.e. the procurement committee, the entrepreneurs and Setya Novanto) had arranged
7

Ibid.

- 70 -

the procurement committee to come up with their own estimated price instead of being basedon the market price. Accordingly, the marked-up price was IDR 18.000/ID card.
Thus, the company tasked to provide the bribe, which amounted to 5% of the e-ID’sproject budget or approximately IDR 70 billion – IDR 100 billion to Setya Novanto, was PT
QS, which is owned by ASS, who supplied the biometrics products that were provided by JM(US citizen).
After the PNRI consortium won the e-ID project auction in 2011, Setya Novanto asked
for the money that had been promised. Therefore, they agreed to channel the money using thefollowing methods. First, Biomorf Lone Indonesia, a company owned by JM, sent an invoice
to PT QS. This was a legitimate business transaction, since products were actually bought andsold between those companies, but of course as mentioned before, the price was alreadymarked up. After PT QS paid JM according to the invoice, JM then separated the money, i.e.
for the payment of the actual cost of the goods, for his own profit and for the bribe money.
For the promised bribe money to Setya Novanto, JM then allocated USD 7.3 million andtransferred the money to Biomorf Mauritius.
Furthermore, in order for Setya Novanto to be able to have the said bribe money without
being detected, such as by INTRAC (Indonesia FIU), JM delivered the USD 7.3 million bribemoney to Setya Novanto by using assistance provided by a money changer. Thus, the money
was delivered by concealing it in the process as follows:a.

USD 3.8 million was transferred from Biomorf Mauritius’ bank account to thedefendant’s (hereinafter “MOM”) bank account in Singapore. In order to send themoney to Indonesia, MOM, through the assistance of JH (person who works for themoney changer in Indonesia), set off debt by settling the payments of bills ofIndonesian companies to their business partner in Singapore, in which the billedamounts matched the amount of money that was transferred by Biomorf Mauritius to
MOM. Afterward, the money that JH acquired from Indonesian companies, which
formerly was intended to pay those bills, was given to Setya Novanto through anintermediary.

b.

USD 3.5 million was given by JM to Setya Novanto through IHP (Setya Novanto’s
relatives). The money delivery process began when IHP asked for IB’s and JH’s
(person who works for the money changer in Indonesia) assistance to receive banknotes in the amount of USD 3.5 million from JM without any transaction record
between him and JM. At that moment, IHP offered profit to IB and JH in the amountof IDR100 for every US dollar. Subsequently, JH accumulated the money which had
been given by Indonesian companies that formerly ordered her to pay their debt totheir business partner in Singapore and Hong Kong. After the amount of the money
reached USD 3.5 million, JH gave the money and the bank account of theIndonesian companies’ business partner in Singapore and Hong Kong to IB; then IB
forward the money and the bank accounts to IHP. After that, IHP handed over themoney to Setya Novanto and sent the bank account numbers to JM. Afterwards, JM
transferred the money to those companies in Singapore and Hong Kong based on thebank accounts which had previously been provided by IHP.

For committing his corrupt acts, Setya Novanto was found guilty according to article 3 of
the Law on Corruption Eradication by the Indonesian Court for Corruption Crimes in the- 71 -

Central Jakarta District Court, verdict number: 130/Pid.Sus-TPK/2017/PN.JKT.PST date 24
April 2018, which sentenced him to 15 years of imprisonment, to pay a fine IDR 500 million
or substituted to three months of additional imprisonment, and also ordered him to pay
compensation of USD 7.3 million and revoked his right to be elected for 5 years, as
additional penalties.
2.

The Other Case
After successfully revealing the e-ID methods of corruption, the CEC found another casewhich utilized a legitimate business transaction scheme, by setting off debt which also wascommitted using the assistance of a money changer in Indonesia (the names of theperpetrators will be concealed because the case is still in the trial phase). The case occurred in2016. It was started when B (entrepreneur) asked A (a parliament member) to allocate
additional funds from the state’s budget on a certain project. B promised to give money to A
which amounted to 7% of the project fund, if A succeed to raise the said project’s budget.
Afterward, to conceal the money delivery process, A asked C (his staff) to seek bank accounts
in a foreign country that could receive money from B in US currency. Through the assistanceof D (an entrepreneur who has a business relationship with companies in China andSingapore), C obtained two bank accounts of companies in China and two bank accounts ofcompanies in Singapore. Afterwards C notified A regarding those bank accounts. A theninformed B of the bank accounts, and B transferred his money from Singapore to:(1) RRR Company in China, USD 200,000;(2) SSS Company in China, USD 100,000;(3) TTT Company in Singapore, USD 110,000;(4) UUU Company in Singapore, USD 501,480.
Once A was convinced that B had already transferred the money to those companies in
China and Singapore, A ordered C to receive the bribe money from D in the amount of USD
911,480.
C. Settlement of the Case and Countermeasures to Prevent Similar Corrupt Acts
1. Techniques to Reveal the Method of Corruption
As mentioned before, the misuse of legitimate business transactions by set off debt tocamouflage the bribe transactions in the e-ID case were completed through the assistance of amoney changer. We were able to reveal the scheme by following the money trails of the e-ID
project, both in Indonesia and overseas. At the beginning, we were only notified by INTRAC
that the money flows from PT QS to Biomorf Indonesia had been channeled to Biomorf
Minneapolis and Biomorf Mauritius. The situation indicated that Indonesia should request
legal cooperation from the United States and Mauritius in order to further seek information
regarding the flows of the money. Realizing that formal mutual legal assistance cooperation
with foreign jurisdictions would take a long time, and since Indonesia and the USA did nothave a bilateral MLA treaty in place, we then engaged in informal cooperation with theFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of Mauritius.
As a result of good cooperation between fellow law enforcement, the FBI informed us of theevidence of JM’s connection to the e-ID case, which was reflected on audio recordings of his
discussions concerning the e-ID project with high-level officials of the Ministry of Home
Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia, entrepreneurs and Setya Novanto.

- 72 -

The FIU of Mauritius also informed us regarding Biomorf’s transactions to companies in
Singapore and Hong Kong. In addition, we collaborated with the Corrupt Practices
Investigation Bureau (CPIB) Singapore to obtain more evidence regarding the relation
between the companies in Singapore with Biomorf Mauritius. With the support of the CPIB,
we acquired evidence that the companies which received money from Biomorf actually had
no business relationship with Biomorf Mauritius. Nevertheless, those companies did have abusiness relationship with Indonesian companies. Furthermore, we investigated thoseIndonesian transactions and discovered that those companies were in debt to their business
partners in Singapore and Hong Kong (the aforementioned companies), in which they
requested JH (the money changer) to transfer their money to Singapore and Hong Kong as
the debt payment. With that information, we were able to find and link those transactions tothe bribery process, which used legitimate business transactions by set off debt that was
managed by the money changer. At a glance the transactions looked like a normal business
transaction and unrelated to the crime. The set off debt scheme in the e-ID case was
employed to camouflage the bribe transaction. In this case, the money changer played asignificant role to hide the money flows. The most important lesson learned from this case isthat when other similar methods appear on a different case, we were already able to identify
directly the likely strategy of investigation and prosecution that should be applied inrevealing the case.
2.

Countermeasures
From our best practices, we learned that cooperation among law enforcement agencies inhandling and completing criminal investigation and prosecution is very important,particularly for cases which involve foreign jurisdictions. Although the Indonesian
government has stipulated Law number 1, year 2006 on Mutual Legal Assistances in
Criminal Matters, which regulates the mechanism to obtain overseas evidence through aformal mechanism, more often, informal cooperation is preferred and more suitable as analternative measure to accelerate the process. The e-ID case, in which we cooperated with theFBI, the FIU of Mauritius and CPIB Singapore was one good example of fruitful informalcooperation. Accordingly, we shall intensify the cooperation between law enforcement
agencies in order to ease the effort of gathering evidence for similar cases in the future.
The misuse of legitimate business transactions performed and assisted by the moneychanger not only occurs in corruption and money laundering, but also in other areas of crimesuch as the funding of terrorism. To avoid the misuse of legitimate business transactions
through money-changer assistance in the future, Bank Indonesia has issued Regulation
number 19/10/PBI/2017 on Application of Anti-Money-Laundering and Prevention ofTerrorism Funding for Payment System Service Providers Other Than Banks and Non-Bank
Foreign Exchange Business Activities Organizers. The regulation compelled money changers
to apply the Anti-money-laundering and Prevention of Terrorism Funding policy, perform
customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence to high risk customers. Money changers
in Indonesia are also required to report suspicious transactions to INTRAC and report on theimplementation of the Anti-money-laundering and Prevention of Terrorism Funding policy toBank Indonesia. There are sanctions that could be imposed on money changers or other nonbank foreign exchange if they violate the Regulation.
Moreover, law enforcement agencies will also need to enhance their ability to recognize
the corruption perpetrators’ methods of receiving bribe money, to ensure their consistency infollowing money trails and to develop good cooperation with law enforcement agencies in- 73 -

foreign countries.
III. CONCLUSION
1.

The misuse of legitimate business transactions as a method of corruption were employed
to disguise the bribe transactions in order to avoid being detected by law enforcement.
Thus, the perpetrators made the bribe transactions as complicated as possible, in which
the money changer played a significant role to conceal the bribe transactions through set
off debt. The criminal acts involve overseas companies which have business
relationships with Indonesian companies, so that the transactions appear as legaltransactions. Law enforcement agencies shall always bear in mind that in order to reveal
the method of corruption, they shall adhere to the principle of following the money andestablish and maintain good cooperation with other law enforcement agencies, either
domestic or abroad.

2.

In order to restrain and supervise the non-bank foreign exchange business activities,
Bank Indonesia issued Regulation number 19/10/PBI/2017 on Application of AntiMoney-Laundering and Prevention of Terrorism Funding for Payment System Service
Providers Other Than Banks and Non-Bank Foreign Exchange Business Activities
Organizers. This Regulation required money changers to implement the Anti-moneylaundering and Prevention of Terrorism Funding policy, with the expectation that there
will be no more misuse of legitimate business transactions by set off debt performed
through money changers’ assistance as a crime method in the future.

- 74 -

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 -

THE LATEST REGIONAL TRENDS IN CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVE
COUNTERMEASURES BY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AUTHORITIESPremraj a/l Isaac Dawson Martin Victor *I.

STATISTICS AND LATEST CORRUPTION TRENDS

Since 2015 there has been a huge volume of Investigation Papers (IP) opened by the
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), based on reports lodged against
wrongdoings, pertaining to corruption and money laundering incidences. Below are thenumbers of IPs opened based on the category of offences in the MACC 2009 Act since 2015:
CATEGORIES OF OFFENCES

2015

2016

2017

2018 *(till Sept)

RECEIVING GRATIFICATION(s. 16/17 MACC Act 2009)

400

331

311

206

GIVING GRATIFICATION(s. 17 (b) MACC Act 2009)

156

140

168

68

FALSE CLAIM(s. 18 MACC Act 2009)

241

367

202

246

ABUSE OF POWER(s. 23 MACC Act 2009)

67

89

81

98

MONEY LAUNDERING(AMLATFPUAA 2001)

39

26

51

52

OTHER OFFENCES(PENAL CODE)

79

32

50

58

TOTAL (Investigation Papers)

982

985

863

728

Looking into the above-stated information regarding money-laundering activities, recent
trends show the number of IPs opened has increased almost 100 percent in 2018, as compared
to 2016. This fact proves that the MACC is seriously combating money-laundering activities,
which entails the enforcement of seizure, freezing and forfeiture of illegally obtained assets.
MACC is also combating illicit enrichment committed by white-collar offenders throughmoney laundering activities. Attached herewith are statistics, showing drastic enforcement offorfeiture as a result of seizure. The tables below show both the amount of seizure during
investigation (Table 1) as well as amount of forfeiture (Table 2) in the four years prior to*

Assistant Commissioner, International Relations Branch, Policy, Planning and Research Division, MalaysianAnti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

- 83 -

May 2018. These figures raise an alarm to the public that the government is serious infighting against the predicate offence of money laundering and corruption offences.
Table 1- Seizure
AMOUNT OF SEIZURE (MYR)
YEAR

MACCA 2009
(A)

AMLATFPUAA
2001
(B)

TOTAL (A+B)

2015

12,938,824

9,331,769

22,270,593

2016

121,778,504

85,877,708

207,656,212

2017

60,021,799

293,038,548

353,060,347

2018(till mid Oct)2,362,537

16,084,625

18,447,162

TOTAL

197,101,664

404,332,650

601,434,314

Table 2- Forfeiture
AMOUNT OF FORFEITURE (MYR)
YEAR

MACCA 2009/
CPC(C)

AMLATFPUAA
2001
(D)

TOTAL (C+D)

2015

1,436,135

2,500,900

3,937,035

2016

4,947,124

3,000

4,950,124

2017

28,026,190

20,529,275

48,555,465

2018(till mid Oct)

1,344,693

15,526,904

16,871,597

TOTAL

35,754,142

38,560,079

74,314,221

Even though the amount of forfeiture is much less than the amount of seizure, it still
positively shows that the volume of forfeiture has increased year by year. If we were to
analyse the trend of arrest, the arrested offenders have been recorded as follows:- 84 -

ARREST STATISTICS
2015

2016

2017

2018
(till Sept)

Top Management
Senior Management
Supporting Staff

9
82
307

7
119
341

13
101
295

2
111
210

Government Linked Companies

n/a

22

21

21

Private Sector

127

210

168

133

Public

316

238

272

200

Others

0

2

9

10

TOTAL

841

939

879

687

CATEGORIES OF OFFENDERS
PublicSectorData of arrest as shown above alarms us that the allegation regarding involvement of the
public sector is quite high, as compared to the other categories of offenders. Having said that,the allegations against public sector offenders may be the result of the fact that their positions
are vulnerable to corruption, misappropriation and abuse of power.
II. CHARACTERISTICS AND TYPOLOGIESBasically, there are four most common modus operandi committed by the offenders,
namely:A. Misuse of Public Funds(OPS MISDEC)
The accused was an Executive Director of the Skills Development & Entrepreneurship
Centre together with his son, who was also working in the same centre, as a Director in the
Administration and Finance Division. The accused and his son committed criminal breach oftrust by issuing several payments through numerous cheques from the Skills Development &Entrepreneurship Centre to their own company, named MRP LTD, amounting to RM4.5
million. The main objective of the centre is to provide facilities in technical and management
training programmes in order to upgrade the competencies in skills and technology where thefinancial budget is from the federal government. The funds were only to be used for theorganization’s intended purpose. Both accused had misused the advantage of being directors
in the centre.
B. Involvement of a Huge Amount of Cash
(OPS WATER)
The accused in this case was a Deputy Director of a state government department.
During investigation, a huge amount of cash worth MYR1.5 million was found and seizedfrom his own dwelling house. Besides that, several mixed foreign currencies were also foundamounting to MYR1,978,760.48 inside the house. Additional cash in the amount of
MYR12,500.00 was found inside his office. Surprisingly, MYR4.4 million in cash was found- 85 -

inside safe deposit boxes, from various banks, registered under his name.
C. Involvement of Lawyers and Dummy Documents(OPS SKYLINE)The accused was a Junior Minister in a southern state who had power regarding approvalof housing development. He and the co-accused, a businessman, had approached housingdevelopers, who had applied for a release. In this case, state government has imposed certain
conditions on housing developers, where they are required to allocate 40% of the units to be
sold to Bumiputra (a Malaysian of indigenous Malay origin) at a discounted price (15% off
from normal purchase price). For a certain period, if the units are unsold, the developers may
apply for a release, so that the unsold units could be sold to non-Bumiputra at a normal price.
In approving the application, the developer would be charged to pay a certain amount to a‘state housing fund’ up to 7.5% of the purchase price. Here, the accused, had reduced theamount to be paid by the developers to 3% only and another 3% as a kickback to the accused.
In this case, the co-accused had engaged a lawyer to prepare a standard agreement
between him and the developers. It is said in the agreement that the ‘kickback amount’ waspayable from the developers as a consultancy fee, which those developers denied.
(OPS BALDI)
The accused was a CEO in a government-linked company (GLC). He had committed
criminal breach of trust by way of issuing several company’s cheques to a few contractors
who had been awarded projects with the GLC. The total amount involved was worth MYR2.5
million. The modus operandi was similar among the contractors, where he instructed them tofalsify invoices so that payment could be made to them. After that, those contractors had towithdraw the same amount and give it to the accused in cash. In issuing those relatedcheques, he had wrongly instructed the General Manager of Finance of the GLC, to sign thecheques, ‘supposedly to pay GLC’s clients, which the clients denied.
D. Involvement of Proxies(OPS SKYLINE)
As mentioned earlier about the case, the payments made by the developers were
deposited into the lawyer’s client account. Immediately after that, the lawyer will transfer themoney to another company’s account which belongs to the Junior Minister. However, thecompany was registered and run by another person (proxy to the minister). Evidence showsthat some properties were purchased thereafter by the company yet were being used by the
Junior Minister.
III. EFFECTIVE COUNTERMEASURES
A. Effective Countermeasures for Preventing Corruption
1. Corruption-Free Pledge / Ikrar Bebas Rasuah (IBR)
The corruption-free pledge is a pledge of commitment to participate in combating
corruption and abuse of power. IBR is an initiative that has been implemented by the MACC
for the purpose of emphasizing and enhancing the commitment to avoid and liberate any
corrupt conduct. It has been implemented in various ministries and government agencies(including government-linked companies), as well as in the private and corporate sectors.

- 86 -

2.

Integrity Units
The establishment of Integrity Units in government agencies is in accordance with
Service Circular No. 6 Year 2013 effective on 1st January 2013. The objective of Integrity
Units is to integrate all integrity matters under a specific unit in more planned and focusedmanner. The main function of Integrity Units is to deal with integrity matters in theorganization with the responsibility to carry out six (6) core functions stated in the circular as
follows:a) Governancec) Detection and Verificatione) Complianceb) Integrity Enhancementd) Complaint Managementf) Disciplinary

B. Effective Countermeasures for Investigating, Prosecuting and Adjudicating
Corruption
1. Intelligence-Based Investigation (IBI)
MACC has adopted the Intelligence-Based Investigations (IBI) approach with the aim ofbeing more effective in the criminal justice system, where the information is gathered andplaced in a systematic manner. This approached has been adopted and successfully
implemented since 2008. Hence, MACC has to have full cooperation and assistance fromother relevant government agencies in order to gather the relevant evidence.
2.

Managing Team-Based Investigation (MTI)The MACC Investigation Department plays a vital role in the mission to combat
corruption and to implement one of MACC’s core functions, namely investigation. Case
investigations are carried out in group via the Management Team-Based Investigation (MTI)
method to expedite the investigation process as well as produce a more transparent andquality Investigation Paper.
3.

Special Corruption Courts
Since a few years back, Malaysia has implemented Special Corruption Courts in every
state of the country. Every corruption case is registered and centralized in one special court,
equipped with knowledgeable and experienced judges, in order to expedite the case. A
special training programme is being promoted, annually by the Chief Registrar’s Office inorder to enhance and improve the legal understanding among judges.
Meanwhile, in MACC, few dedicated Deputy Public Prosecutors are stationed in each
MACC state office in order to have easy access between the Investigation Officer and Deputy
Public Prosecutors. Investigation teams easily get legal advice from the prosecution side,from time to time, in order to conclude investigations. This is also known as one of thecriteria of MTI.
4.

Anti-Money-Laundering Charge
Most of the cases in MACC are being simultaneously investigated for predicate offences
and anti-money-laundering offences. Hence, the decision to prosecute will also be madetogether. If there is a case, the Deputy Public Prosecutor’s Office will issue consent toprosecute for both offences, and they will be tried jointly. One of the most significant aims is
to ensure that the illegal proceeds from corrupt practices could be eventually forfeited.
Therefore, it would be as a deterrent effect to the public at large, not to commit the same in
the future.

- 87 -

5.

Forfeiture of Property
In MACC, there is a special unit handling cases for forfeiture of property. This unit has
been established for the purpose of forfeiting assets seized and frozen during investigation.
Basically, this unit will only handle assets which are not directly related to crimes for which
the offender is prosecuted. The investigation team in this special unit will gather all relevant
information and analyse them before pursuing civil forfeiture proceedings. The Investigation
Team on the other hand will consider criminal forfeiture which is directly linked to the court
charges.
There are some occasions in which it is difficult to charge the accused with a crime inconnection with the seized and frozen assets. Currently, white-collar criminals are creative byengaging proxies in connection with the proceeds of bribes or misappropriation of properties.
They will use others’ names in acquiring or registering illicitly obtained properties. Besides
that, they will keep cash notes in certain hidden areas. There are cases where investigation
teams have found money inside tires the booth of a car, an unused residence, and inunsuspected areas in the accused’s dwelling house such as the ceiling, under the bed, stuffed
inside unused luggage bags and others. For instance, in the case of Ishak Ismail, who worked
as Senior Assistant Engineer at the State Public Works Department, Ismail had been foundwith MYR1.1 million (USD265,000) in cash inside his own bedroom. The accused was only
working as support staff of a department, and he only earned around MYR5,000.00(USD1250) a month.
6.

Sentencing
In preventing corruption offences from happening further, the Deputy Public
Prosecutor’s Office had tried their level of best in praying for severe sentences at the end ofeach case. Should the sentence be manifestly inadequate, the Office files appeals before ahigher court.
The MACC Act 2009 provides sentences under section 24, as follows:(1)

Any person who commits an offence under sections 16, 17, 20,
21, 22 and 23 shall on conviction be liable to—(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years; and(b) a fine of not less than five times the sum or value of thegratification which is the subject matter of the offence,
where such gratification is capable of being valued or is of apecuniary nature, or ten thousand ringgit, whichever is thehigher.

(2)

Any person who commits an offence under section 18 shall on
conviction be liable to—(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years; and(b) a fine of not less than five times the sum or value of thefalse or erroneous or defective material particular, wheresuch false or erroneous or defective material particular iscapable of being valued, or of a pecuniary nature, or ten
thousand ringgit, whichever is the higher.

- 88 -

For example, in the case of Datuk Khalid Bin Omar (the accused), who was a Director at
the State Public Works Department, Datuk Khalid Bin Omar had been charged for corruptly
receiving gratification (13 charges) from several contractors who had been awarded certain
projects with the department. Besides that, the accused had corruptly received certain
valuable things from those contractors. In addition, he was also charged with offences ofmoney laundering (15 charges). At the end of the case, he was convicted and sentenced to 15
months for each corruption case and 15 months for each anti-money laundering case. He wasalso ordered to pay a fine worth MYR36 million.
In another case, Dr. Shahanum bin Uthman (the accused), who worked as Head of
Project and Service Department in a private company, had committed bribery by receiving
gratification from a copper shabby collector. The collector had a job collecting copper shabbyfrom the company. The gratification was as inducement to the accused in order to give a
discount price for the collected copper shabby. He was convicted on 14 charges andsentenced to imprisonment for cumulatively 29 years and a fine MYR5.4 million. In themeantime, Session Court Judge also ordered the forfeiture of several assets, such as a BMW
car and a few sets of jewelry, to the Government of Malaysia.
C. Effective Asset Recovery
By virtue of section 31 of the MACC Act 2009, the law provides power to:(a) enter any premises and search for, seize and take possession of, any book, document,
record, account or data, or other article;(b) inspect, make copies of, or take extracts from, any book, document, record, accountor data;(c) search any person who is in or on such premises, and for the purpose of such searchdetain such person and remove him to such place as may be necessary to facilitatesuch search, and seize and detain any article found on such person;(d) break open, examine, and search any article, container or receptacle; or(e) stop, search, and seize any conveyance.
In addition, the Act provides further powers to seize movable property (under section 33
of the Act) and to seize immovable property (under section 38 of the Act).
Moreover, the Act also provides the power of forfeiture of property either uponprosecution for an offence (under section 40 of the Act) or where there is no prosecution for
any offence (under section 41 of the Act).
Furthermore, the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds ofUnlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA 2001) also provides similar power offreezing, seizing and forfeiting properties under Part VI of AMLATFPUAA 2001.
In the case of “OPS SKYLINE”, both of the accused were slapped with 33 charges under
MACC Act 2009 involving gratification amount of MYR34 million, 13 AMLATFPUAA
2001 charges involving MYR17.05 million.

- 89 -

Several luxurious cars and motorcycles, bungalows and lands were seized during theinvestigation. Those properties are still under proceeding of forfeiture of property under
section 41 of the MACC 2009 Act before the High Court.
In another example in the case of ‘OPS WATER’, the investigation was about allegationsof corruption and misappropriation of funds involving individuals in a state government
department. During the investigation, 28 individuals were arrested including its Director aswell as two ex-Deputy Directors, and 23 engineers. The seizure of cash as well as otherproperties were done in 30 separate locations involving certain districts in the state. The
MACC had taken almost a month to conduct its analysis on 8,000 payment vouchers whichwere extracted from different files consisting of tones of documents. Throughout theinvestigation, the MACC had seized and frozen assets worth MYR 114.5 million including
cash, bank accounts, shares as well as movable and immovable property.
In the case of Ishak Ismail, who worked as a Senior Assistant Engineer at the State
Public Works Department, Ismail has been arrested due to allegations of corrupt practices.
During investigation, the MACC officers had found and seized MYR1.1 million in cash in his
own bedroom. The accused was only working as support staff at the department who earned
around MYR5,000.00 a month. Later, the High Court Judge agreed that the seized amount
was illicitly obtained by the accused and ordered the assets to be forfeited.
D. Effective International Cooperation
Based on strategic cooperation and bilateral understanding, the MACC had acquired
some fruitful information from counterpart enforcement agencies. For example, in the case of
OPS WATER, the MACC had frozen certain assets of the accused in various foreign
financial institutions which were equivalent to MYR62.3 million. In addition, the MACC had
also gained information that the accused had properties outside Malaysia worth more than
MYR9.7 million, consisting of two condominium units, two terrace houses, two studioapartments, an apartment unit, a car parking lot, and a storage lot. For the time being, MACC
has initiated an action to proceed with legal action through Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA).

- 90 -COMBATING CORRUPTION THROUGH EFFECTIVE CRIMINALJUSTICE AUTHORITIESKap Tluang *I.

INTRODUCTION

Freedom from corruption is the sine qua non for building a clean government and for good
governance, and it is also connected with foreign investments and the image of our country.
Corruption erodes justice and the rule of law, hampering the sustainable development of a nation.
It undermines democratic institutions. It also results in the loss of State property. Widespread
corruption in a country could result in poverty. Corruption usually links with other forms ofcrime, particularly organized crime involving money laundering and vast quantities of assets.
Corruption cases involve not only government officials but also private individuals andcorporations. Nowadays, corruption spreads out beyond the borders of a country. As no country
in the world is free from corruption, all countries need to cooperate and coordinate in combating
corruption.
II. ANTI-CORRUPTION LAW
Myanmar signed the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) in 2005 andratified the convention in 2012. In accordance with the UNCAC convention, the Pyidaungsu
Hluttaw enacted the Anti-Corruption Law on 7 August 2013. It was signed by the President on
17 September 2013, and the law came into force on 17 September 2013. It has 11 Chapters and
73 sections. This law has been amended four times up to now for the requirements of our country.
The Anti-Corruption Rules were also issued in 2015.
The objectives of this law are: (a) to carry out anti-corruption as a national responsibility; (b)to be of benefit to clean government and good governance; (c) to enhance dignity andaccountability in public governance; (d) to protect state-owned property, rights and interests ofthe community and citizens due to corruption; (e) to take action effectively against persons who
commit corruption; (f) to create more transparency in the rule of law and governance sector, andto develop the economy and domestic and foreign investments.
Under this law, the offences are stipulated as cognizable offences. The members of theCommission, Preliminary Scrutiny Board, Investigation Board, and inspectors have the powers
and exemptions of police officers in performing their functions and duties under this law. In
implementing the provisions of this law, the members of the Commission, Preliminary Scrutiny
Board, Investigation Board, working group, inspectors, staff of the Office of the Commission,and any person serving on behalf of the Commission, Preliminary Scrutiny Board, or*Director, Legislative Vetting Department, Union Attorney General’s Office, Myanmar.

- 91 -

Investigation Board who performed their duties in good faith shall not be subject to civil action
or criminal action or any other offence. Notwithstanding any other existing law in respect of
corruption or enrichment by corruption, action shall only be taken under this law.
III. LAWS RELATING TO PREVENTING AND COMBATING CORRUPTION
Corruption is present in every field, in any form and manner. Therefore, Myanmar hasenacted various laws regarding corruption as follows:(a) The Penal Code(b) The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Law, 1993(c) The Mutual Legal Assistance Law, 2004(d) The Anti-Money Laundering Law, 2014(e) The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Law, 2004(f) The Extradition Law, 2017
IV. ROLE OF THE ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION
In accordance with the Anti-Corruption Law, 2013, the President formed the AntiCorruption Commission with 12 members including the Chairman and Secretary, with theapproval of the Pyidaundsu Hluttaw on 23 November 2017, and the investigation officers fromthe Bureau of Special Investigation (BSI) were attached to the Commission to investigate
corruption offences. The Chairman of the Commission is stipulated as a Union Minister, and theSecretary and members of the Commission are stipulated as Deputy Union Ministers.
The main functions and duties of the Commission are: (a) forming the Preliminary Scrutiny
Board and the Investigation Board; (b) investigating corruption in respect of complaints to thePreliminary Scrutiny Board and the Investigation Board; (c) submitting the report of corruption
to the President, the Speaker of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, Pyithu Hluttaw or Amyotha Hluttaw;(d) accepting complaints and rejecting complaints if found that they are false, and taking action
against false complainants; (e) assigning the Investigation Board and Inspectors to enter, inspectand search any place or building, and seizing evidence in respect of corruption; (f) cooperatingwith international organizations, regional organizations and foreign countries in combating
corruption.
The main powers of the Commission are: (a) directing to seize any currency and property
derived from enrichment by corruption, or corruption as exhibits; (b) issuing orders prohibiting
the alteration, transfer, concealment, disguise, conversion, or transformation of currency andproperty during the investigation period; (c) when it is found that currency or property of any
competent authority has been obtained by enrichment by corruption according to the submissionof the Preliminary Scrutiny Board, issuing confiscation orders of the currency or property; (d)designating any notorious news of corruption as information. (“Notorious news” means the news
credibly believed by the Commission that any person is possibly involved in corruption.)
The Commission forms Preliminary Scrutiny Boards with the appropriate persons on a caseby-case basis for the purpose of scrutinizing corruption cases to determine whether there is- 92 -

credible evidence that the currency or property was obtained by enrichment by corruption, either
according to the report of investigation or other information.
According to the report of findings submitted by the Preliminary Scrutiny Board, the said
currencies and properties are:(a) obtained by corruption if clearly proved, in which case the Commission shall order theconfiscation of the said currency and property;(b) obtained by legal means if clearly proved by the competent authority, in which case theCommission shall return the currency and property to the suspect.
The Commission forms Investigation Boards led by any member of the Commission withappropriate citizens. When receiving information from the President or relevant Hluttaw Speaker,
complaints from aggrieved persons, or notorious news reports regarding corruption, theCommission instructs the Investigation Board to investigate the matter. The Investigation Board
shall submit the report of investigation to the Chairman of the Commission.
V. DISCRETION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT BODIESThe Union Attorney General’s Office (UAGO), Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC),
Bureau of Special Investigation (BSI) and other relevant law enforcement bodies exercise a wide
range of discretion in carrying out their duties. The ACC seeks legal advice from the UAGO
with regard to the prosecution of corruption cases and then files the cases in the competent court
for trial. And when the case is brought to the court, the law officers appear on behalf of the Stateas public prosecutors and file necessary appeals or revisions with the higher court if thejudgment or order of the court is not in conformity with the law.
VI. STATISTICS AND INFORMATIONThe Anti-Corruption Commission received 6,703 complaints from 24 November 2017 to 30
September 2018. Among them, there were 34 corruption offences. There were 1,216 complaints
related to executive issues, 1,119 related to land administration issues, 1,005 related to judiciaryissues, 2,845 related to departments and personal affairs issues, 11 revoked complaints, and 473
general complaints.
VII. PROSECUTION
According to the report of investigation by the Investigation Board or other credible
information, the Commission shall:(a) instruct the Head of the Investigation Board or Inspector General to sue any competentauthority that commits corruption in the High Court of the Region or State;(b) instruct the Head of the Investigation Board or Inspector General to sue any other person,
except the competent authority, who commits corruption in the relevant Court.

- 93 -

In prosecuting any offence under this law, the Investigation Board or inspector shall obtain:(a) prior sanction issued by the Commission with the approval of the Union Government if
the accused is a person who has a political post;(b) prior sanction in accordance with the existing law if the accused is a Hluttaw
representative;(c) prior sanction issued by the Commission if the accused is not a person who has apolitical post or a Hluttaw representative.
VIII. OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENTS
Any person who possesses a political post and commits corruption shall, on conviction, bepunished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 years and shall also be liable to fine.
Any other competent authority, except a person who possesses a political post, who commits
corruption shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10
years and shall also be liable to fine. Any other person, except a person who possesses a politicalpost or a competent authority, who commits corruption shall, on conviction, be punished withimprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. Whoever
instigates, attempts to commit, conspires to commit, manages or abets any offence under this law
shall be punished with the prescribed penalty for such offence.
IX. PREVENTIVE MEASURES AGAINST CORRUPTION IN MYANMAR
In order to prevent corruption, administrative actions are also effective in addition to the
judicial measures against corruption. The Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules prescribethat a government servant shall not accept directly or indirectly, on his or her own or on behalf ofany person, nor permit any member of his or her family to accept any gift, gratuity or reward.
The anti-corruption plan has been designed by the government, and arrangements have been
made by the respective departments and organizations. Monthly meetings have been held in
every office of the departments and organizations to keep warning government servants
regarding the anti-corruption plan of the government. A public servant who has been accused ofa criminal offence including corruption may be removed, suspended or reassigned depending on
the nature and seriousness of the outcome of the criminal investigation or prosecution. (88judicial officials and 50 employees from the Immigration and Population Department have beenpunished under the Civil Service Law.)
The Union Government has established a four-year (2018-2021) strategic plan for anticorruption reforms and initiatives to reduce the erosion of State funds and bring bribery andcorruption under control. The government’s plans are now in place to implement the strategicplan for anti-corruption and bribery. Regarding the private sector, the Myanmar Investment
Commission issued the Anti-Corruption Code of Ethics for companies and corporate bodies on 3
August 2018. According to Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index (CPI),
Myanmar was ranked 147th in 2015. In 2017, Myanmar was ranked 136th.

- 94 -

X. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Myanmar is a member of the Asia-Pacific Group on Anti-Money Laundering and theInteragency Network on Asset Recovery in Asia and the Pacific. Cash up to 10,000 US Dollars
can be brought into Myanmar, and beyond that it needs to be declared at a customs checkpoint.
Myanmar has signed an MoU on Cooperation for Preventing and Combating Corruption with
South East Asia Parties against Corruption (SEA-PAC) and the ASEAN Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaty (AMLAT).
In the Pate-Chin-Myaung Police Station, Narcotic Case FIR No. 2/2012, the Northern
Mandalay Drug Enforcement Force arrested Aung Ko Latt with 171,000 methamphetamine
tablets and took action against him and the owner of the drugs, Mar Du Lar, who lived in Kyal
Gong, China under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Law. According to
Myanmar’s request to Thailand for arresting and extraditing Shwe Nu, Thailand arrested andextradited him to Myanmar.
XI. CORRUPTION CASES
A. Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 7/2015 of the Bago Division High Court
The offender U Shwe, who was a Deputy District Judge from Taungoo District Court, wasdiscovered to have accepted a bribe from a client through a bank. The Investigation Board
examined the bank records and determined that it was true. He was prosecuted under section 56of the Anti-Corruption Law and section 512 of the Criminal Procedure Code because heabsconded. The Bago Region High Court took action against him with a proclamation andattachment of property in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 7/2015.
B. Criminal Case No. 161/2017 of Zabuthiri Township Court (U Soe Thant vs. Khin
Maung Nyo, Section 57 of the Anti-Corruption Law)
The Commission found that the accused Khin Maung Nyo, who is a police second lieutenant,
took a bribe in the amount of 690,000 kyats from U Thet Htun Aung for his officer in charge ofthe police station and used his post for corruption. Then, U Soe Thant prosecuted Khin Maung
Nyo in court on behalf of the Commission. The court took action against him under section 57 of
the Anti-Corruption Law. In that case, some witnesses gave statements before thecommencement of the trial. According to the statements of witnesses in court, the judge decided
that Khin Maung Nyo committed corruption and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.
C. Criminal Case No. 5/2018 of the Yangon Region High Court (U Moe Naing vs. Chit KoKo) and Criminal Case No. 6/2018 of the Yangon Region High Court (U Moe Naing vs.
Thit Thit Khin and five other persons)
These cases arose from the same corrupt acts. They are unique cases because there were nocomplaints. These cases occurred based on notorious news reports in journals and the media. On
3 August 2018, the Anti-Corruption Commission issued an announcement regarding the Yangon
Eastern District Court criminal case no. 34/2018 under the Criminal Law, section 302 withcomplainant U Thant Zin Oo and three accused including Than Tun Aung at Tha Gyi on the
manslaughter of actor Aung Ye Htway. The announcement said the Yangon Eastern District- 95 -

Court had permitted the case to be withdrawn on 25 July 2018, causing news to spread injournals and the media of the possible involvement of corruption in the case being withdrawn.
The Anti-Corruption Commission held a meeting on 2 August 2018 to discuss the matter where
all Commission members came to a unanimous decision to consider the case as notorious and to
inform the Commission and confirm the case as a notorious case. The Commission formed theInvestigation Board to investigate the case. On 13 September, the Anti-Corruption Commission
opened the First Information Report on the Yangon Region Advocate General, Deputy District
Judge from the Yangon Eastern District Court, Yangon Region Law Officer, Yangon Eastern
District Law Officer, Yangon Eastern District Deputy Law Officer and Police Lieutenant of
Thuwunna Police Station at Thuwuna Police Station. The Anti-Corruption Commission said they
took bribes from U Khin Maung Lay, father of the suspect Than Htut Aung, in return for having
the case dismissed against the three suspects of killing Aung Ye Htwe, a comedian popular on
Facebook, on New Year’s Eve last year. On 25 September, the prosecutor filed against Chit Ko
Ko under section 56 of the Anti-Corruption Law at the Yangon Region High Court, and Thit Thit
Khin and five other persons under section 55/56 of the Anti- Corruption Law at the Yangon
Region High Court.
XII. CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS
Although the Government has taken measures to combat and prevent corruption, corruption
exists everywhere. One of the reasons is the country is poor and salaries are low. Thus,
corruption is widespread among public servants, and corruption has spread as a part of
Myanmar’s culture in the society. Corruption can be eradicated only when the integrity ofpeople is raised. It cannot be done solely by the Anti-Corruption Commission or a single
responsible organization. All people need to cooperate and coordinate in combating corruption.
Cooperation and education are playing key parts in fighting corruption.
XIII. CONCLUSION
Myanmar is making its best effort to combat corruption and is implementing various forms
of preventive measures against corruption, not only by criminal justice measures but also
administrative measures. The Commission is making many systematic modes, such as giving
educative lessons, improving morality and taking preventive measures across the country.
Moreover, Myanmar is always combating corruption in accordance with the objectives set forth
not only in domestic law but also in international instruments which Myanmar has ratified. Thus,
Myanmar is one of the countries actively engaging in the fight against corruption.

- 96 -COMBATING CORRUPTION THROUGH EFFECTIVE CRIMINALJUSTICE PRACTICES
Mr. Aung Khant *I.

INTRODUCTION

Myanmar became an independent sovereign state on 4 January 1948, and systematic
corruption has occurred since that time. There were frequent losses of state properties due tobribery, corruption and economic malpractice in Myanmar. To prevent such losses the public
property protection police, or P4, consisting of 30 members was formed on 23 December 1947.
In 1951, the Bureau of Special Investigation was founded under the Special Investigation
Administrative Board and Bureau of Special Investigation Act, 1951 with its strength of 315
members. The Bureau investigates corruption according to the Suppression of Corruption Act,
1948. The new Anti-Corruption Law was enacted on 7 August 2013 according tointernational standards and norms. The Anti-Corruption Commission was formed on 25
February 2014, and investigation officers from the Bureau of Special Investigation weretransferred and have being seconded to that commission to investigate corruption offences.
II LEGAL SYSTEM OF MYANMAR
Myanmar practices dualism with regard to obligations of international conventions andcannot directly apply international law as Myanmar domestic law. The State Peace andDevelopment Council made efforts to adopt a multi-party democratic system and marketoriented economic system with a significant programme of reforms instituted in late 1988.
Multi-party democracy elections were held in 2015 and convening of parliaments withelected representatives followed in 2016. The new government announced that it would
create clean government, good governance and make political, economic and social reforms.
Under the Anti-Corruption Law, Section 3(b), gratification includes the currencies,
properties, presents, service fees, entertainment and other illegal benefits accepted or given
without consideration or appropriate cost for the purpose of corruption. Bribery of public
officials is made a criminal offence under the Penal Code Section 161-165, but the AntiCorruption Law has superseded the Penal Code because of its more specialized nature. The
Penal Code applies subsidiarity for offences not covered by the Anti-Corruption Law. The
definition of corruption in section 3(a) includes both active and passive bribery. Sections 55,
56 and 57 impose penalties that vary with the position of the offender (imprisonment of up to
15 years for persons in political positions and fines).
Myanmar has not made illicit enrichment a criminal offence, but enrichment bycorruption under Section 3(c) is a ground for confiscation. Myanmar will consider making
bribery in the private sector a criminal offence.

*

Director, Bureau of Special Investigation, Myanmar.

- 97 -

III. FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT
The Financial Intelligence Unit was established in January 2004 under the Central
Control Board on Money Laundering according to the Control of Money Laundering Rules.
In 2014, the Control of Money Laundering Law was repealed, and a new Anti-Money
Laundering Law was enacted in order to be in line with international standards and norms
including the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). According tothis new law, the Anti-Money Laundering Central Board (AMLCB) formed the Financial
Intelligence Unit on 28 August 2014 as the central agency to receive, request and analyse
reports and disseminate financial intelligence. The AMLCB assigned the Anti Financial
Crime Division to perform the FIU’s function in 2016. Legal action was taken in all of thecases according to the Criminal Procedure Code, Evidence Law and Penal Code.
The FIU issues reporting forms, provides financial intelligence, compiles, maintains anddisseminates information, cooperates and exchanges information with other domesticorganizations, provides awareness, training assistance to government departments, requests
information from reporting organizations, cooperates with domestic and foreign organizations
and enters into agreements with counterparties. The Financial Intelligence Unit has the rightto manage independently the funds received according to financial year in accordance with theexisting financial rules and regulations. The FIU shall establish an electronic reporting system
and a computerized system in order to perform its tasks.
All designated reporting organizations including banks and financial institutions have toreport on suspicious transactions and any transaction above 10,000 US Dollars to the FIU. The
FIU, law enforcement agencies, banking and supervisory authorities need to coordinate andcooperate nationally and internationally.
Statistical data on the Anti-Money Laundering Law are as follows:Year2014 to 2017

Cases
Investigations
27

Open
Files

/

Prosecutions

10

7

Convictions-

Remarks
5 cases closed,
12 cases underinvestigation

Section 5(j) of the Control of Money Laundering Law defines the list of predicate
offences consistently with the FATF's recommendations that cover a wide range of serious
offences including bribery and corruption. Moreover, criminal liability of legal persons isestablished in Sections 43-49 of this law. Statistical data on confiscations under the AntiMoney Laundering Law are as follows:
Under Freeze
USD 31.34 millions

Under Court Trial
11.94 million- 98 -

Confiscation
USD 0.6 million

IV. DISCRETION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT BODIESThe Attorney General’s Office (AGO), the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), theBureau of Special Investigation (BSI) and other relevant law enforcement bodies exercise awide range of discretion in carrying out their duties. Myanmar follows a system of
discretionary prosecution. The ACC seeks legal advice from the AGO with regard to theprosecution of corruption cases and then files the cases in court for trial. According to
Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the offence is punishable by death,transportation or imprisonment for 3 years and upwards, but less than 7 years, it is notbailable. There are only very limited possibilities for early release or parole. Under Rule 177of the Civil Service Personnel Rules, a public servant who has been accused of a criminal
offence (including corruption) may be removed, suspended or reassigned depending on thenature and seriousness of the investigation. A public official can be subject to disciplinary
procedures regardless of the outcome of a criminal investigation or prosecution. The Union
Judiciary Law states that the reintegration of offenders into society is one of the primaryprinciples of the administration of justice in Myanmar. Under Section 13 of the Anti-Corruption
Law, the members of the commission shall submit asset declarations to the president of theUnion upon assignment of duty. Under the Anti-Corruption Law Section 51-54 and AntiMoney Laundering Law Section 52, it is possible to identify, trace, freeze, seize and confiscate allproceeds derived from an offence or their monetary equivalent.
A. Criminal Miscellaneous Case No 7/2015 of Bago Division High Court
The offender U Shwe, who was a Deputy District Judge from Taungoo District Court,
was discovered to have taken a bribe from a client through a bank. The investigation bodyexamined the bank records and found out it was true. He was prosecuted under Section 56 of
the Anti-Corruption Law and Section 512 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Bago Region
High Court took action against the offender by proclamation and attachment of property in
Criminal Miscellaneous Case no. 7/2015.
Myanmar does not have a formal witness protection programme, but the powers of theCommission include providing necessary protection to persons providing evidence ofcorruption offences (section 17(I) of the Anti-Corruption Law). Such measures include
keeping the identity of persons providing information or assistance confidential (AntiCorruption Rule 62).
Procedures are available to use video technology and remote testimony to facilitate thetestimony of witnesses and experts. There are no agreements presently in place between
Myanmar and other States for the relocation of witnesses. Victims can be considered to bewitnesses on a case-by-case basis subject to relevant protection measures and procedures.
Section 493 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows the victim to instruct a “pleader” to act incourt on his behalf. There is no legislation in Myanmar to address the protection of whistle-blowers
in the private sector.
Pursuant to the Anti-Corruption Law, Myanmar established the Anti-Corruption
Commission as the primary, but not exclusive, body for the investigation of Convention
offences. In addition, this investigative capacity is supplemented by other specialized law
enforcement agencies and oversight institutions, including the Bureau of Special
Investigation and the Myanmar Police Force. The Criminal Procedure Code, section 337- 99 -

permits the judge to conditionally pardon an offender who fully cooperates and provides aform of immunity from further prosecution or punishment. Cooperating offenders are
considered witnesses under Myanmar Law and subject to applicable protection measures.
Although Myanmar cannot extradite its nationals, Myanmar, as a general rule, prosecutes
nationals in cases where there is no extradition.
V. INTERNATIONAL CORRUPTION
The Anti-Corruption Law, Rule 59 speaks about coordination with other relevant
stakeholders. The Union Civil Service Board cooperates with the UNDP to promotetransparency and accountability in the civil service, build the capacity of civil servants and topromote a merit-based civil service system. The Public Finance Management Act is currently
being developed with assistance from the World Bank. Relevant laws for the private sector—
the Company Act, the Consumer Protection Law, the Competition Law, the Investment Law,
the Arbitration Law, the Privatization Law and the Chambers of Commerce Law—arecurrently being developed in Myanmar.
The FIU has signed MOUs for information exchanges with 13 different countries.
Myanmar is also a member of the Asia-Pacific Group on Anti-Money Laundering (APG) andthe Asset Recovery Inter-Agency Network for Asia Pacific (ARIN-AP). The Mutual Legal
Assistance Law 2004 is for recovery of property through international cooperation in
confiscation. The Mutual Legal Assistance Law contains Form A and Form B for countries tofile with the Competent Authority and request assistance, and national authorities will
provide assistance. According to the MLA Law Section 10, Myanmar needs to have abilateral agreement with a country to act on a confiscation order. If there is no bilateralagreement, the request shall be submitted to the Central Authority via diplomatic channels.
The seized or confiscated property shall be administered by the bilateral agreement, and if
there is no bilateral agreement, it shall be vested in Myanmar under Section 26 of the MLA
Law. The Competent Authority on MLA has power to issue orders to freeze, seize andconfiscate. The Anti-Corruption Commission has power to confiscate assets concerning thecorruption case. Concerning special cooperation, information is provided timely to requesting
countries. In the course of an investigation, information is shared with requesting countries orwith countries to ask them to obtain information for the on-going investigation.
Regarding the extradition system of Myanmar, it is necessary to amend the system as
Myanmar enacted the Burma Extradition Act in 1904, but it is no longer used or in line withcurrent practice. With the cooperation of the UNODC, the Law Drafting Committee drafted
the bill including 7 chapters, 42 sections, 1 schedule and 2 forms. The extradition law enacted
as Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Law No. 16, 2017 after submitting to Pyidaungsu Hluttaw andAmyothar Hluttaw on 21 July 2017. Both national and foreign citizens who commit any
offence which could be sentenced to two years' imprisonment and above could be extradited.
The corruption offences and money laundering offences are listed as extraditable and could
not be refused as political-nature offences.
A. Mayangone Township Police Station Narcotics Case FIR No.2/2005
According to the information exchange between the Central Committee for Drug
Abuse Control (CCDAC) and the China National Narcotic Control Committee (NNCC),
drugs (“Ice”) weighing 102.05 kilos were seized from Shak Chan (a) Archan’s house in
Mayangone Township on 24 May 2005. The Mayangone Township Police took action
against him under Section 15/19(a)/20(a)/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic- 100 -

Substances Law (1993). According to Myanmar's request to China for arresting andextraditing Kyan Shak Hwar (male), China arrested and extradited him to Myanmar on 1 July
2005.
B. The Pate-Chin-Myaung Police Station, Narcotic Case FIR No. 2/2012
On 1 August 2012, the Northern Mandalay Drug Enforcement Force arrested Aung Ko
Latt (male) with 171,000 Methamphetamine tablets found in his car at Wet Won village, Pyin
Oo Lwin Township. The Pate-Chin-Myaung Police took action against Aung Ko Latt and theowner of the drugs, Mar Du Lar, who lived in Kyal Gong, China, under Section
15/19(a)/20(a)/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Law (1993). According
to Myanmar's request to Thailand for arresting and extraditing Shwe Nu (male), Thailandarrested and extradited him to Myanmar on 26 June 2013.
C. Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Law (2004)
Myanmar signed the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with India
on 27 July 2010 for cooperation and mutual assistance in criminal matters. Myanmar also
signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation for Preventing and Combating
Corruption with the South East Asia Parties against Corruption (SEA-PAC) members on 14
November 2013 and the ASEAN Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaty(AMLAT) on 17 January 2006.
D. Providing Mutual Legal Assistance to China
The Chinese government made a request to send an accused, Sai Aung Myat, who was inpolice custody in Kyaing Tong Township under Section 15 and Section 19(a) of the Narcotic
and Psychotropic Substances Law as a main witness in a murder case, drug trafficking,kidnapping and robbery of a Chinese government-owned ship. At the first Session (1/ 2002)of the Central Authority formed under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Law, theAuthority decided to send Sai Aung Myat temporarily to testify at the Chinese Court under
the MOU on 28 August 2012. Sai Aung Myat testified at the Kumming Court, and theoffenders, Sai Naw Khan and two others who committed murder, drug trafficking,kidnapping and ship robbery, were sentenced to death on 6 September 2012. Chinatransferred Sai Aung Myat back to Myanmar.
E. Case Study 1
Someone has complained to the Anti-Corruption Commission that a high-ranking official
has taken a bribe from a company and gave it to his son. The investigators from theCommission searched his son’s house and interviewed his son. After that, the official
resigned and the commission made a press release and announced that the official was
innocent. According to the Anti-Corruption Law Section 20(d), the preliminary scrutiny andinvestigation shall be kept secret.
F. Case Study 2
A businessman from Yangon gave funds to a terrorist group in Rakhine State. He did notgive the money himself, but two persons transferred the money from the bank and later they
absconded to another country. The person who accepted the money from Rakhine State also
absconded to another country.
The Rakhine State’s police arrested the two persons from the terrorist group, and theygave statements that the businessman had given them the funds to attack police stations andto pay for medical treatment at the hospital. The businessman was also arrested and- 101 -

prosecuted. There was no strong evidence that the businessman transferred the money, so thejudge acquitted him. The businessman gave the money, but he was released.
The challenges are that the Supreme Court of the Union will issue a writ of certiorari, but
the judge cannot solve the problem because the evidence is not strong. The businessmen also
have good relationships with higher authorities who will apply pressure.

- 102 -

COUNTERING CORRUPTION IN THE PHILIPPINES:
PROTOTYPES AND REINFORCING MEASURESMelchor Arthur H. Carandang * and Jennifer A. Balboa-Cahig †I.

CORRUPTION AND ITS HIGH-LEVEL PERPETRATORS 1

In the Philippines, the issue of corruption in the public sphere has been a constant concern
even though earlier and more recent leaderships have won their seats under the battle cry of putting
an end to corruption. 2 The country has gained international attention for the case of former
President Ferdinand Marcos, who ruled the Philippines for more than two decades from 1965 to
1986, inclusive of the martial law period starting in 1972, 3 during which period the Marcos family
and cronies were accused to have looted around US$5-10 billion 4 in an atmosphere of authoritarian
rule, crony capitalism, economic spoliation, and human rights violations. 5
Aside from former President Marcos, another former president who served from 1998 to 2001
suffered the same downfall, with the jueteng (a local numbers game) payoff scandal and thecorporate stock price manipulation incidents, which eventually led to his impeachment – the firstPhilippine President to have been impeached by the House of Representatives. He was charged
before the Philippine anti-graft court known as Sandiganbayan for (i) receiving gifts and kickbacks
from illegal gambling; (ii) converting and misusing a portion of tobacco excise tax share allocatedfor one province; (iii) compelling the country’s public and private pension fund institutions 6 topurchase more than 680 million shares of stock in one corporation and deriving sales commission
therefrom; and (iv) accumulating unexplained wealth under a fictitious account name 7 in one majorbank, with an involved aggregate sum of almost PhP 8 4.1 billion or around $95 million.
His successor who served from 2001 to 2010, was also indicted before the Sandiganbayan.
The Office of the Ombudsman conducted the preliminary investigation and prosecution of thelatter cases, which included one for plunder for allegedly amassing millions of pesos by diverting*

Overall Deputy Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, Philippines.
Baybay City Deputy Prosecutor, National Prosecution Service, Department of Justice, Philippines.
1
Succeeding entries are portions of the Office of the Ombudsman’s presentation during the 5th Anti-Corruption
Compliance Asia Pacific Summit 2017 held in Hong Kong.
2
Ramon Magsasay, Diosdado Macapagal, Ferdinand Marcos, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo became president on the anticorruption issue as found in the Anatomy of Corruption, Gerardo P. Sicat, The Philippine Star, October 30, 2013.
3
Proclamation No. 1081 (Philippines 1972) Proclaiming a State of Martial Law in the Philippines.
4
Ignasio Malizani Jimu, ‘Asset Recovery and the Civil Society in Perspective: Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines andKazakhstan Cases Considered’ in Gretta Fenner Zinkernagel, Charles Monteith and Pedro Gomes Pereira (eds),
Emerging Trends in Asset Recovery (Peter Lang AG 2013) 322.
5
Vide Belinda A Aquino, Politics of Plunder: the Philippines under Marcos (2nd ed, University of the Philippines
1999) 29-82.
6
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and Social Security System (SSS).
7“Jose Velarde” in the erstwhile Equitable PCI Bank.
8
PhP stands for Philippine Peso.
†- 103 -

funds sourced from a government agency’s 9 confidential intelligence fund, and another one forgraft and corruption for entering into a manifestly and grossly disadvantageous contract with atelecommunications firm for personal gain. She, however, scored victories in the ensuingproceedings when the litigation saga reached the Supreme Court.
Just recently, another former president is facing complaints arising from (i) the use and reallocation of government savings worth billions of pesos and (ii) the botched police operations insouthern Philippines that claimed the lives of a number of government forces. The Office of the
Ombudsman filed the criminal cases against him for corrupt practices and for his participation in
one police general’s usurpation of authority.
Another recent corruption investigation is the pork barrel scam involving kickbacks andbribes given to Philippine politicians and government officials. From 2004 to 2012, a private
businesswoman, who engaged in securing government contracts and is considered the central
figure in the said scam, is accused of paying tens of millions of dollars in bribes in exchange forover $200 million in funding for bogus development assistance. There have been more or less 40
legislators from either the Senate or the House of Representatives, who are now facing criminal
indictment before the Sandiganbayan.
As can be deduced, just like in the earlier and more recent times, corruption still proliferates,
and it has become a trend that these are even perpetrated by the top-level bureaucrats. According
to a report on corruption cases received by Sandiganbayan, an anti-graft court which has
jurisdiction over high-ranking officials, around 10,094 cases of malversation and 7,968 cases ofgraft have been filed against public officials, making up for about 53.59% of the 33,772
corruption cases received from 1979 to November 2016. 10 Going after these high-ranking
government officials who have violated the time-honoured principle that “public office is a
public trust” 11 is vigorously pursued as it is considered to send a message of deterrence forpotential corrupt activities, reassuring the public that no one is beyond the reach of law, not eventhose in the highest places. It is ironic that those in the highest and most strategic positions tocreate positive changes do not beget the highest ethical standards of public service.
In a hard-hitting twist of fate, however, it has seem to also become a trend, that amidst
corruption allegations among these officials, they have sought and secured a return to power with
one former president becoming the incumbent local chief executive 12 and is currently bidding for
re-election, 13 while another former president has secured a seat in the House of Representatives
and has been newly installed as its Speaker – the leader of the House and the fourth mostpowerful position in the land. 14 Immediate family members of former President Ferdinand
Marcos, meanwhile, have also returned to the political limelight, with his wife elected to theHouse of Representatives, son and namesake previously elected to the Senate, and daughter
holding a gubernatorial position in their home province.
9

Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office or PCSO.
“Tracking Sandiganbayan: Who’s who in PH’s biggest corruption cases?,” Lian Buan, Rappler, Inc. January 22,
2017, updated February 2, 2017.
11
Section 1, 1987 Philippine Constitution
12“Erap wins mayoralty race,” Rosalinda L. Orosa, The Philippine Star, May 14, 2013.
13“Manila Mayor Erap Estrada seeks reelection, files COC,” Daphne Galvez, Inquirer, October 17, 2018.
14“Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s rise, fall and return to power,”
10- 104 -

Whether these reflect a forgiving nation, or a mistrust in the evidence of accusations, or asystem that overplays benefit of the doubt and distance to persecution, is subject to the varying
perspectives of different quarters. For now, what is essential and necessary is to ensure that laws,
institutions and systems should work to continuously ferret out the truth and accord justiceamidst foreseen and unforeseen twists and turns.
II. PROTOTYPES OF CORRUPTION CASESIn the Philippines, the thriving types of corruption cases are not far from those which havebeen identified in the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) such as bribery,
kickbacks, abuse of function, influence peddling, and illicit enrichment. It looks, however, at
corruption in both lenses of ‘corruption in action’ and ‘corruption in inaction,’ such thatcommission of an unlawful act is not the sole determinant of corruption but neglect of duty andfailure to act on sworn servitude to the people is also constitutive of a corrupt action.
Misbehaviour by a public official, while it may not involve a taking of government fund or
public property, is also considered a violation of the code of conduct as it connotes a negligenceof duty for personal gain. 15 Specifically, some of the more notable typologies and theiraccompanying corruption cases in the Philippine context are as follows:
A. Non-Compliance with the Government Procurement Reform Act
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) recently requested the Office of the
Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation on the procurement of PhP 3.5 billion or $64
million 16 worth of the anti-dengue vaccine, Dengvaxia, for failure of the concerned government
officials 17 to comply with the Government Procurement Reform Act as they proceeded with thepurchase without the required Certificates of Product Registration and only receiving a certificate
of exemption. The process likewise failed to follow the required protocols in the introduction ofa new vaccine particularly on the aspect of the proposal for a budget for said vaccine. It wasreported that at the said amount, the vaccine was administered to 830,000 children, with the
Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) reporting over 200 deaths attributable to the vaccine. 18 The
Department of Justice (DOJ) mentioned that it is likely to consolidate the complaint filed byprivate individuals and groups with the earlier charges filed by the NBI before the Office of the
Ombudsman. 19
To put into context, the Procurement Act is not only there to standardize and harmonize thepolicies relating to government procurement. It is established to create a system of transparency
in the procurement process, ensuring that goods and services availed from or delivered by
vendors satisfy both the financial and non-financial cost and benefit. The irregular procurement
15“Anatomy of corruption,” Gerardo P. Sicat, The Philippine Star, October 13, 2013.
1 USD is equivalent to 54.25 Philippine Peso based on September 2018 exchange rate bulletin of Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas (central bank of the Philippines)
17
Refers to a former President, two former Cabinet officials, and several former and incumbent officials of the
Department of Health (DOH).
18“DOJ likely to merge Dengvaxia raps vs. Aquino, others,” Christopher Lloyd Calinauan, The Philippine News
Agency, July 17, 2018. See also “Timeline: The Dengvaxia controversy,” CNN Philippines, Updated February 26,
2018.
19“DOJ to consolidate PAO, experts’ Dengvaxia findings,” Lara Tan, CNN Philippines, February 5, 2018.
16- 105 -

activities go beyond the physical taking of government funds but extend to introducing
significant dangers in a nation’s health, safety, environment, security, business, and otherservices and governance issues.
B. Technical Malversation
Still in relation to the aforementioned case on circumventing procurement process, on 13
July 2018, the NBI also claims that the concerned officials are also liable for technicalmalversation considering that the government funds intended for the 2015 Miscellaneous
Personnel Benefit Fund of the Executive Department (the said amount of PhP 3.5 billion) was
utilized for the procurement of Dengvaxia vaccine under the Department of Health’s schoolbased immunization programme. It has been claimed that notwithstanding the declaration by the
Chief Executive of the source of fund as savings, the concerned government officials remain
liable because the intended purpose failed since there were no existing programmes, activities or
projects for the procurement of medicines and immunization for dengue.
C. Political Dynasty
A related prototype is corruption as triggered by political dynasties. A case in point is thedesire of one political clan in Maguindanao to stay in power and eliminate opposition, which led
to the occurrence of the infamous Maguindanao massacre that cost the lives of 58 candidates,
supporters and journalists on 23 November 2009. As of November last year, a total of 166
witnesses from the prosecution and 107 from the defence have been heard, 15 sets of formal
offers of evidence in connection with the bail applications of 70 of the accused has also been
resolved by the court by which the Department of Justice is eyeing several convictions by
2019. 20
D. Ghost Project
Another popular corruption case is the Ghost Projects. This is a trend in the infamous porkbarrel scam, or the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam. A former Congressman
was charged with two counts of graft and one count each of malversation and of malversation
through falsification in the Sandiganbayan for allegedly misusing P4.85 million in pork barrel
funds on ghost projects in 2008. The Ombudsman prosecutors accused the former Congressmanof endorsing an unaccredited and unqualified non-government organization, which was selectedwithout public bidding, for purposes of undertaking the livelihood projects funded by his PDAF
allocations. Based on the documents, the funds were to be used for the purchase of hand tractors,
water pumps and grafted fruit seedlings. However, investigations revealed that the mayors of theconcerned municipalities never received the farm implements.
E. Income and Asset Misdeclaration
The Philippine legal infrastructure provides a strong anchor for enjoining public officials tocomply with the income and asset disclosure. Formally called the Statement of Assets, Liabilities
and Net Worth, or SALN, in the Philippine, it has been considered a very powerful tool to detect
potential misuse of public office for self-enrichment and to allow disclosure of one's businessinterests and financial connection. In one particular high-profile case, the SALN has been
instrumental in the removal from office of the former Philippine Chief Justice in 2012, making
him the first to be impeached and convicted, with his trial becoming the “first of its kind to be
20“DOJ eyes Maguindanao massacre convictions in 2019,” Edu Punay, Inquirer, June 22, 2018.

- 106 -

concluded in the Philippines.” 21 He was found guilty of failing to disclose and accurately declarein his SALN his bank deposits and properties. 22 In another case, SALN has also been the focusof the more recent ouster of a female head magistrate of the high court this year.
F. Red Tape
Red Tape, on the other hand, aside from causing great inefficiency in the delivery of public
service, is a major source of graft and corruption. Two female individuals, for example, offered
their services as fixers for the processing of drivers’ licenses at the Land Transportation Office
Regional Office V and represented that the applicant for the driver’s license need not undergo
the written examination or the actual driving test conducted by the Land Transportation Officeand other requirements of the agency in exchange for the entrapment money. They have been
apprehended and a case against them has been docketed.
G. Influencing a Subordinate to Defy Order and Protocol
The Philippines has also encountered cases of influencing a subordinate to defy order andprotocol. A former high-ranking official allowed his trusted subordinate, who was then underpreventive suspension, to give instructions, receive reports and recommendations, and approve theactions of the other men during an operation intended for the arrest of a wanted terrorist. This led
to the massacre of 44 Special Action Force commandos in Mamasapano, Maguindanao in 2015.
H. Bribery
Two Bureau of Immigration personnel were accused of receiving PhP 50 million in bribemoney from a certain businessman in exchange for the release of 1,316 foreign employees of the
Fontana Leisure Parks and Casino in Clark, Pampanga who were overstaying aliens in the
country and who committed violation of Philippine immigration laws.
I.

Connivance of Government Officials with Drug Lords
In a more recent case, during the first quarter of 2017, the panel of prosecutors from the
Department of Justice issued a 52-page Resolution on the consolidated criminal complaints filedby the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, the NBI, former NBI deputy directors andhigh-profile inmate and self-confessed drug trader, recommending the filing of charges against aformer government official in connection with her alleged involvement in the proliferation ofillegal drugs at the New Bilibid Prison.
Given all the foregoing, it can be surmised that there is a growing trend of corruption
activities and allegations being perpetrated by those in the higher chamber of the bureaucracy. It
may not come as much of a surprise since it indeed takes a good amount of power at your hands
to be able to manipulate and orchestrate a web of convoluted corrupt activities. If it can be donein the lower ranks, and there is a good chance that this can be very well concealed andorchestrated by higher-ups, where the involved amount should not go unrecognized.
Therefore, if the allegations of corruption committed by the rank-and-files do not go
unnoticed, the amount of prudence and vigilance in averting corruption at the low levels shouldeven be multiplied when it comes to implicating high-level corruption. It is a serious task to
21
22“Corona found guilty, removed from office,” Rappler, May 29, 2012, Updated July 2, 2012.
Ibid.

- 107 -

handle that can be addressed by criminal justice authorities which, due to the sophistication of
the documented recent cases, goes beyond the traditional justice pillars and extends to a
multitude of actors like-mindedly serious about anti-corruption work.
This is true for the Philippines. More and more opportunities have paved way for better
coordination among criminal justice authorities and even those in the civil society. Far frombeing a model, the Philippine experience may provide some gainful insights and helpful lessons
in fighting impunity, with the matter of public integrity having insinuated its way into thenational discourse, and found its proper place at the top of the Philippine national agenda.
III. COUNTERMEASURES TO CORRUPTION
The realization of justice, within or beyond national borders, requires rule of law and respect
for institutions, among others. Rule of law calls for adherence to well-defined legislations andallows for an impartial and non-arbitrary ruling that will facilitate fair and efficient accordance ofjustice and exaction of accountability. Countering corruption means countering an environmentthat promotes might as right and repeatedly oppresses societies, particularly its vulnerable groups,
through effective prevention strategies and programmes developed through broad-based
partnerships. In more ways than one, it is along this line that institutions combatting corruption
as a precursor to justice have been created. Independent constitutional commissions and bodies
have been created in order to enforce accountability of public officers.
Particularly acting on these are the Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections,
Commission on Audit, Office of the Ombudsman, and the country’s anti-corruption court, theSandiganbayan. Equally vital are the Office of the President, Congress, and Supreme Court, as
well as the institutions charged with execution of laws such as the Department of Justice,
Department of Foreign Affairs, Anti-Money Laundering Council, and Philippine National Police,
among others.
Ratifying the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) at the country levelin 2006, the Philippines subscribes to its provision. In keeping with the Convention, the anticorruption measure of the country is aligned with it, as it is also aligned with anti-corruption
sections of the Philippine Development Plan.
A. Preventive Measures
The best way to counter corruption is to empower and strengthen the bodies that advanceanti-corruption measures. By means of related reforms introduced and instituted by theseorganizations, the Philippines has a better chance of advancing integrity initiatives in the public
sector.
1.

Inter-Agency Partnerships
In order to better coordinate the anti-corruption efforts among the institutions, it was taken
upon themselves to be bounded and set up the Inter-Agency Anti-Graft Coordinating Council(IAAGCC) to formulate and develop concerted techniques and strategies in the prevention,
detection, investigation and prosecution of graft cases. 23 This mechanism created better
23

Administrative Order No. 79, Series of 1999.

- 108 -

operational-level coordination and has led to bilateral institutional partnerships later on. As acase in point, the Office of the Ombudsman has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with
the Department of Justice as the former shares with the latter the criminal prosecution of cases
against low-ranking public officials. In view of this concurrent jurisdiction, the agreement
simplified the procedures and created a more efficient and effective investigation andprosecution of cases, including an enhanced monitoring mechanism.
Likewise, the Complaint Referral System has been established by the Office of the
Ombudsman with the Civil Service Commission and the Philippine National Police. Both havepromoted speedy disposition of administrative cases, thereby affirming accountability andimproving public trust. There is also a partnership between the Ombudsman and the Commission
on Audit on joint investigations.
2.

Legislative Agenda
Among the efforts of the Philippine Legislature to bolster the anti-corruption initiatives are
the enactment of laws which:(1) strengthen the anti-money laundering law; (2) strengthen the functionaland structural organization of the Sandiganbayan, the Philippines’s anti-graft
court; and (3) increase the prescriptive period for violations of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act. Among the matters considered by our present
administration as priority measures for legislation are the: (1) relaxation of
the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits; (2) streamlining of processes andprocedures in government; (3) creation of the People’s Broadcasting
Corporation; (4) enactment of the Whistleblower Protection Law; and (5)strengthening of the Witness Protection Programme. 24
A major game-changer is the passage of the Republic Act No. 11032 or an Act Promoting
Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Delivery of Government Services.
3.

Enhanced Transparency
Presidential Proclamation No. 2, series of 2016 has been issued in order to operationalize inthe executive branch the people’s constitutional right to information and the State policies to full
public disclosure and transparency in the public service and provided the guidelines for the
implementation of the observance of the people’s right to information. In terms of frontline
government transactions, Citizen Charters are mandated to be posted in conspicuous places inorder to provide information on obtaining a particular service, including its duration, fees and theprocedure. This will prevent bribery in exchange for services, allow the public to report on
malicious and inefficient transactions in accordance with the standard transaction rules which are
now readily made available to the public. Because services are also timed and measured based onwhat is indicated in the Citizen’s Charter, frontliners are also envisioned to be more encouraged
to abide by the rule, being open to close client scrutiny.

24

Philippine Country Statement, 7th Session Conference of State Parties (COSP) to the United Nations Convention
against Corruption (UNCAC), Vienna, Austria, November 2017.

- 109 -

4.

Integrity Programmes
On the matter of national corruption prevention initiatives, the Office of the President andthe Office of the Ombudsman have been working together to implement the Integrity
Management Programme, or the IMP, which is the Philippine Government’s flagship corruption
prevention programme implemented with the Office of the President and assesses the systems
and processes of key government agencies in terms of their risks and vulnerabilities to corruption,and subsequently recommends corrective and preventive measures to the heads of agencies. The
Integrity, Transparency and Accountability in Public Service (ITAPS) Programme also answers
the need for customized training modules for government officials and employees, thereby
reinforcing a culture of good governance. The Judiciary has likewise instituted case decongestion
reforms and programmes. This includes the Justice on Wheels, which is a mobile court that goesto areas that are in need of adequate and inexpensive access to justice. 25
5.

Sectoral Approach
To look into red tape in local government transactions, the Office of the Ombudsman has
adopted a Blue Certification Programme and Red Tape Assessment designed to revalidate the antired tape standards prescribed for the Business Permits and Licensing Offices, which are presumed
to be most exposed to corrupt temptations. The Office of the Ombudsman has also looked into
corruption in the area of Environment and Investment. It has organized its Environmental
Ombudsman which is primarily tasked to ensure the proper implementation and enforcement ofenvironmental laws. It has since handled complaints against, investigated and suspended public
officers and employees for violations of environmental laws. The Investment Ombudsman, on theother hand, acts on investor-related grievances and speedy resolution of investors’ complaints.
6.

Digitization of Systems
In the midst of high incidence of non-filing and inappropriate asset declarations, a prototype
Electronic Statement of Asset, Liabilities and Net Worth or the eSALN has been launched in
May 2016 – a collaboration among the Civil Service Commission, Office of the Ombudsman andthe Office of the President. It is a system which transitions the manual-based asset declaration toan electronic platform. It is envisioned to address perennial issues such as late, incomplete,improper, non-filing, non-declaration/misdeclaration of assets and liabilities, or non-disclosure offinancial interests.
Along the thread of digitization of system for efficiency in government service, theDepartment of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) in the Philippines
has launched a cloud-based eBPLS software for Local Government Units (LGUs), which enables
them to process application for new and renewal of business permits electronically. The National
Competitiveness Council’s Project Repeal: Philippine Red Tape Challenge was launched in
March 2016 and is a government-wide regulatory reform initiative to repeal outdated rules andreduce the cost of doing business.
7.

Merit Based Incentive Programme
In 2012, the Philippine government started implementing a merit-based incentive
programme through the grant of performance-based bonus to government employees who have25

Philippine Country Statement, 7th Session Conference of State Parties (COSP) to the United Nations Convention
against Corruption (UNCAC), Vienna, Austria, November 2017.

- 110 -

rendered exemplary performance. The programme has been continuously implemented with theaim to improve the delivery of goods and services to all Filipinos and to institute a culture offairness and excellence in the bureaucracy.
8.

Anti-Corruption Hotline
2016 marked the beginning of operation of the 8888 Citizen’s Complaint Hotline which the
public may use to report poor public service and other improper conduct of government officials
and employees. The Office of the President Public Assistance Center may also receive
complaints against erring government officials and employees. The Office of the Ombudsman
likewise maintains two hotlines that the requesters or complainants may contact, namely, thePublic Assistance Bureau, hotline which is open during office hours and the Field Investigation
Office’s 24-hour hotline.
B. Criminalization and Law Enforcement
In the first cycle review of the UNCAC, it has been identified that one of the challenges isthe coordination among authorities to pursue bribery and embezzlement cases. This is addressedby the previously cited Inter-Agency Anti-Graft Coordinating Council which adopted majorplans such as the roll-out of a Revised Guidelines on Cooperation; publication of an Integrated
Anti-Graft Investigation and Prosecution Manual; and development of an Integrated CaseManagement System for Graft and Corruption Cases. 26
A bill is also pending in Congress that seeks to constitute the Commission on Audit (COA),
Office of the Ombudsman, and Committee on Oversight of Congress into a tripartite body to be
known as the Legislative Audit Council to perform identified tasks enabling government toeffectively run after corrupt officials and private individuals and make them to account forembezzlement of public funds. 27 In terms of the challenges identified in the law enforcement
cooperation, in particular to ensure that public officials and authorities cooperate sufficiently incriminal investigations and prosecutions, a bill is pending which “seeks to support the efforts of
the Government to rid itself of corruption by setting up a system of rewards and protection for
informants and their families.” 28
C. International Cooperation and Asset Recovery
As for international cooperation and asset recovery, the primary mechanism that has been used
for some of the documented successful recovery of assets hidden offshore is the Mutual Legal
Assistance Treaty or the MLAT. The Philippines does not have a domestic law on mutual legal
assistance but this does not prohibit it to request or grant legal assistance to a foreign country.
Provisions of existing bilateral and regional MLATs provide for this.

26

Follow-up to the Conclusions and Observations Emerging from the UNCAC Review Process
House Bill No. 426, An Act Constituting the Commission on Audit (COA), Office of the Ombudsman, andCommittee on Oversight of Congress into a Tripartite Body to be known as the Legislative Audit Concil to Perform
Identified Tasks Enabling Government to Effective Run after Corrupt Officials and Private Individuals and Made
Them to Account for Embezzlement of Public Funds
28
House Bill No. 145, An Act Providing Protection and Benefits to Persons who Disclose Conduct Constituting
Graft and Corruption and to Witnesses for the Prosecution, thereof, providing penalties for Violations Hereof, andfor Other Purposes27- 111 -

As a reference, the Philippines has existing MLATs with Australia, China, Hong Kong, South
Korea, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. And as we know, thanks to
the initiative of Malaysia, that as early as 2002, it had pushed for the creation of a multi-lateralmutual legal assistance deal on criminal matters for the ASEAN Region which has been adopted
by 8 of the members in 2004, including the Philippines, with the rest joining in 2006. 29
In the discussion on the Philippines’ experience in successful asset recovery, especially when
the focus is on the materiality of international cooperation, the Marcos case 30 finds its rightfulplace despite not being a fairly recent case. It is a classic example of recovering assets offshore andhas been cited in several case studies done by local and foreign experts and institutions. It is an 18year saga that successfully ended in 2004, repatriating to the Philippine Government a significant
amount of money previously held in Swiss bank accounts. 31
As for a more recent experience on asset recovery efforts, the United States and thePhilippines have collaborated on these cases. Again, the MLAT proved to be a powerful
instrument of international cooperation employed in the successes made. Specifically, the case of aformer Major General who was a former comptroller of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. In
2003, his sons were arrested by US Customs authorities upon their entry in California for failure
to declare USD 100,000 which was concealed in their jackets, shoes and bags. 32 This triggered
the investigations into the transactions entered into by the general.
After case build up, the Office of the Ombudsman filed criminal cases of perjury, money
laundering and plunder against him. He was eventually convicted of perjury by the
Sandiganbayan, an anti-graft court. He and his family were also accused of amassing P303.27
million in ill-gotten wealth while the Major General was in active service. He, however,bargained to plead guilty to the lesser offences of Indirect Bribery and Facilitating Money
Laundering for the other two criminal cases. 33 The plea bargaining is still the subject of review
by the Supreme Court. 34

29

Only 8 ASEAN Countries, including the Philippines signed the Treaty in 2004 after series of meetings in Sabah
and Kuala Lumpur; Thailand and Myanmar to join two years later, in 2006. Found in “The many times Mutual Legal
Assistance Treaty aided PHL”, an article by Mark Merueñas of GMA News Online available at
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/specialreports/479246/the-many-times-the-mutual-legal-assistance-treatyaided-phl/story/
30
Succeeding discussions are significantly informed by: Office of the Ombudsman’s report on International
Cooperation on Asset Recovery during the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Network on Anti-Corruption
Authorities and Law Enforcement Agencies (ACT-NET) Meeting in 2017; “Digest of Asset Recovery Cases,” theUnited Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), New York, 2015; “Perspective on Civil Forfeiture” writtenby Jeffrey Simser, Legal Director, Civil Remedies for Illicit Activities Office, Ministry of the Attorney General(MAG),Toronto,Ontario,
Canada(duringthewriting)availableat
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTHAILAND/Resources/333200-1089943634036/4752561201245199159/2008Mar-asset_recovery-civil-forfeiture.pdf
31“Fact Sheet on Stolen Asset Recovery” developed by the Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative (StAR) by the WorldBank and UNODC.
32
US v. $201,166.08 in US Currency and [ ] $44,354.86 in US currency [ ] in name of ICJ Access Worldwide, Case
No. 1:12-cv-9388 (SDNY), Verified Claim filed December 26, 201233
“US turns over $1.38M proceeds of Garcia’s forfeited assets,” Office of the Ombudsman, 3 June 2015.
34
Ibid.

- 112 -

As the former general’s corruption cases were ongoing in the Philippines, the US filed
criminal and civil actions against him and his family and their US-based assets. Philippine and
US investigators worked closely in order to determine the laundering of this substantial portionof his criminal proceeds through the United States. 35 Investigators from the US Department ofHomeland Security traced the criminal proceeds to two Citibank accounts and a Trump Tower
condominium, both in New York. It was US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New
York which initiated the civil forfeiture proceedings and after a judgment of default, theproceeds totaling to USD 1,384,940.28 were eventually turned over to the Philippines in June 3,
2015. 36 It serves as the second tranche of the proceeds of the forfeited assets of the former Major
General as the first tranche was made in 2012 in the amount of USD 100,000 representing the
cash seized from his sons at the San Francisco International Airport in December 2003, as earlier
mentioned. 37
With all the other ongoing efforts on asset recovery, the bigger agenda is to retrieve thestolen assets and proceeds of the crime and to commit to an understanding that justice does not
end in prosecuting or incarcerating national thieves, especially big-time offenders. Concealing
corruption proceeds should not be tolerated by taking money laundering activities sitting down.
It has to be recovered, it has to be brought back to the rightful coffers.
IV. SUMMING UP
Overall, there is an understanding that addressing corruption is a gargantuan task for it has
the ability to permeate different sectors, to manifest in different form, to grow sophisticated, andto get complicated in the web of conniving individuals be they from the high- or the low-ranks,
or be they from the public or the private sectors.
The lessons from the Philippines may not be of a great model because corruption is far frombeing weeded out of its soil. Over the years, however, the country is able to display its consistenteffort to fight corruption using the legislative measures and prevention programmes that go
hand-in-hand with aggressive investigation and prosecution of public offenders, and thecontinuous promotion of integrity work. It has secured venues to seek redress. The country has
also welcomed technical assistance from international communities and dove into making anticorruption drive a multi-sectoral discourse. It has numerous laws that prevent corruption andbuttress public service ethos. It might not have fully complied with all the provision in the
UNCAC checklist, but the country has addressed the key points to begin a good anti-corruption
drive.
While the Philippines has long been scourge of corruption and found to still be short ofridding it, its saving grace from the quagmire of corruption is its firm stance against the greatest
corruption bottleneck, which is not its complexity, but the sheer display of tolerance for suchactivities.

35

Press release entitled “U.S. Helps Philippines Recover ‘Ill-Gotten Gains’,” United States Embassy in thePhilippines available at https://ph.usembassy.gov/u-s-helps-philippines-recover-ill-gotten-gains/.
36
Ibid.
37
See footnote 34.

- 113 -

THE LATEST REGIONAL TRENDS IN CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVE
COUNTERMEASURES BY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AUTHORITIESLam Seow Kin *I. INTRODUCTION
Corruption is an age-old crime, perhaps among the oldest known to humankind. It is amanifestation of greed and exploitation of power by corrupt individuals or entities. The nature of
the crime remains unchanged, but its methods have likely evolved alongside advancements in thetechnological, economic and the legal environment that we operate under. Therefore, it is timelythat the latest regional trends and countermeasures are reviewed. The Corrupt Practices
Investigations Bureau (“CPIB”) is the agency in Singapore dedicated to the fight against
corruption. We are pleased to have the opportunity to share our experiences and insights andcontribute to the collective effort of like-minded countries and agencies in the endeavour tocombat corruption.
II. CORRUPTION SITUATION IN SINGAPORE
The present level of corruption in Singapore is low and under control. Corrupt occurrences
are usually incidental and opportunistic, and not institutional or endemic. Majority of thecorruption cases reported and consequently investigated are from the private sector. On the other
hand, public sector cases are typically petty corruption committed by low or mid-level public
officials. Statistically, private sector cases form a range of between 85% to 92% of yearlycorruption cases from 2014 to 2017. Among the private sector cases, construction and building
maintenance, wholesale and retail, and the logistics industry are areas of concern as we continue
to see cases relating to these industries.
A. Countermeasures through Effective Law Enforcement
1. Enforcement under the Prevention of Corruption Act
As corruption stems from greed, one of CPIB’s strategies to rip corruption at its core is todisgorge the criminal gains of the corrupt through the conduct of rigorous asset recovery efforts
and strict enforcement of associated money laundering offences. The aim is to render corruption
a high risk and low reward activity. In Singapore, investigators in CPIB are empowered under
the Prevention of Corruption Act (“PCA”) to arrest, search and seize properties related to thecommission of corruption offences.
In particular, Section 13 of the PCA contains an in-built mechanism to recover and disgorge
criminal proceeds from corrupt receivers. Anyone who is convicted of corruptly receiving any
gratification in contravention of the Act shall be assessed and ordered by the court to pay a*

Deputy Head of Investigations, Financial Investigations Branch, Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau,
Singapore.

- 114 -

penalty equal to the amount of gratification received. The imposition of a penalty under this Act
is not a discretionary judicial measure but a mandatory one that has to be imposed, in addition to
any other punishments such as fines or imprisonment term that the court may mete out.
Between the period from 2015 to 2017, seizures made pursuant to investigations andsubsequently ordered by the Court to be forfeited to the State amounted to S$3.2 million.
Correspondingly and coincidentally, a total penalty of S$3.2 million has been imposed by the
Courts against corrupt receivers in the same period.
The following case illustrates CPIB’s concerted effort in disgorging illicit benefits. In 2017,a former executive of an oil major was charged with receiving bribes amounting to S$5.7 million
from a businessman, in return for advancing the former’s business interest with the oil major 1.
The accused person was also charged with associated money laundering activities relating to theuse of the criminal proceeds. Through investigations, the accused person was established to have
utilized his criminal proceeds to partially finance the purchase of 3 landed properties and 2
condominium apartments in Singapore. Accordingly, caveats were placed on these assets toprevented dissipation, with the view of eventually forfeiting the criminal benefits to the State.
The trial against the accused person is ongoing.
2.

Enforcement under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (Confiscationof Benefits) Act
The pursuit of depriving criminals of their benefits of criminal conduct is also aided by the
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (“CDSA”).
The CDSA is the primary legislation in Singapore that criminalizes the laundering of criminal
benefits and provides for the investigation and confiscation of such benefits. Specifically, it
provides an extended reach beyond assets directly traceable to a criminal offence.
Under the CDSA, the court may make a restraint order or charging order on property owned
or linked to a person, as long as the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable cause to believethat benefits have been derived from his or her criminal conduct. In the eventuality that theperson is convicted of a serious offence such as corruption as specified in the CDSA’s schedule,
a confiscation order may be applied against him or her for the benefits that he or she had derived
from the criminal conduct. Any property or any interest therein (including income accruing fromsuch property or interest) held by that person that is disproportionate to his or her known sourcesof income, if it cannot be explained satisfactorily to the court, is presumed to have been derived
criminally until proven otherwise.
In the case of a match fixer 2 convicted in 2014 for attempting to fix a football match, CPIB
had conducted financial investigations against the accused person as he was suspected to be inpossession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, which include luxury
vehicles and real estate property. A concealed income analysis was performed against the1

See Straits Time article https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/ex-bp-exec-charged-in-57m-briberycase
2
See Straits Times article https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/businessman-match-fixer-eric-dingsi-yang-led-the-high-life- 115 -

accused and he was found to have accumulated illegitimate income over the years. An
application to confiscate the realizable assets of the accused under the CDSA has been made to
the Court and trial proceedings are underway.
B. Countermeasures through Public-Private Sector Partnership
Apart from rigorous enforcement efforts, CPIB also adopts a dual-pronged approach of
public outreach and education to address private sector corruption. CPIB has been exploringcollaborative opportunities with professional bodies and industry stakeholders to reach out to theprivate and business sectors. We engage the private sector through various platforms, such as
forum and prevention talks. In these talks, we share with companies and businesses cases ofinterests, update them on the developments in the international arena and also caution them on
the pitfalls and risks involved in non-adherence to our domestic anti-corruption and related laws.
1.

Launch of the Singapore Standard (SS) ISO 37001 on Anti-Bribery Management Systems
In April 2017, CPIB and SPRING Singapore 3 co-launched the Singapore Standard (SS) ISO
37001 on Anti-Bribery Management Systems 4, aimed at helping companies strengthen their antibribery systems and processes. The SS ISO 37001 is a voluntary standard designed to help
companies establish, implement, maintain and improve their anti-bribery complianceprogrammes. It specifies requirements for top management leadership and commitment, antibribery policies and procedures, risk assessments, reporting, monitoring and investigation
procedures, among several other requirements.
2.

Development of PACT: “A Practical Anti-Corruption Guide for Businesses in Singapore”
Recognizing that not all companies have the financial resources to adopt the SS ISO 370001,
CPIB also developed an easy to comprehend 4-step guidebook titled PACT: “A Practical AntiCorruption Guide for Businesses in Singapore” 5 to assist business owners to implement an anticorruption system within their companies. The PACT guidebook comes with business sector
case studies from different industries and provides free samples of Anti-Corruption Policy, Codeof Conduct, Declaration Forms and Risk Assessment Checklist for businesses. PACT’s four-stepframework is as follows;(i) Pledge - Companies are encouraged to implement their own anti-corruption policy andto create a code of conduct that employees can refer to in order to safeguard themselvesfrom falling foul of the law;

*Deputy Head Investigations, Financial Investigations Branch. Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, Singapore
3
SPRING Singapore is formerly an agency under the Ministry of Trade and Industry responsible for helping
Singapore enterprises grow and building trust in Singapore products and services. As the enterprise development
agency, SPRING works with partners to help enterprises in financing, capability and management development,
technology and innovation, and access to markets. As the national standards and accreditation body, SPRING
develops and promotes an internationally recognized standards and quality assurance infrastructure.
4
The (SS) ISO 37001 was Singapore’s adaptation of ISO 37001 Anti-Bribery Management Systems that was
launched on 15 October 2016. CPIB had led the working group from Singapore in the negotiation of the ISO 37001.
5
Refer
to:
https://www.cpib.gov.sg/sites/cpibv2/files/PACT%20A%20Practical%20AntiCorruption%20Guide%20For%20Businesses%20in%20Singapore.pdf- 116 -

(ii) Assess - Companies are encouraged to identify areas of high corruption risks and to
conduct periodical risk assessments focusing on vulnerable job functions and processes;(iii) Control & Communicate - Companies are encouraged to keep accurate records and clear
operating procedures, a robust reporting or whistle-blowing systems and audit checks
that are carried out periodically. Companies should communicate the anti-corruption
policy, code of conduct, internal control and reporting system to all its employees,
business partners and other stakeholders, if any;(iv) Track – Companies are encouraged to review their anti-corruption systems in a timely
manner following company re-organization, expansion in operations, newlegal/national/international anti-bribery standards, and shifts in the business operating
environment.
3.

Anti-Corruption Partnership Network for the Private Sector
CPIB has also established an Anti-Corruption Partnership Network with member companies
from the private sector. 25 companies have accepted CPIB’s invitation and attended theinaugural event on 11 September 2018. The Network is an initiative by the CPIB to promoteownership on the prevention of corruption in the private sector. It is a platform through whichawareness and materials on anti-corruption can be shared, and conversations can be held withlike-minded representatives from the member companies to drive the anti-corruption cause. The
desired outcome is for companies to adopt anti-corruption measures and inculcate a culture of
integrity and business ethics within their companies.
III. INTERNATIONAL TRENDS OBSERVED FROM SINGAPORE’S PERSPECTIVE
In our modern era of increasing connectivity, criminal activities as well as corruption caneasily transcend the boundaries of individual jurisdictions. Law enforcement agencies have tolook beyond their own shores and participate in collaborative efforts with foreign counterparts tofurther investigations and bring corrupt offenders to justice. This is evident in our investigations
as CPIB also pursues money laundering investigations pursuant to foreign corruption predicate
offences. Frequently, assistance is required from foreign authorities to prove a money
laundering offence; that the monies transacted within Singapore are related to corrupt activities
investigated by that foreign authority. On our part, active cooperation with foreign authorities
ensure that corrupt proceeds, if any, are identified early and the assets linked to foreign
corruption or other foreign serious crimes can be seized in exercise of our domestic investigative
powers, without the need for court orders. This ability to act quickly to seize criminal assets
prevents the dissipation of criminal proceeds and provides for possible repatriation of funds
subsequently to the requesting states, where applicable.
Over the years, we have observed a steady increase in money laundering investigations
arising from foreign predicate corruption offences. In fact, more than a third of money
laundering investigations undertaken by CPIB relate to foreign predicate corruption offences.
Furthermore, about 70% of assets recovered by CPIB are linked to foreign predicate corruption
cases.

- 117 -

A. Countermeasures through Active Cooperation
The following case studies illustrate the active cooperation undertaken by CPIB and its
counterparts.
In 2016, there were adverse news that senior public officials of a foreign country were
investigated for corruption and that criminal assets linked to them flowed to a few countries,
including Singapore. Given the reasonable suspicion that assets in Singapore might be criminal
proceeds, CPIB convened money laundering investigations into the assets of the senior public
officials in Singapore. Domestic investigations quickly identified several bank accounts of thesenior public officials and their family members amounting to more that SGD 20 million andthey were seized to prevent dissipation while investigations were ongoing. Caveats were also
placed on two other properties. With assistance from the foreign authority, CPIB officers also
flew to this country to record statements from one of the senior public official and his wife.
Meanwhile, CPIB is defending the seizure of the assets made pursuant to our domestic
investigations before our court, with the assistance of inputs obtained from the foreign authority.
The case is still under investigation and the funds remain frozen at this point.
In another case in 2016, CPIB received information that a local bank account was featured ina foreign adverse news and there were suspicious bank transactions in the bank account. CPIB
then, through our Financial Intelligence Unit, immediately alerted the foreign authority andsought their confirmation on whether the bank account was featured in their corruption
investigation. The foreign authority was also informed of the urgency of the matter as thebeneficial owner was making plans to move the funds out of Singapore. Within a day, the foreignauthority responded and produced court affidavits to exhibit that the bank account in question
was related to a foreign offence. With the information, CPIB immediately launched a money
laundering investigation and seized close to US$16 million in the account. Almost a year later,
the foreign authority followed up with a formal mutual legal assistance request to Singapore to
restrain the bank account. Had CPIB not acted to seize the assets earlier, the funds in the bankaccount would have been dissipated by the time the MLA request reached Singapore.
These case studies underscore the need for close cooperation among the international
community for effective investigation and ultimately recovery of assets.
IV. EMERGING TRENDS
On the technological front, the advent of cryptocurrencies is a familiar theme in internationallaw enforcement fora. The novelty of the blockchain technology backing the operation of suchalternative “currencies” have compelled law enforcement agencies to relook their investigation
capabilities when dealing with such emerging technologies. As a financial hub, Singapore has
seen the growth in number of cryptocurrency exchanges and initial coin offerings which areindicative that the adoption of virtual currencies is gaining traction. CPIB has not investigatedany case involving the use of cryptocurrencies but remains vigilant and mindful of its potential
use in corrupt transactions. To keep abreast of such technologies, our Computer Forensics
Branch and Investigations Training Unit have jointly developed investigative procedures toguide officers when dealing with the seizure and management of cryptocurrencies. CPIB officers- 118 -

are also trained in the use of open source information to track and trace the origins ofcryptocurrency transactions.
V. CONCLUSION
In our experience, corruption cannot be combated effectively in isolation by the sole efforts
of individual jurisdictions or its criminal justice system. Domestically, anti-corruption efforts
have to be complemented by public-private partnerships where companies instil anti-corruption
programmes with strong internal controls. At the international level, law enforcement agencies
have to foster and deepen cooperation to ensure expedient and fruitful resolution to corruption
cases.

- 119 -

THE STR AITS
TIMES

Ex-BP exec charged in $5.7m
bribery case

Clarence Chang Peng Hong, a former executive of BP Singapore, is accused of obtaining about
US$4 million (S$5.7 million) in bribes from a businessman. The 51-year-old allegedly used corrupt
proceeds to make partial payments for several properties to the tune of $3.97 million. Chang, who
was charged in court yesterday, had his bail of $200,000 extended until April 6. ST PHOTO: WONGKWAI CHOW PUBLISHED MAR 10, 2017, 5:00 AM SGT

Former regional director allegedly took bribes to advance interests ofbusinessman's Þrm

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/ex-bp-exec-charged-in-57m-bribery-case- 120 -

Elena Chong Court Correspondent(mailto:elena@sph.com.sg)

A former executive of BP Singapore was hauled to court yesterday to face charges of obtaining
about US$4 million (S$5.7 million) in bribes from businessman Koh Seng Lee.
Clarence Chang Peng Hong, BP's former eastern regional director for marine fuels, allegedly took
the bribes to advance the business interests of Mr Koh's company with BP.
Chang, who faces 47 charges, allegedly corruptly obtained bribes amounting to US$3.95 million
from Mr Koh, executive director of Paciﬁc Prime Trading (PPT), via Chang's HSBC bank accountin Hong Kong.
A total of 19 payments ranging from US$100,000 to US$350,000 were made to his bank accountbetween July 2006 and September 2008.
Chang, 51, is said to have also corruptly agreed to accept a bribe of $500,000 from Mr Koh sometime before September 2009 to advance the business interests of PPT with BP.

'ACTIVITIES OF CONCERN'
We became aware of some activities of concern in 2010 which we reported
to the authorities. These charges have been filed by the Singapore
authorities, we cannot comment on them.
A BP SPOKESMAN, who says Chang's employment with BP ended in July 2010.


Besides allegations that he had received bribes, Chang was accused of moving the corrupt
proceeds through his various bank accounts and, separately, using some of the proceeds topartially pay for properties.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/ex-bp-exec-charged-in-57m-bribery-case- 121 -

On 16 occasions between January 2007 and March 2010, while he was at BP, Chang allegedlytransferred a total of $4.7 million, which were beneﬁts of corrupt proceeds, from his HSBC
account in Hong Kong to a POSB bank account and two other HSBC Singapore accounts. The
amounts ranged from $76,568 to $725,500.
He also faces 10 charges of allegedly using the corrupt proceeds to make partial payments forseveral properties to the tune of $3.97 million. The properties comprise three houses in Da Silva
Lane in Hougang, Jalan Limau Purut in Tanah Merah and Ettrick Terrace in Siglap, and two
condominium units in Pasir Ris Grove.
He is also accused of using $111,000, which formed part of his beneﬁts of criminal conduct, toacquire share capital in MindChamps Preschool @ City Square on Sept 16, 2009.
Chang's lawyer Alfonso Ang told the court that he had just been briefed. The case was adjourned
to April 6, and Chang's $200,000 bail has been extended until then.
A BP spokesman said in an e-mail that Chang's employment with BP ended in July 2010.
"We became aware of some activitiesof concern in 2010 which we reported to the authorities.
These charges have been ﬁled by the Singapore authorities, we cannot comment on them," shesaid.
The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau said in a statement that Singapore adopts a zerotolerance approach towards corruption. The bureau said it takes a serious view of any corrupt
practices and will not hesitate to take action against any party involved in such acts.
The maximum punishment for corruption is a $100,000 ﬁne and ﬁve years' jail on each charge.
If convicted of offences under the Corruption, Drug Traﬃcking and Other Serious Crimes(Conﬁscation of Beneﬁts) Act, Chang could be ﬁned up to $500,000 and/or jailed for up to sevenyears on each charge.

 Terms & Conditions
 Need help? Reach us here.

 Data Protection Policy
 Advertise with us

SPH Digital News / Copyright © 2018 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Co. Regn. No. 198402868E. All rights reserved

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/ex-bp-exec-charged-in-57m-bribery-case- 122 -

THE STR AITSTIMESBusinessman match-Þxer Eric Ding
Si Yang 'led the high life'

Ding's luxury buys included an Aston Martin V8 Vantage for $551,500, and a house in East Coast for $1.1
million. ST PHOTO: ONG WEE JIN

 PUBLISHED JUL 23, 2014, 9:50 AM SGT

Prosecutors seek jail, heavy Þne ahead of sentencing

Walter Sim

Japan Correspondent(mailto:waltsim@sph.com.sg)

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/businessman-match-fixer-eric-ding-si-yang-led-the-high-life- 123 -An Aston Martin V8 Vantage for $551,500, a Porsche 911 for $281,400 and a terraced house in
East Coast for $1.1 million - all paid for in cash.
These were the luxury purchases which prosecutors cited yesterday to show the "trappings ofwealth" of local businessman Eric Ding Si Yang, 32, that arose from his match-ﬁxing activities.
Earlier this month, he was found guilty of three counts of corruption for providing three
Lebanese football oﬃcials with prostitutes as bribes for ﬁxing future matches.
Prosecutors pressed for a stiff sentence of four to six years behind bars, and a ﬁne of between$120,000 and $300,000 to be imposed.
Deputy public prosecutor Alan Loh said a heavy punishment was warranted because Singapore's
feted reputation as one of the least corrupt countries in the world had been "tarnished" byinternational reports of match-ﬁxing cartels operating out of the country.
He called match-ﬁxing an "insidious undermining of the basic precepts of fair play" that causes
great harm to society as it creates a "high-yield method for criminal organisations to laundermoney".
"The dangers of allowing match-ﬁxing to proliferate uninhibited are thus far more sinister thanwould appear at ﬁrst blush," he said, urging the court to make a "powerful and unambiguous
statement" that match-ﬁxing has no place in Singapore.
Mr Loh also cited court evidence that Ding has had ties with Dan Tan Seet Eng, named byInterpol as "the leader of the world's most notorious match-ﬁxing syndicate", who is now under
detention.
In mitigation, defence counsel Thong Chee Kun called the prosecutors' sentencing
recommendations "draconian". He argued for a huge ﬁne or, if the court deems it warranted, ashort custodial sentence.
Mr Thong said it is "trite law" that each case should be decided on its own facts.
"It cannot be right to make Mr Ding pay for the actions of every match-ﬁxer in Singapore," heargued. "The fact that Mr Ding had made certain purchases does not mean Mr Ding has used illgotten gains to ﬁnance his lifestyle." The defence also argued that no harm was caused because
no match was ﬁxed, and that the value of the bribes was low - though the prosecution argued thisshould bear little weight in "syndicated crime".

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/businessman-match-fixer-eric-ding-si-yang-led-the-high-life- 124 -

Ding is expected to be sentenced on Thursday.
waltsim@sph.com.sg

 Terms & Conditions
 Need help? Reach us here.

 Data Protection Policy
 Advertise with us

SPH Digital News / Copyright © 2018 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Co. Regn. No. 198402868E. All rights reserved

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/businessman-match-fixer-eric-ding-si-yang-led-the-high-life- 125 -

THE LATEST REGIONAL TRENDS IN CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVE
COUNTERMEASURES BY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AUTHORITIESStephanie Chew *The focus of this paper is developments in sentencing for corruption offences in Singapore,with a particular focus on private sector corruption. In the course of this discussion, we will
highlight seminal cases that have set out the crucial sentencing principles, discuss recent
developments in case law interpreting relevant deeming provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act (the primary legislation in Singapore dealing with corruption offences) that
impact sentencing, and finally, future potential developments.
The paper is structured as follows:a.

Sentencing principles in private sector corruption;b.

Recent developments in case law interpreting provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act regarding inchoate offences; andc.

Potential future developments including that of a sentencing framework for corruption
offences.

I.

INTRODUCTION: SENTENCING IN PRIVATE SECTOR CORRUPTION

The effective deterrence of corruption requires a multi-pronged approach. Stiff
imprisonment terms are usually meted out for offenders in public sector corruption, given theobvious harm and public interest in deterring such offences, which tend to undermine theintegrity of Singapore’s public administration.
However, this does not mean that private sector corruption offences are ipso facto lessserious than corruption in the public sector. Corruption in the private sector imposes hidden costs
to the economy and undermines the sanctity of contract and its role as a facilitative institution ina society governed by the rule of law.
Recent developments in sentencing practice have centred on private sector corruption, as
these form the vast majority of cases prosecuted. Further, there had previously existed aprevailing misconception that private corruption typically attracts fines (and not imprisonment),
which has been corrected through High Court precedents expounding upon the relevant
principles (as discussed in Part II). Our focus has therefore now turned to developing a broader
sentencing framework that can be applied to both public and private sector corruption, which*

Deputy Public Prosecutor, Attorney-General’s Chambers, Singapore.

- 126 -

takes into account how the harm of the offences and culpability of the offender should becalibrated against the full range of statutorily prescribed punishment (as discussed in Part IV).
II. SENTENCING PRINCIPLES IN CASE LAW – PRIVATE SECTOR CORRUPTION
Public Prosecutor v Ang Seng Thor [2011] 4 SLR 217 is a seminal decision concerning theprinciples to be applied in sentencing in private sector corruption. In that case, Ang Seng Thor(“Ang”), a Singapore citizen, was the CEO and joint-Managing Director of a company called
AEM-Evertech Holdings Ltd, which was listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange. He wasprosecuted on two counts of corruptly giving gratification, one of which involved him giving abribe of S$50,000 in Malacca to a director of a Malaysian company in order to secure a deal for
6

AEM. The other charge against Ang was for corruptly giving S$97,158 in cash in Singapore toan agent of another company as kickbacks for each purchase order raised by this company to
AEM.
Ang pleaded guilty to both charges. At first instance, he was sentenced by the District Judge
to the maximum fine of $100,000 for each charge (i.e. a total sentence of a $200,000 fine). The
Prosecution appealed against this sentence on the basis that it was manifestly inadequate, andsubmitted that a custodial sentence should be imposed on Ang in addition to a fine anddisqualification from acting as a director.
The Prosecution’s appeal was allowed. On appeal, Ang’s sentence was enhanced to six
weeks’ imprisonment and S$25,000 fine per charge, with both imprisonment terms to runconsecutively. The total sentence was therefore 12 weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of S$50,000.
Significantly, on appeal, V K Rajah JA commented that the District Judge erred in finding
a distinction between public sector corruption and private sector corruption which justified
different sentencing benchmarks or starting points.
He further held that while there is certainly a public interest in preventing a loss ofconfidence in Singapore’s public administration which warrants a custodial sentence for public
sector corruption, this does not automatically mean that such public interest was not present inprivate sector corruption. More importantly, triggering the public interest is not the only way
that a custodial sentence may be imposed for private sector corruption. The custodial thresholdmay be crossed in other circumstances, depending on the applicable policy considerations andthe gravity of the offence as measured by the mischief of likely consequence of the corruption.
Furthermore, factors such as the size of the bribes, the number of people drawn into the web ofcorruption and whether such conduct was endemic are all relevant factors in determining
whether a custodial sentence is justified. It is important to dispel the misconception that private
sector offenders would not be punished to the same extent as public sector offenders – This
would undermine the anti-corruption regime in Singapore. This is especially when one
6

NB: Though the bribe was handed over in Malaysia, Ang was prosecuted in Singapore pursuant to Section 37 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, which makes Singapore citizens liable for corruption offences committed outsideof Singapore and to be dealt with in respect of that offence as if it has been committed within Singapore.

- 127 -

considers the limited deterrent value of the maximum fine against private sector offenders likeAng (who was of means).
The principles espoused in Ang Seng Thor were reaffirmed by Chief Justice Sundaresh
Menon in Public Prosecutor v Syed Mostafa Romel [2015] 3 SLR 1166, i.e. that “there is nopresumption in favour of a non-custodial sentence where private sector corruption isconcerned”, and the specific nature of corruption was of paramount importance in determining
the appropriate sentence to be imposed. Menon CJ found it timely to reiterate the Ang Seng
Thor principles as they had not been consistently followed subsequent to that case. Moreover,Menon CJ remarked that the increased outsourcing of public services and the corresponding riseof the ability of private actors to influence the public interest required more accountability for
public monies spent. Accordingly, where the private sector corruption involved a) a significant
amount of gratification b) gratification which had been received over a lengthy period of time orc) compromised of one’s duty or a serious betrayal of trust, the starting point was likely to be acustodial sentence.
In this case, Romel was in charge of inspecting vessels seeking to enter an oil terminal byissuing inspection reports. If the defects identified were high-risk, the vessel would have torectify the defects before being permitted to enter the terminal. Romel corruptly solicited andreceived a total of US$7,200 over three occasions from two captains of marine tankers in
exchange for favourable inspection reports. Romel pleaded guilty and was sentenced to an
aggregate of two months’ imprisonment. On appeal, his sentence was enhanced to six months’
imprisonment.
The Romel case is a landmark decision concerning the sentencing principles for private
sector corruption cases in Singapore, and has been instrumental in forging the way forward fordeveloping clearer guidelines for the prosecution of corruption offences in general, as will beconsidered in section IV below.
III. SENTENCING PRINCIPLES – INCHOATE OFFENCES
Recently, the Singapore High Court interpreted Sections 29, 30 and 31 of the Preventionof Corruption Act in Public Prosecutor v Lau Cheng Kai. The relevant sections read:
Abetment of Offences
29. Whoever abets, within the meaning of the Penal Code(a)the commission of an offence under this Act; or(b) the commission outside Singapore of any act, in relation to the affairs orbusiness or on behalf of a principal residing in Singapore, which if
committed in Singapore would be an offence under this Act, shall bedeemed to have committed the offence and shall be liable on conviction tobe punished with the punishment provided for that offence.

- 128 -

Attempts
30. Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable under this Act shall bedeemed to have committed the offence and shall be liable on conviction to bepunished with the punishment provided for that offence.
Conspiracy

31. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy, within the meaning of the Penal

Code [Cap. 224], to commit an offence under this Act shall be deemed tohave committed the offence and shall be liable on conviction to be punishedwith the punishment provided for that offence.
[Emphasis in provisions added]

Lau Cheng Kai involved three staff and an associate of Global Marine Transportation Pte
Ltd (“GMT”) and a suspected buyback on the vessel Demeter Leader. The Prosecution had
proceeded to trial on a charge of criminal conspiracy under s5(b)(i) read with section 31
Prevention of Corruption Act, for a conspiracy to bribe chief engineers and surveyors forbuyback. The evidence showed that at least USD30,000 had been set aside for the payment ofsuch bribes, although there was no evidence that any part of the money had in fact been paid.
The accused was convicted, and he appealed against conviction and sentence. The Prosecution
cross-appealed on sentence.
The High Court dismissed the accused’s appeals and allowed the Prosecution’s crossappeal. The High Court interpreted the above-named provisions and held that their effect is todeem inchoate offences as completed for the purpose of sentencing. In other words, the accused
persons must be punished on the basis that the criminal conspiracy as planned was successfully
carried out, even though the bribes (or any part thereof) had not been paid/proven to be paid.
Accordingly, no mitigating weight or sentencing discount could be accorded on the basis thatthe corruption offence was factually not committed.
The High Court found that such an interpretation accorded with Parliament’s intent to“reduce the opportunities for corruption, to make its detection easier and to deter and punish
severely those who are susceptible to it and engage in it shamelessly.” The deeming provision(s)provide the Prosecution with an expanded arsenal with which to effectively target persons
involved in acts of corruption.
The High Court’s judgment is a welcome clarification of the law which emphasizes theseverity of corruption and judicial commitment to giving full effect to Parliament’s approbationof corruption offences.

- 129 -

IV. POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS – SENTENCING FRAMEWORK FOR
CORRUPTION OFFENCES AND AMENDMENTS OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT
Finally, we briefly consider potential future developments related to our efforts to develop ageneral sentencing framework for corruption offences.
The Singapore High Court has affirmed the principle that it is incumbent on a sentencing
court to calibrate punishment against the full range of prescribed punishment (Public
Prosecutor v Hue An Li). Since then, the Singapore High Court has issued several guideline
judgments on sentencing for different types of criminal offences, adopting a variety of
approaches – for example, an indicative sentence, a sentencing benchmark, a sentencing matrix
or sentence bands. In late 2018, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon issued a guideline judgmentwith the first sentencing framework for a financial crime (albeit not corruption- related), forcheating at play under Section 172A of the Casino Control Act.
In line with these judicial pronouncements, around this time, the Prosecution had also
proposed a sentencing framework for corruption offences and had utilized it in three test cases.
The State Courts have accepted the Prosecution’s proposed sentencing framework in two ofthese cases but rejected it in the third. All three cases will be going on appeal before the High
Court.
The approval of a sentencing framework for corruption offences by the High Court will beof great utility in the fight against corruption. Further, the benefits of adopting a sentencing
framework include improving parity and consistency of sentencing, and ensuring that the fullrange of punishment (as prescribed by Parliament in statute) is utilized appropriately.
We are of the view that our efforts to develop a sentencing framework should beaccompanied by increases in the maximum punishment for such offences. Such would signal a
clear legislative intent to robustly deter corruption. Furthermore, it is necessary for the maximum
fines to be sufficiently stiff so as to adequately deter corporations.
These developments, taken collectively, will be useful tools in our efforts to deter,prosecute and adequately punish corruption.
V. CONCLUSION
Singapore has made significant developments over the past decades in the fight against
corruption – However, we are conscious of the need to continually strive to effectively combat
corruption and preserve our society’s zero-tolerance stance towards it. Sentencing principles
and practice are important aspects of the fight against corruption, and we will continue to work
to develop the law in this regard.

- 130 -

THE LATEST ANTI-CORRUPTION LAW IN THAILAND
Tharanee Konchanat Davison *I.

THE NEW ORGANIC ACT ON COUNTER CORRUPTION, B.E.2561 (2018)

The new Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2561 (2018) came to force on 22 July
2018. It replaces the past Organic Act on Counter Corruption which had been in place for 19
years. There are some interesting changes to the new Organic Act on Counter Corruption thatwill be addressed as follows:
A. The Definition of “State Official” in Section 4
In the 1999 Organic Act, “State Official” is probably the most important term, as theseofficials are the main target group who this organic act originally aimed to apply to. In the 1999
Organic Act, "State Official" means a person holding a political position, Government officials
or local officials assuming a position or having permanent salaries, officials or persons
performing duties in a State enterprise or a State agency, local administrators and members of
local assemblies who are not persons holding a political position, officials under the law on local
administration and shall include a member of a Board, Commission, Committee or of a subcommittee, employee of a Government agency, State enterprise or State agency and any person
or group of persons exercising or entrusted to exercise the State's administrative power in theperformance of a particular act under the law, whether established under the governmental
bureaucratic channel or by a State enterprise or other State undertaking.
In the latest act, the word “Public Officer” 1 is added to separate them from State Officials;
also, the definition of State Official has been slightly, but importantly, changed. The new
definition of State Official 2 excludes a person holding a political position; however, a person
holding a political position falls under the definition of Public Officer instead. The definition of
Public Officer in the 2018 Act is wider than the definition of State Official in the 1992 Act, as itcovers those who fall under the definition of State Official in the 1992 act and also adds thephrase “other official prescribed by laws” to its definition. This means people who hold some*

Divisional Public Prosecutor, Department of Corruption Litigation 4, Office of the Attorney General, Thailand.
Public Officer means state officials, a person holding a political position, judges of the constitutional court, aperson holding a position in an independent organization, and the National Anti-Corruption Committee.
2State official means government officials or local officials assuming a position or having permanent salaries,
officials or persons performing duties in a State enterprise or a State agency, local administrators and members of a
local assembly, other officials prescribed by laws, officials under the law on local administration and shall include a
member of a Board, Commission, Committee or of a sub-committee, employee of a Government agency, State
enterprise or State agency and person or group of persons exercising or entrusted to exercise the State's
administrative power in the performance of a particular act under the law, whether established under thegovernmental bureaucratic channel or by a State enterprise or other State undertaking, but it does not include a
person holding a political position, judges of the constitutional court, a person holding a position in an independent
organization, or the National Anti-Corruption Committee.
1- 131 -

positions, such as abbots (chief monks) that have never been considered as State Officials, 3 will
be included in the latest act as Public Officers, and this act will be applied to them as well.
B. Extensive Power of the National Anti-Corruption Commission
In Thailand, there are several organizations that are eligible to proceed with investigations
regarding corruption cases. The main investigation units are the Office of the National AntiCorruption Commission (NACC), the Office of the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission(PACC) and the Royal Thai Police. Each organization has its own investigators, and they are
independent from each other. Under the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2542 (1999),
the investigation power of the Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) andthe Office of the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) was clearly separated under
section 19 (4) as the NACC is liable to conduct investigation where the alleged are people
holding political status, state officials holding at least chief executive positions or civil servants
holding at least division director positions. For those who hold lower positions than stated in
section 19(4), the case would be investigated by the PACC or inquiry official (Thai Royal Police)
where the injured person has lodged a complaint to the inquiry official.
Nevertheless, according to section 62 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2561(2018), even though the accused are people holding lower positions than that of a chief
executive, the PACC is no longer empowered to automatically proceed with investigation.
Instead, the case shall be passed to the National Anti-Corruption Commission for consideration.
Where the National Anti-Corruption Commission considers that the case does not involve serious
offences, it will be referred to the PACC for further investigation.
Furthermore, according to section 89 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2542(1999) 4, where the injured person has lodged a complaint to the inquiry official (the police)
against a State Official who committed an offence of corruption, the inquiry official shall refer
the matter to the NACC within thirty days from the date of the complaint. In the case that theaccused is not holding an important position under section 84, such as chief executive, judge,
prosecutor, or the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the case shall be referred back to theinquiry official for proceedings in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. The Organic
Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2561 (2018) applies a similar method under section 61, but there
is one very interesting change that is added to the latest organic law.
Section 89 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2542 (1999) does not apply tocases where the accused is not considered a State Official. But, under section 61 of The Organic
Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2561 (2018), even if the accused is not considered a government
officer or State Official under section 4—but if he is the principal, instigator or aider and abettor
3

Thai Supreme court decision no.7540/2554.
In a case where an injured person has lodged a complaint, or a denunciation is made, to the inquiry official
requesting an action against a State Official who is not a person described under section 66 in consequence of thecommission of the act under section 88, the inquiry official shall refer the matter to the N.C.C. Commission within
thirty days from the date of the complaint or the denunciation, for the purpose of proceeding with it in accordancewith relevant provisions of law. In this connection, if the N.C.C. Commission, having considered the matter, is of theopinion that it is not a case under section 88, the N.C.C. Commission shall refer it back to the inquiry official forproceeding with it in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.

4- 132 -

or is giving, offering or agreeing to give the property or any other benefit to a State Official—thecase shall first be referred to the NACC for consideration. Then, the NACC will return the caseto the inquiry official where considered appropriate. Therefore, if the inquiry official receives acomplaint accusing a person of bribing a State Official, in the past the case would not fall under
section 89 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2542 (1999). The inquiry official was
not required to refer the matter to the NACC within thirty days from the date of the complaint;
instead the inquiry official was able to proceed with the investigation process immediately.
However, section 30 of the new organic act extends the NACC’s power to cover those who are
giving, offering or agreeing to give the property or any other benefit to a State Official.
According to section 61, for all corruption complaints received by an inquiry official, the inquiry
official is only allowed to proceed with a preliminary investigation and then must refer the matterto the NACC within thirty days from the date of the complaint. If the NACC considers thematter to be a non-crucial matter, the NACC shall refer it back to the inquiry official to complete
the investigation process.
In the aforementioned case, when an inquiry official receives a complaint accusing a personof bribing a State Official, under the new organic act, the inquiry official shall refer the matter to
the NACC first, and the inquiry official will be able to proceed with further investigation only
after the NACC refers it back to him. This new rule may result in delay of the investigation
process, as under the new organic law almost all corruption cases must be referred to the NACC
to review before the next process can be done.
C. Arrest and Detention Process
Before the new Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2561 (2018) came into force, thegeneral arrest and detention process in Thailand’s Criminal Code was also applied to corruption
cases. It is prescribed in section 87 that the official or private citizen conducting the arrest shallwithout hesitation bring the arrestee to the local office of inquiry immediately and the inquiry
official is allowed to detain the arrestee for only 48 hours where it is necessary to have an inquiry
after that the arrestee shall be brought before the court. However, it is prescribed in section 61 of
the new Organic Act that the official or private citizen conducting the arrest shall bring thearrestee along with an arrest note to the office of inquiry or to the NACC office within 48 hours
after the arrestee is delivered to the inquiry official’s office. This provision provides arrest anddetention power to the NACC, as in the past this power belonged solely to the inquiry official.
This provision may cause some difficulty if the arrestee is arrested outside of Bangkok because
the official or private citizen conducting the arrest is required to deliver the arrestee to the NACC
office in Bangkok within 48 hours. After the arrestee is delivered to the NACC, the NACC isempowered to grant provisional release with or without bail. During the provisional releaseapplication consideration period, the NACC is required to provide an arrestee detention area;
however, there is no promising plan for the construction of an NACC detention centre. The
current temporary solution is that the NACC will approve most provisional release applications,but this does not ease the transportation difficulty faced by inquiry officials.
D. Corruption Case Proceeding Period
The Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2542 (1999) does not contain provisions
requiring investigators or public prosecutors to proceed with the case in a certain period of time,
but a proceeding-period provision is included in the new organic act.

- 133 -

It is stated in section 93 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2561 (2018) that
where the public prosecutor receives the report and documents from the NACC and is of theopinion that the report, documents and opinion are complete to prosecute, the prosecutor shallsubmit the matter to the court having competent jurisdiction to try the case within 180 days.
However, where the prosecutor considers that the report and documents are not complete as tojustify the institution of legal proceedings, the public prosecutor shall notify the NACC to
conduct further investigation within 90 days. In case of further investigation, the NACC and
Prosecutor-General shall appoint a working committee consisting of representatives notexceeding five people of each side, and the NACC shall complete its investigation within 90
days from the committee appointment date. Failing to comply with the specified period will
result in administrative sanction. The specific proceeding period provision in the new act may
expedite the investigation and prosecution process in simple cases. However, most corruption
cases are extremely complicated and require extensive periods to gather witness statements andevidence by investigators, and the public prosecutor also requires more time to review allevidence. This provision may put huge pressure on investigators and public prosecutors to
submit the case before the deadline without thorough revision which may affect the quality of thecase and may result in the increase of case dismissal.
II. CASE STUDY: TEMPLE CORRUPTION SCHEME
A. Facts
The National Office of Buddhism, also known as the Office of National Buddhism (ONaB),
is an agency of the central government of Thailand. It is responsible for state administration of
Buddhism. The government will grant annual funding to ONaB every year in order that ONaB
will allocate those funds to support temples and Buddhist activities. There are several types offunding budgets depending on the purpose of allocating funds to temples all over Thailand, suchas the temple development budget, the temple restoration budget, and the Buddhism propagationbudget. Each budget has its own criteria applied to temples to be eligible to receive those funds,
and each temple is required to submit a project plan along with evidence showing the temple isentitled to the budget request. In 2017, it emerged that many ONaB officers are alleged to haveworked with abbots and senior monks of more than 100 temples around Thailand to embezzle
more than 270 million baht of the aforementioned funding. The following is an example of acase that occurred at a temple in Lumpang province, in northern Thailand.
The abbot of temple X was contacted by Mr. A., an ONaB officer who has good
relationships with many abbots in Thailand. Mr. A informed the abbot that ONaB has Buddhism
propagation budget funding which could be allocated to temple X with the condition that, after
the funds are transferred, the abbot must return half of the funds back to Mr. A. The abbot agreed
to do so, so he submitted a minimal project plan requesting funding for the construction of ameditation centre. In order to be eligible to receive grants from the meditation centre
construction fund, the temple must be registered as a provincial meditation centre; however,temple X had never registered as a provincial meditation centre. In a couple of days after thefunding application submission date, temple X’s funding application was approved by the
director of ONaB, who has been working at ONaB since 1987. The director of ONaB was
supposed to know the criteria for the meditation centre construction fund, but he wrongfully- 134 -

approved funding to temple X. The 2,000,000 baht (60,000 USD) fund was transferred to temple
X’s bank account the next day. The abbot had withdrawn all funds within 2 days and gave
1,000,000 baht (30,000 USD) in cash back to another senior monk at one of the Buddhist events
in Lumpoon in northern Thailand so that he could fly back with the cash and return it to Mr. A.
B. How to Proceed with the Case under the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2561(2018)
Mr. Pongporn Pramsaneh, the latest ONaB director, made a denunciation to the Thai Royal
Police, Crime Suppression Division in connection with the temple funds embezzlement scandal.
As the accused are State Officials, including the abbot, the investigation procedure shall follow
the provisions in the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E.2561 (2018). Once the inquiry
official received the denunciation, he was to gather reasonable evidence showing wrongdoing by
the accused and then submit the cases to the NACC. As there are a series of cases, some of thecases are returned to the inquiry official, but some are investigated by NACC officers. Where theinvestigation process is complete, the case report shall be submitted to a public prosecutor. The
public prosecutor has 180 days from the submission date to review each case before filing thecase in court or 90 days if the report is incomplete and requires a working committee of the
NACC to be appointed to make further investigation. In case of further investigation, NACC
officers have 90 days to gather all evidence required by the public prosecutor and to submit it to
the working committee to make a final decision.
C. Problems and the Way Forward
According to the fact that the aforementioned temple funds embezzlement cases happened
across Thailand, the investigation units expect more than 100 cases need to be opened andinvestigated thoroughly. The main problem is the lack of manpower of investigators in each anticorruption organization, from investigators to public prosecutors. Also, where the case isinvestigated by the NACC, public prosecutors, and even the investigators themselves, have avery tight deadline under the new organic law as mentioned above. The complexity anddifficulty of the extradition process is another problem that delays the judicial process, as several
accused, most are senior monks and an ex-ONaB executive level officer, fled Thailand. Although
Thailand has extradition treaties with many countries, the extradition period may take a very
long time as it needs to go through several administrative processes.
The above-mentioned problems may not be solved in a short period of time. However, we
can see attempts of the government to address corruption in Thailand, as several new anticorruption laws are being drafted, more than 600 new NACC investigators are being appointed
and criminal courts specialized in corruption and misconduct cases have recently opened in nine
regions throughout Thailand. These are part of the promising measures aiming to decrease thecorruption rate in Thailand, and Thailand has very high hopes to eliminate corruption and bringthose who are corrupt to justice.

- 135 -

SUPREME PEOPLE’S PROCURACY OF VIET NAM:
SKILLS FOR PROSECUTION, SUPERVISING INVESTIGATIONS ANDADJUDICATION OF EMBEZZLEMENT CASES
Nguyen Dang Thang * and Nguyen Duc Bang †I.

FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF PROPERTY EMBEZZLEMENT

A. Definition and Specific Elements of Embezzling Property
1. Definition
Article 353 of the Criminal Code 2015 provides that:
1. Any person who abuses his/her position or power to embezzle property
under his/her management assessed at from VND 2,000,000 to under VND
100,000,000 or under VND 2,000,000 in any of the following cases shall facea penalty of 02 - 07 years' imprisonment:a) The offender was disciplined for the same offence;b) The offender has a previous conviction for any of the offences specified in
Section 1 of this Chapter which has not been expunged.
2. This offence committed in any of the following cases shall carry a penaltyof 07 - 15 years' imprisonment:a) The offence is committed by an organized group;b) The offence involves deceitful or dangerous methods;c) The offence has been committed more than once;d) The property appropriated is assessed at from VND 100,000,000 to under
VND 500,000,000;
đ) The money or property embezzled was meant for poverty reduction,
provision of benefits for wartime contributors, contribution to reserve
funds, provision of emergency aid for people in areas suffering from anatural disaster or epidemic or extremely disadvantaged areas;e) The offence results in property damage of from VND 1,000,000,000 tounder VND 3,000,000,000;g) The offence has a negative impact on life of officials, public employees,
and workers of an agency or organization.
3. This offence committed in any of the following cases shall carry a penalty
of 15 - 20 years' imprisonment:*

Deputy Director, Department of Prosecution and Supervision over Adjudication of Criminal Cases (Dept. 7),
Supreme People’s Procuracy, Viet Nam.
†
Senior Prosecutor, Deputy Chief of Division, Department of Exercising Public Prosecution Power and Supervision
over Investigation of Corruption Cases, Supreme People’s Procuracy, Viet Nam.

- 136 -

a) The property embezzled is assessed at from VND 500,000,000 to under
VND 1,000,000,000;b) The offence results in property damage of from VND 3,000,000,000 tounder VND 5,000,000,000;c) The offence has a negative impact on social security, order, or safety;d) The offence results in bankruptcy or shutdown of another enterprise ororganization.
4. This offence committed in any of the following cases shall carry a penalty
of 20 years' imprisonment, life imprisonment, or death:a) The property embezzled is assessed at ≥ VND 1,000,000,000;b) The offence results in property damage of ≥ VND 5,000,000,000.
5. The offender might also be prohibited from holding certain positions or
doing certain jobs for 01 - 05 years, liable to a fine of from VND 30,000,000
to VND 100,000,000 or have part or all of his/her property confiscated.
6. Office-holders in enterprises and organizations other than stateorganizations who take bribes shall be dealt with in accordance with this
Article.
2.

Specific Elements of Embezzlement* Object of crime: embezzlement directly infringes upon two social relations which are thelegitimate activities of an agency, organization or enterprise; and ownership relation(rights).
* Objective of crime: Abusing a position and power; and embezzling property from VND
2,000,000 or under VND 2,000,000 but the offender is disciplined for the same offence or
previous conviction for any corruption-related crimes which have not been expunged.
* Subject of crime: There are two conditions: the offender must have power and position
and must be responsible for property management.
* Subjectivity of the crime: the offender commits a crime with a directly intentional
mistake.

B. Matters Must be Proven to Establish the Crime of Property Embezzlement
1. Whether embezzling property happened; when and where it happened; what are its
modalities, cunning and development; and when it was revealed.
2. Who are the offenders; whether accomplices were involved; how did the offender abuse
his/her power, position, official duties and missions for the commission of crime; and thepenal liability capacity of each offender.

- 137 -

3. Specific circumstances aggravating and extenuating the penal liability of each offender;
the personal character of the offender.
4. The nature and extent of damage to society caused by the act of embezzlement; theagency, enterprise or organization damaged; property value damaged and otherconsequences; and recoverable property.
C. Evidence to Prove Property Embezzlement- All coming and outgoing vouchers, documents, accounts, financial reports, agreements
and contracts, and invoices.
- The statements or testimony of denunciators, of witnesses and persons involved.
- The statements of suspects and persons who committed property embezzlement.
- Material evidence of criminal embezzlement.
- Assessed conclusion and appraised conclusion issued by professional offices.
II. SKILLS FOR EXECUTING PROSECUTION AND SUPERVISINGINVESTIGATIONS
A. Skills for Prosecution and Supervising Compliance with Law on Receiving and Dealing
with Crime Information and Denouncement, and Filing Criminal Charges
Prosecutors and their assistants must be in compliance with principles, procedures, orders
and powers of the People’s Procuracy on receiving and dealing with crime information anddenouncement, and filing criminal charges provided by:-

The Inter-ministerial Circular
VKSNDTC, dated 2 August 2013;06/2013/TTLT-BCA-BQP-BTC-BNN&PTNT--The Direction 06/CT-VKSTC, dated 6 December 2013, of the Prosecutor General of
the Supreme People’s Procuracy;-

Articles 3, 12 and 13 of the Law on Organization of the People’s Procuracy 2014 andArticles 159 and 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015;-

Provisional regulation on executing prosecution and supervising compliance with law
on receiving and dealing with crime information and denouncement, and request of
criminal institution issued by Decision 169/QĐ-VKSTC, dated 2 May 2018, of theProsecutor General of Supreme People’s Procuracy.

The following concrete steps should also be fully executed:- 138 -

Firstly, requesting the investigation body to collect evidence, documents on operation andorganization and financial management regulations of the relevant enterprise or agency; decisionpaper on granting power and position, official duties and missions of the suspects, offenders andpersons involved in order to determine the scope of power and position, to define violation acts
which have been directed and decided and their damages when financial regulation andeconomic management are violated. In such cases, prosecutors have to request the investigationbody and investigators to request the preparation of professional assessments and appraisals toclarify the damages caused by the crime.
Secondly, for enterprises, it must be clear that legal documents of the enterprise have to becollected, and information establishing the illegal acts of the suspect has to be collected as well.
Furthermore, regulations, financial statutes, decision papers on granting power, position, official
duties and missions must be studied carefully in order to determine mistakes of each suspect
involved, including the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Accountant and Cashier, basedon the provisions of the Accounting Law 2014.
Thirdly, fully supervising the legal foundations of documents and evidence collected byinvestigation body, such as how such documents and evidence have been collected; whether
financial documents have been certified or not; and the process of taking statements andtestimonies must be in compliance with law as well; and whether financial data has beencollected or seized.
Fourthly, if necessary, they should request the investigation body to provide further
documents and evidence in terms of legal foundation and limited time. If documents andevidence fully meet the requirements to charge the accused, then prosecutors have to take chargeof the investigation and prosecution of the crime according to the law.
B. Skills for Executing Prosecution and Supervising Compliance with the Law within theInvestigation Process
1. Legal Foundation
Articles 14 and 15 of the Law on Organization of the People’s Procuracy 2014 and Article
161 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 require prosecutors to supervise strict compliance withthe law on arrest and its ratification, especially in urgent circumstances, when issuing detention
orders, legal foundations for institution of criminal proceedings by filing criminal charges. In
addition, prosecutors also have to pay close attention to the regulations of the Direction 15CT/TW when dealing with criminal cases in which an offender holds an important position in agovernmental agency.
2.

Important Matters to Clarify during the Investigation Process to Correctly Prove Property
Embezzlement
Firstly, prosecutors must collect and verify documents and evidence in order to prove
property embezzlement. This includes making inquiries to verify the consequences of the crime.
If necessary, the prosecutor has to request assessment and financial appraisal of the harm causedby the crime.

- 139 -

Secondly, prosecutors must determine who committed the embezzlement, how theembezzlement was conducted, and whether any accomplices were involved in the offence.
Thirdly, prosecutors must issue instructions to the investigators in order to clarify whatevidence needs to be collected.
3.

Documents and Evidence Collected within the Search Process- Documents and evidence to verify the responsibility of offenders in connection withproperty management, including decisions on assignment and position; regulations on
operation and organization of agencies, organizations and enterprises.
- Vouchers, documents, and account books involving property embezzlement signed by theoffender, which are valuable records for proving necessary facts related to the embezzled
property.
- Documents representing the sharing of embezzled property with accomplices.
- Instruments and means used to execute the embezzlement.
- Type of property embezzled.
- Type of instrument and means for hiding the embezzled property.

C. Preparation and Interrogation of the Offender- Studying principles, policies, regulations, and directives on economic and financial
management and property management.
- Studying the personal character of the suspect, including the offender’s attitude andpsychological state.
- Studying and investigating offenders’ other social relations.
- Studying the criminal case, the evidence and the documents related to criminal acts.
- Setting time and location for interrogation and issuing summonses.
1.

Contents of Interrogation- The position, assignment and responsibility for property management.
- Location, time, means, occurrence and consequences of the act of property embezzlement.
- The role, position, mission and participating level of each offender and other persons
involved; and the relationship between offenders and persons involved.

- 140 -

- Property sharing, quantity, location of concealed property and the sale of property.
- Other criminal acts of offenders and persons involved.
- Weaknesses and shortcomings in economic management and property preservation at thescene of the crime.
D. Taking Testimony of Witnesses
Preparation activities include:- Studying the criminal case and the personal character of each witness.
- Studying the reactions of agencies, organizations and enterprises to the embezzlement inorder to understand the witness’s testimony and attitude.
- Studying the relationships between offenders and witnesses.
- Setting the location, time, summons method and official taking of testimony.
1.

The Main Contents of Witness Testimony- Embezzled property of each offender and person involved; the consideration andevaluation of witnesses to the embezzlement.
- Other suspicious relationships of offenders.
- The spending, shopping, concealment of property of the offender; and destruction of
documents and evidence by the offender.
- The bribery, domination or threatening of witnesses by offenders and persons involved.
- Vouchers, documents, invoices, property revealed by the witness.
- Weaknesses and shortcomings of personnel management at the embezzling site.

E. Other Procedural Activities such as Confrontation, Identification, Experimental
Investigation, and Appraisal
Prosecutors should study the investigative conclusion and compare documents and evidence
in the case with investigative requests issued in order to address unanswered questions which
require further inquiry (if any). Prosecutors should also take part in, and coordinate with,investigators in the process of making the investigative report by examining and arranging
documents, evidence and orders in the criminal case (if necessary).

- 141 -

F. Making the Indictment
Together with guidelines on making the indictment provided in the regulation on executing
prosecution, supervising institution of criminal proceedings, investigation and prosecution(issued by Decision 03/QD-VKSTC dated 29 December 2017 of the Prosecutor General of theSupreme People’s Procuracy), prosecutors should pay close attention to the following importantmatters:+ Presenting legal foundations to determine the ownership of enterprises or agencies whereproperty embezzlement has occurred; the position, power and role of offenders andpersons involved in financial management and economic management at such enterprises
and agencies.
+ Summarizing evidence to prove means and artifices of executing the property
embezzlement scheme; considering and presenting documents and evidence to prove thecriminal conduct and the offender’s awareness of the criminal conduct under his or her
his management;+ Analysing and presenting clearly “the streamline of money” through financial
management and economic management in which the offender has executed fraudulent
acts to appropriate State property based on the legal provisions of financial law,accounting law and economic management law;
+ Collecting assessments and professional appraisals, which play significant roles inproving the offender’s appropriation of property, to present at indictment.
III. SKILLS FOR EXECUTING PROSECUTION AND SUPERVISING ADJUDICATION
OF FIRST INSTANCE TRIALS
A. Skills for Studying Embezzlement Cases
Prosecutors should carefully review the following:+ Documents and evidence to determine the state laws and regulations that control actions
on finance and economics of enterprises, agencies and organizations having violations.
+ Documents to determine position and power to make decisions, set direction and manage
economic and financial policies and practices of enterprises, agencies and organizations
having violations.
+ Documents and evidence to prove illegal acts of financial and economic management by
persons holding power and position in order to appropriate State property.
+ Material evidence to prove means and artifices of offenders; describing the occurrence offinancial activities and economic operations which clearly demonstrate the offender’sawareness of the appropriation of State property by means of decision, direction,
examination, assignment, etc.

- 142 -

+ Summaries of economic and financial contracts of enterprises, agencies and organizations
that are artifices by persons holding power and position to appropriate the embezzled
property; account books and financial data showing illegal acts on financial principles
and economic management to appropriate state money.
+ Assessments and appraisals by legal assessors; reports on determining and verifying
financial and economic operations.
+ The statements of offenders and persons involved in the case.
Prosecutors should also carefully review the draft indictment in order to avoid mistakes,
such as unclear arguments, legal foundations, financial data, provisions and articles, criminal
records, sections and subsections that apply to the case, and other contents determining theplaintiff, seizing and keeping money, exhibits, and accounts for executing judgment, forprosecution and adjudication. Moreover, they should actively cooperate with the chairman of thetrial to exchange information about the case in order to ensure that the prosecution is in fullcompliance with the law and to protect the offender’s rights.
B. Skills for Preparing Interrogation Reports and Arguments at Trial
The following evidence and documents should be carefully prepared:+ Summaries of important documents and evidence to prove that the embezzled property
has been included in the indictment; then it is important to clarify the crime process andto fully interrogate the suspect with the following questions:- Position, role and power of the offender and his or her activities.
- Determination and conclusion on how the enterprise’s property has been appropriated.
- Summarizing and reckoning the number of documents and evidence in the case inorder to classify evidence, including inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, so theprosecutor can easily interrogate the suspect.
Note that in addition to statements and testimony, the prosecutor should use concretematerial evidence to analyse, argue and draw conclusions of criminal activity based on specificcharacteristics of the embezzled property.
+ For embezzlement cases including assessment and appraisal reports, prosecutors should
actively request assessors to explain what legal foundations have been executed todetermine violations, consequences, property appropriated and whether suchconsequences have been caused by a person who holds position, power or mission in
financial or economic management.
1.

Preparing Arguments
In addition to the above suggestions, one of the most difficult and complex situations which
prosecutors must expect is remaining composed during trial because defence lawyers will be- 143 -

trying to protect their clients and prove their innocence, or at least cast doubt on their guilt.
Prosecutors should pay attention to the following matters:
Firstly, analysing documents and evidence to make clear the object and objective of thecrime in connection with the offender’s position, power and mission characteristics, compliancewith financial management and economic management of the offenders at their enterprise,
agency or organization;
Secondly, clearly proving the consequences of the crime, which include the appropriation ofstate property, the relationship between the cause and effect of the illegal acts and the motive toappropriate property at the offender’s direction and by the offender’s decision;
Thirdly, clearly proving that economic and financial operations have been executed with thesubjective awareness of the offenders by intentional acts and fraudulent schemes caused by noncompliance with economic management principles, financial management principles and private
motivation which existed before the offender decided to commit the crime for his or her own
personal gain. This can be done by:- Making reports and suggestions on the level of penalty.
- Making draft arguments: in property embezzlement cases, the focus of the argument isthe use of material evidence presented in the indictment in order to analyse fully thecrime’s motivation, the goal of the appropriation of property through means, artifices andorders executed by the offenders.
- Preparing for possible situations and other circumstance which could happen at trial inorder to provide suitable solutions.
C. Skills for Prosecution and Adjudication at Trial- Supervising criminal procedure based on provisions and regulations of the Criminal
Procedure Code 2015.
- Preparing mentally to present the indictment.
- Preparing to deal with the jury, defence lawyers, offenders and other persons
participating in the trial.
- Interrogation method: questions must be short and clear; they should not be long orcomplicated, and especially leading questions should not be asked. The questions should
be designed to reveal clear explanations of the embezzling acts, artifices andconsequences of the crime.
- Skills for argument at trial: In practice, when dealing with prosecution and adjudicationof embezzlement cases, new information is provided in the process of interrogation andargument at trial. Therefore, prosecutors have to concentrate on taking notes on- 144 -

documents and evidence which have passed cross-exam in order to rectify false or
misleading characterizations and to cite to key evidence later.
If the jury is having difficulty reaching a decision, then the prosecutor should actively
request the jury to suspend the trial for evidential review.
- Skills for presenting arguments: For embezzlement cases, arguments presented must be
highly convincing so that members of the general public can understand the nature of thecriminal conduct. Therefore, based on previous preparation, the prosecutor should focus
on proper ways for proving, arguing and concluding which must be based on evidence,
documents, and assessments.
- Skills for rebuttal and other responses: rebuttal arguments and other responses toquestions posed by an offender or defence counsel must be based on evidence anddocuments of criminal cases, legal regulations, and provisions of law, so prosecutors
should attentively listen to the accused, lawyers and persons participating in the criminal
trial; prosecutors must quickly take note of controversial remarks, such as statements or
opinions, in order to add them to the prosecution’s written responses or rebuttals.
D. Necessary Matters Done after Trial- Examine the trial record.
- Summarize the faults and mistakes or violations (if any)
- Review the judgment.
- Consider filing petitions to correct faults or mistakes, or, if necessary, appeal.
- Arrange and store documents and evidence according to the law.

- 145 -

TWELFTH REGIONAL SEMINAR ON GOOD GOVERNANCE
PARTICIPANTS, VISITNG EXPERTS & ORGANIZERS LIST

A. International Participants
Name

Title and Organization

Ms. Hajah Rozaimah binti Haji Abd Rahman Counsel and Deputy Public Prosecutor

Ms. Sharon Yeo Mian Yie

Mr. NUON Sothimon

Mr. TAN Senarong

Mr. Fauzy MARASABESSY

Ms. Arin KARNIASARI

Mr. Vilavong PHOMKONG

Criminal Justice Division
Attorney General's Chambers
BruneiDeputy Senior Counsel and Deputy Public Prosecutor
Criminal Justice Division
Attorney General's Chambers
BruneiDeputy Director General
General Department of Operations
Anti-Corruption Unit
CambodiaProsecutor
General Prosecution's Department
Attached to Court of Appeal
Cambodia
Head of Section in Subdirectorate of Tax Aviation and Money Laundering
Prosecution Directorate
Attorney General Office
Indonesia
Prosecutor
Corruption Eradication Commission
Indonesia
Head of Internal Inspection
Department of Inspection
Office of the Supreme People's Prosecutor

Mr. Thepphathai PHANKA

Laos
Deputy Director
Anti-Corruption Department
State Inspection and Anti-Corruption Authority

Mr. Azhari Bin Karim

Laos
Assistant Commissioner
Head of Investigation Section

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission
Malaysia
Mr. Premraj Isaac Dawson Martin Victor Assistant Comissionner
Division
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission
Mr. Kap Tluang

Mr. Aung Khant

Malaysia
Director
Legislative Vetting and Advising Department
Union Attorney General's Office
MyanmarDirector
Bureau of Special Investigation
Myanmar- 146 -

Name

Title and Organization
Mr. Melchor Arthur Hernandez CARANDANG Overall Deputy Ombudsman
Office of the Ombudsman
Philippines
Ms. Jennifer Angeles BALBOA-CAHIG Deputy City Prosecutor
National Prosecution Service
Department of Justice
Mr. Lam Seow Kin

Ms. Chew Xizhi Stephanie

Ms. Tharanee Konchanat DAVISON

Mr. NGUYEN Dang Thang

Mr. NGUYEN Duc Bang

Philippines
Deputy Head of Investigations
Financial Investigations Branch
Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau
Singapore
Deputy Public Prosecutor/State Counsel
Financial and Technology Crime Division
Attorney General's Chambers
Singapore
Divisional Public Prosecutor
Department of Corruption Litigation 4
Office of the Attorney General
Thailand
Deputy Director
Department of Prosecution andSupervision over Criminal Adjudication
Supreme People’s Procuracy of Vietnam
Vietnam
Senior Prosecutor, Deputy Chief of Division
Department of Exercising Public Prosecution Power and Supervision
over Investigation of Corruption Cases
Supreme People's Procuracy of Vietnam
VietnamB. Visiting Experts
Name
Mr. Mohamad Zamri Bin Zainul Abidin

Dr. Claire Armelle Leger

Title and Organization
Director, Anti-Money Laundering and Forfeiture Of Property(AMLFOP) Division
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission
Malaysia
Anti-Corruption Analyst
Anti-Corruption Division
Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs
Organization for Economic Co-operation Development
France- 147 -

C. Organizers and Observers: Vietnam
Name

Dr. Tran Cong Phan

Title and Organization

Deputy Prosecutor General
SPP

Ms. Vu Thi Hai Yen

Deputy Director
Department of International Cooperationand Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, SPP

Ms. Hoang Thi Thuy Hoa

Chief of Division
Department of International Cooperationand Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, SPP
Secretary of Deputy Prosecutor General

Mr. Do Nguyet Que

SPP
Ms. Nguyen Cam Tu

Mr. Nguyen Duc Hanh

Prosecutor Assistant
Department of International Cooperationand Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, SPP
Deputy Head Master
Hanoi Procuratorate University, SPP

Mr. Phan Truong Son

Chief Prosecutor
People's Procuracy of Da Nang City, SPP

D. Organizers: UNAFEINameMr. Takeshi SETO

Title and Organization
Director
UNAFEI

Ms. Kayo ISHIHARA

Deputy Director
UNAFEI

Mr. Ryo FUTAGOISHI

Professor
UNAFEI

Mr. Masahiro YAMADA

Professor
UNAFEI

Mr. Thomas L. SCHMID
Ms. Arisa NAGAHAMA
Ms. Yayoi TSUJII
Ms. Mariko KAMADA

Linguistic Adviser
UNAFEI
Officer
UNAFEI
Officer
UNAFEI
Officer
UNAFEI- 148 -

Twelfth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries“The Latest Regional Trends in Corruption and Effective Countermeasures
by Criminal Justice Authorities”
SCHEDULE
27-29 November 2018
FURAMA Resort DANANG
Hosts:
United Nations Asia and Far East Institutefor the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI),Supreme People’s Procuracy Office of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam (SPP)
Monday, 26 November
PM
Registration
Tuesday, 27 November
09.00-10.00: Opening Ceremony – at the Gallery Rooms 1+2
Opening Address by Mr. Takeshi SETO, Director, UNAFEI
Opening Address by Dr. Tran Cong Phan, Deputy Prosecutor General, SPP
Special Address by Mr. Shinichi ASAZUMA, Deputy Chief of Mission,
Embassy of Japan in Viet Nam
Group Photo session
10.00-10.40: Coffee / Tea Break
10.40-11.00: Keynote Address by Mr. Takeshi SETO, Director, UNAFEI
11.00-12.00: Special Presentation by Dr. Claire Armelle Leger, Anti-Corruption Analyst, AntiCorruption Division, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs,
Organization for Economic Co-operation Development
12.00-13.30: Lunch – at the Hotel Restaurant “Café Indochine”
13.30-14.30: Special Presentation by Mr. Mohamad Zamri Bin Zainul Abidin, Director, AntiMoney Laundering and Forfeiture of Property (AMLFOP) Division, MalaysianAnti-Corruption Commission
14.30-15.10: Country Presentation (Brunei)
15.10-15.30: Coffee / Tea Break
15.30-16.10: Country Presentation (Cambodia)
16.10-16.50: Country Presentation (Indonesia)
18.00-

Welcome Reception hosted by SPP – at the Gallery Rooms 3+4- 149 -

Wednesday, 28 November
09.00-09.40: Country Presentation (Japan)
09.40-10.20: Country Presentation (Laos)
10.20-10.40: Coffee / Tea Break
10.40-11.20: Country Presentation (Malaysia)
11.20-12.00: Country Presentation (Myanmar)12.00-13.30: Lunch – at “Café Indochine”
13.30-14.10: Country Presentation (Philippines)
14.10-14.50: Country Presentation (Singapore)
14.50-15.10: Coffee / Tea Break
15.10-15.50: Country Presentation (Thailand)
15.50-16:30: Country Presentation (Viet Nam)Thursday, 29 November
09.00-10.30: Chair’s Summary & Discussion
10.30-11.00: Coffee / Tea Break
11.00-12.00: Closing Ceremony
Closing Address by Ms. Vu Thi Hai Yen, Deputy Director, Department ofInternational Cooperation and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters,
SPP
Closing Address by Mr. Takeshi SETO, Director, UNAFEI
Presentation of Certificate
12.00-13.30: Lunch – at “Café Indochine”
PM
Side Event
18:00-

Farewell Reception hosted by UNAFEI – at the Gallery Rooms 3+4

End of the Seminar- 150 -

APPENDIXPRESENTATION SLIDES・ Dr. Claire Armelle Leger, Mutual Legal Assistance in Asia and the Pacific: Experiences in 31
Jurisdictions

・ Mr. Mohamad Zamri bin Zainul Abidin, Latest Regional Trends in Corruption and Effective
Countermeasures by Criminal Justice Authorities—Malaysian Perspective

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS

・Ms. Nguyen Cam Tu, LLM, Prosecutor Assistant, SPP and Mr. Nguyen Hai Bang, LLM, Examiner,
High People’s Court in Ha Noi: Corruption Crimes in Viet Nam and the Roles of the Supreme
People’s Procuracy of Viet Nam in Dealing with Requests for Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal
Matters Relating to Corruption Cases

・Dr. Nguyen Duc Hanh, Hanoi University for Prosecutors: Corruption in the Banking Sector:
Experiences, Challenges, Trends, Solutions and Recommendations- 151 -

MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC:
EXPERIENCES IN 31 JURISDICTIONSClaire Leger
Anti-Corruption Analyst
OECD Anti-Corruption Division
27 November 2018, Da Nang, Viet Nam
The views expressed in this presentation do not necessarily represent those of the OECD
Member countries or States Parties to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

Outline1. Introduction
2. Common Challenges to Effective
MLA in Corruption Cases
3. Best Practices for MLA in
Corruption Cases
4. Practical Tools for Facilitating
Effective MLA
5. Conclusion and Recommendations- 152 -

1. Introduction• OECD Anticorruption Initiative for AsiaPacific• ADB-OECD (2017), Mutual Legal Assistancein Asia and the Pacific: Experiences in 31
Jurisdictions• 2010–2015 time period• Focuses on the practical challenges
jurisdictions in the Asia-Pacific region facein relation to requests for MLA, particularly
in corruption cases“Corruption”, UNCAC:(i) bribery of national or foreign public
officials (arts. 15 & 16),(ii) embezzlement/misappropriation ofproperty by a public official (art. 17),(iii) trading in influence (art. 18),(iv) abuse of functions (art. 19),(v) illicit enrichment (art. 20),(vi) private sector bribery (art. 21), and(vii) private sector embezzlement (art. 22).
- 153 -

2. Common Challenges toEffective MLA in Corruption Cases
A. Lack of an effective legal basis for cooperation
B. Differences in legal and procedural
frameworks
C. Language barriers
D. Delay, no response at all, or insufficient
response
E. Resource issues
F. “Traditional” grounds for refusing MLA

A. Lack of an effective legal basis forcooperation• An obstacle for 5 members of the Initiativein relation to both outgoing and incoming
requests for MLA (Japan; Malaysia;
Nepal; Sri Lanka; Vietnam)• Multilateral treaties• Bilateral treaties• Domestic law• Reciprocity- 154 -

B. Differences in legal and procedural
frameworks• Challenge in obtaining MLA for 9 members: Australia;
Bhutan; Cook Islands; Indonesia; Korea; Macao,
China; Singapore; Sri Lanka; Vietnam.
• In preparing outgoing requests for Macao and China.
• Legal misunderstandings can arise in a variety ofareas:– The legal basis for providing MLA.
– The grounds upon which MLA can or must be refused.
– Legal requirements for obtaining certain types ofassistance.
– Procedural requirements for obtaining assistance.
– The approaches of common law versus civil law
jurisdictions.

C. Language barriers• 10 of the 17 members: Australia; India;
Indonesia; Japan; Korea; Macao, China;
Malaysia; Singapore; Sri Lanka; Vietnam.
• Most members of the Initiative draft
outgoing MLA requests in English (Table
2)- 155 -

Drafting languages used for MLA requests in the Asia-PacificregionD. Delay, no response at all, or
insufficient response• 10 of the 17 members: Australia; Bhutan; Cook
Islands; Hong Kong, China; India; Indonesia;
Japan; Korea; Sri Lanka; Vietnam.
• Delay can be a function of any number of factors—
a lack of resources in the responding state, a lackof cooperation among the responding
jurisdiction’s agencies, the nature or amount ofevidence sought, or the procedural steps required
before the request can be carried out (Table 3).
• No response• Incomplete or insufficient responses- 156 -

Timeframe for responses to MLA requests in six members of
the Asia-Pacific Initiative

E. Resource issues• 7 of the 17 Initiative members• Requests for MLA have increased in recent
years without a commensurate increase inresources (Hong Kong, China, and Australia)• Resource and technological needs (Australia)• Building the infrastructure to support MLA(Nepal)• Personnel: number and capacity (training ofstaff) (Australia; Bangladesh; Bhutan; Cook
Islands; Sri Lanka; Vietnam)- 157 -

F. “Traditional” grounds for refusing
MLA
1. Evidentiary and informational issues
2. Dual criminality
3. Other grounds for refusal

3. Best Practices for MLA in
Corruption Cases
A. Building networks and relationships
B. Preparing a strong request for assistanceC. Consultations in relation to MLA requests
D. Transmission and prioritisation
E. Monitoring requests- 158 -

A. Building networks and relationships• Relation over time
• Trust• Regular bilateral meetings• Law enforcement official meetings

B. Preparing a strong request forassistance
To be successful, a request for MLA must be
accompanied by supporting information thatprovides executing authorities with (i) an
adequate legal basis to undertake the requested
action and (ii) necessary facts and other details
for doing so.
1. Training for individuals preparing requests
2. Guidance for preparation of requests- 159 -

C. Consultations in relation to MLA
requests• Article 48 of UNCAC• Law enforcement officials have importantroles to play at each stage of the process:– pre-request stage– preliminary exchanges of information to support
more formal MLA requests where possible inaccordance with legal framework– alert their counterparts abroad that a request isunderway– consultations with the other jurisdiction following
the submission of a request if it is not clear

D. Transmission and prioritisation• Several government bodies may be involved inrequesting or executing a request: central
authorities, judicial authorities, investigators,
prosecutors, and counterparts abroad.
• Clear procedures are essential to ensuring thatrequests are appropriately transmitted andprioritized.
• Role of central (and other receiving authorities)
and law enforcement authorities in reviewing andprioritising incoming requests.

- 160 -

E. Monitoring requests• Modern technology permits the use ofelectronic platforms for managing
incoming and outgoing MLA requests.
• In some jurisdictions, case management
occurs primarily via in-person contacts.

4. Practical Tools for Facilitating
Effective MLA
Where possible in accordance with the law:
A. Direct law enforcement cooperation
B. Spontaneous exchanges of information
C. Using international networks to facilitate
assistance- 161 -

A. Direct law enforcement cooperation
Formal MLA request and obtaining a response canbe a time-consuming, bureaucratic process.
 Informal cooperation mechanisms regarding noncoercive MLA can lead to valuable intelligence tofurther an investigation.
 Examples, where possible in accordance with thelaw:– Legal advice about the process and procedures for
obtaining MLA– Preliminary information about a case
– Company records– General information about persons or companies– Preservation of documents– Information needed to facilitate a witness interview– Information about the ownership of property– Exchanges of information between FIU– Exchanges of investigative findings– Identification or seizure of bank accounts– Assistance locating a witness or suspect throughintelligence means– Assistance with cross-border police investigations
or operations– Interviews with witnesses conducted on a
voluntary basis– Information about the travel plans of an accused
person– Recording of a witness statement- 162 -

• Law enforcement agencies that engage insuch direct cooperation:– Investigative units of anti-corruption
authorities– FIU (See table 4)– Police forces– Tax authorities– Prosecution authorities- 163 -

• Members of the initiative do not regularly
use direct law enforcement cooperation.
• Direct cooperation to obtain admissible
evidence is not allowed under the law insome jurisdictions (Australia).
• In other jurisdictions, information
obtained through direct law enforcement
cooperation is not admissible in court
absent a formal request (5 members).

B. Spontaneous exchanges of
information• A growing number of jurisdictions are
beginning to recognise the importance ofsharing information that might be usefulto another jurisdiction in an investigationor prosecution, even absent a formal
request.
• However, this can only be done within ajurisdiction’s legal framework.
• UNCAC, article 46- 164 -

• Law enforcement authorities are critical tosuch spontaneous exchanges of information• In some jurisdictions the central authority
does not normally exchange spontaneous
information with another jurisdiction or isexpressely prohibited from spontaneously
providing information to anotherjurisdiction.
• Some Initiative members have never received
or provided spontaneous information about acorruption offence.

C. Using international networks tofacilitate assistance
1. Periodic meetings with other jurisdictions
2. Involvement in international or regional
networks and organisations
3. Liaison officers stationed abroad- 165 -

Rule of law issues• Informal and spontaneous MLA must only
be provided in accordance with ajurisdiction’s legal framework:– Preserve continuity (chain) of evidence– Due process guarantees

5. Conclusion & Recommendations
1. Recommendations at the individual law
enforcement level
2. Recommendations at the agency andnational level
3. Recommendations at the internationallevel- 166 -

claire.leger@oecd.org

For more information:www.oecd.org/bribery- 167 -RAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

Presentation By :MOHAMAD ZAMRI BIN ZAINUL ABIDIN (CFE ,CFI, CeIO)
DEPUTY COMMISSIONERAMLFOP DIVISION
MACC HEADQUARTERS
PUTRAJAYA, MALAYSIABAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONINVESTIGATIONPROSECUTIONASSETRECOVERYBAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 168 -CORPORATELIABILITIESRAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONLATEST REGIONAL TRENDS IN
CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVE
COUNTERMEASURES BY CRIMINALJUSTICE AUTHORITIES‐ MALAYSIAN PERSPECTIVESBAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

3.

Forensic andFinancial expertise2.
High Level
Task Force

4.
1.

Joint Operation

Specialized/
dedicated AMLA
Division

BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 169 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

OPS B2BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

OPS B2Financial Information(CTR/STR/ITIS/Banking information)
Informer & Whistleblower
Intelligence Based Investigation (IBI)
Parallel Investigation
Witness Protection

BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 170 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

WHISTLEBLOWER INFORMATION
Target:Jeffry Wong 0192699943 / 0126999283
Address :No.10, Bukit Prima 2A, Cheras (The Peak)Modus Operandi:
1. Container in/out PKFZ dan using K8 Forms (RMC Forms)
2. 30 people attended as a cover up gang
List of vehicles used by this ‘target’ & his group:RK3838 Merz SportPKFZ Warehouse - E12, A18
WSU3838 BMW 5 Series
WTL3838 White Toyota Camry
Target group lorries :WRN24 Toyota Estima
JLR7865 10 tonne
WLX 2283 Black Honda Civic
BLH1985 10 tonne
JDK 5698 Proton Saga
JMR 4105 10 tonne
JDJ 9976 Proton Saga
JWQ 8383 1 tonne
WEG 5106
WFV 7376
WJN 8908
9378 3 tonne
BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONFree Zones Operations & Licensing
Ministry of Finance- Licensing andregulations matters• Free Zone Authority
appointed by the Minister.
Federal Govt. Agency,
State Agency or privatecompany as Free Zone
Authority.
• To maintain, operate
and administer Free Zone

BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 171 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

Brief info on Free Zones
 under Section 2 of the Customs Act 1967,
Excise Act 1976, Sales Tax Act 1972 andService Act 1975:“a free zone shall be deemed to
be a place outside Malaysia (otherthan Section 31)”

BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

9RAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

Major Ports in Malaysia
Penang Port

i. Johor Port Bhd
ii. Tanjung Pelepas

i. North Port (M) Bhd
ii. Westports (M) Sdn Bhd
BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 172 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

This Special Ops held
under Special
Taskforce consist of(STF) MACC, RMP, IRB& CS

To recover the
National losses
approximately RM2Billions

To clean up thebribery andcorruptions in related
Enforcement Agencies

Join investigations
between Investigation
Divisions and all Divisions
in MACC and States Office

Combating smuggling
activities and violationof PKFZ facilities
BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

TOP 10 DATA OF PKFZ(CIGARETTES & LIQUOR)BAHAGIAN AMLFOPSPRM- 173 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

LIQUOR + CIGARETTE – TOP 10
2011
ZB (I)COMPANY

Star Up Trading

K1

K2

K8

QTY

AM0UNTQTY

AMOUNTQTY

AMOUNT

271

RM18,307,937

33

RM6,806,589

0

0

0

0

62

RM4,617,484

295 RM29,336,570

0

0

0

0

229

RM10,569,730

3

RM198,128.70

0

0

0

0

179 RM7,765,073,613

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

RM885,637

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

RM708,652

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

RM293,428

0

0

0

0

0

0

47

RM4,295,907

35

RM538,439

0

0

17

RM537,235

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Visual Logistics Sdn
380 RM111,287,613
Bhd
Eurogulf
International Sdn
15
RM1,851,588
Bhd
Grand Sunrich
2
RM208,362
Trading
Daania Pantas
00Trading & Logistics
Modern Freight0
0
Express
Insan Global
1
RM431,477
Resources
Attractive Harbour
1
RM244,677
Sdn Bhd
Fairway Bonus Sdn
220 RM10,658,703
Bhd
YS Success Trading

ZB (E)

103

RM15,566,836

QTY AMOUNT QTYAMOUNT

BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

LIQUOR + CIGARETTE – TOP 10
2012
ZB (I)COMPANY

Star Up Trading

K1

K2

K8

QTY

AM0UNTQTY

AMOUNTQTY

AMOUNT327

RM335,817,396

81

RM16,949,900

0

0

0

0

0

0

RM173,824,457

253

RM22,324,956

0

0

0

0

81

RM302,538

RM9,231,459

17

RM3,585,146

0

0

0

0

88

RM499,046,294

RM17,521,627

29

RM9,044,737

0

0

0

0

0

0

RM1,486,838

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

RM484,036

4

RM467,179

0

0

0

0

0

0

RM481,811

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

RM18,671,010

37

RM3,687,392

67

RM903,324

0

0

164

RM2,090,840

RM17,425,422

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Visual Logistics Sdn
488
Bhd
Eurogulf
International Sdn
57
Bhd
Grand Sunrich118
Trading
Daania Pantas
Trading & Logistics

ZB (E)

15

Modern Freight0
Express
Insan Global
4
Resources
Attractive Harbour
6
Sdn Bhd
Fairway Bonus Sdn
156
Bhd
YS Success Trading 100

BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 174 -QTY AMOUNT QTYAMOUNTRAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

LIQUOR + CIGARETTE – TOP 10
2013
ZB (I)COMPANYZB (E)

K1

K2

K8

QTY

AM0UNTQTY

AMOUNTQTY

AMOUNTQTY

AMOUNTQTY

AMOUNT

469

RM44,902,323

71

RM17,782,833

0

0

0

0

0

0

591

RM210,978,523

371

RM26,727,346

0

0

0

0

101

RM595,920

100

RM22,555,922

33

RM9,475,567

0

0

0

0

0

0

268

RM54,264,809

58

RM40,281,740

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

RM216,293

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

RM1,226,570

7

RM1,069,723

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

RM537,681

5

RM716,214

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

RM152,673

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

150

RM24,405,438

33

RM3,148,906

249 RM1,943,288

0

0

389

RM3,870,682

YS Success Trading 116

RM19,820,385

0

0

0

0

0

54

RM558,072

Star Up Trading
Visual Logistics Sdn
Bhd
Eurogulf
International Sdn
Bhd
Grand Sunrich
Trading
Daania Pantas
Trading & Logistics
Modern Freight
Express
Insan Global
Resources
Attractive Harbour
Sdn Bhd
Fairway Bonus Sdn
Bhd0

BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

LIQUOR + CIGARETTE – TOP 10
2014
ZB (I)COMPANY

Star Up Trading
Visual Logistics Sdn
Bhd
Eurogulf
International Sdn
Bhd
Grand Sunrich
Trading
Daania Pantas
Trading & Logistics
Modern Freight
Express
Insan Global
Resources
Attractive Harbour
Sdn Bhd
Fairway Bonus Sdn
Bhd
YS Success Trading

ZB (E)

K1

K2

K8

QTY

AM0UNTQTY

AMOUNTQTY

AMOUNT89

RM2,865,298

12

RM3,923,777

0

0

0

0

0

0

132

RM36,395,040

124

RM24,938,092

0

0

0

0

0

0

22

RM5,760,063

12

RM3,632,186

0

0

0

0

14

RM22,590

60

RM14,511,409

15

RM16,621,466

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

40

RM2,281,829

16

RM1,551,684

0

0

0

0

4

RM202,150

20

RM3,686,109

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

TOTAL GOV. LOSSES RM2b

BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 175 -QTY AMOUNT QTYAMOUNTRAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONSMUGGLING
MODUS OPERANDI

BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

MODUS OPERANDI ‘STAR UP TRADING’BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 176 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONPKFZ LOCATION

E11-E12
Star Up Trading

A18
Star Up Trading
E23-E27
F23-F28
Visual Logistics

B17
Daania Pantas
BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONPKFZ LOCATION
A18
Star Up Trading

E11-E12
Star Up Trading

E23-E27
F23-F28
Visual Logistics

B17
Daania Pantas

BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 177 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONPKFZ LOCATION
E11-E12
Star Up Trading

ALAMAT : E11-E12, PKFZBAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONPKFZ LOCATION

E11-E12
Star Up Trading

ALAMAT : E11-E12, PKFZBAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 178 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

MLH WAREHOUSE

BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

WAREHOUSE LOCATION AT
SEMENYIH

BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 179 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

WAREHOUSE LOCATION AT TAMAN TAMINGJAYABAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONLORRIES SAFE STORE

ALAMAT : KAWASAN TAMAN CHERASJAYA, 43300 BALAKONG, SELANGORBAHAGIAN AMLFOPSPRM- 180 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONTARGET NEW WAREHOUSE

JALAN TAMING 6,
TAMAN TAMING JAYA,CHERAS, SELANGORBAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONTARGET NEW WAREHOUSEBELAKANGSIN KEE RESTAURANT,JALAN SEMENYIH,
KAJANGBAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 181 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

OPS B2 ACHIEVEMENT
Arrested Personnels:

34 Royal Custom Senior Officers including 1 State
Director and 10 public citizens

Charges:
Corruptions Value :32 Royal Custom Senior Officers & 1 public citizen
MYR1,098,401.00

No. of Charges : 212 Charges
Freezed & Seized :Bank Acc. : MYR18,132,337.00
Cah Money : MYR2,172,388.00
4 Cars (BMW, Merz, Wolkvagen, Honda)
4 Lorries (2 for 10 tonne and 2 for 5 tonne)
Confiscation :Bank Acc. : MYR600,000.00 (as at 17.2.2015)
1 Honda Civic (as at 17.2.2015)
1 lorry 5 tonne (as at 17.2.2015)

BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONBAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 182 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

OPS BORIONBAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONBAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 183 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONSUMMARY•

35 charges under11(a) Anti-Corruption Act 1997•

Amounting to USD63.3 million
between 2004 till 2008

BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONSAMPLE OF THE CHARGED
That you on June 21, 2006, at UBS AG Bank, Central, inHong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's
Republic of China, as an agent of the Sabah State
Government, the Sabah Chief Minister and Chairman of
the Yayasan Sabah Trustees Board, Your self-made money
is US $ 16,148,547.00 from Chia Tien Foh through UBS AG
account no. 231117 in the name of Richard Christopher
Barnes, as an inducement for you to act in relation to yourprincipal affairs ie, granting a timber concession contract
to Sabapioneer Sdn. Bhd., & Tamabina Sdn. Bhd. andtherefore you have committed an offense undersubsection 11 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1997
[Act 575] and punishable under section 16 of the sameAct.
BAHAGIAN AMLFOPSPRM- 184 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONBAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONBAHAGIAN AMLFOPSPRM- 185 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

OPS BORION I-IV
Financial Information(CTR/STR/ITIS/Banking information)
Informer & Whistleblower
Intelligence Based Investigation (IBI)
Parallel Investigation

BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONSTR SON IN LAW OF THE SUSPECTXX Banking

Activity inconsistent with customer profile
MR. A IS THE DIRECTOR OF XXX SDN BHD. HE IS ALSO THE MEMBER OF SABAH STATE LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY FOR MEMBAKUT FOR 4 TERMS. CUSTOMER HAS A CURRENT ACCOUNT 12345678(OPENED ON 20 OCTOBER 2011) AND SEVERAL FIXED DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS. HE ALSO HAS APERSONAL FINANCING OF RM 133K WITH US.
ACCOUNT ACTIVITY IN CURRENT ACCOUNT
987654321 TABLE 1 BASED ON CUSTOMER'S DECLARATION, BESIDES RECEIVING SALARY FROMXXX SDN BHD, HE IS ALSO RECEIVING ALLOWANCE AS THE CHAIRMAN OF RELIGIOUS BODY AND AS
THE MEMBER OF SABAH STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR MEMBAKUT. THE IBG INWARD CREDITSARE FROM RB AND THE LOCAL CHEQUE DEPOSIT OF RM 100K ON 31 MAY 2018 IS FROM UNITED
MALAYS NATIONAL ORGANIZATION (UMNO) FOR HIS 4TH RE‐ELECTION SINCE YEAR 2004 IN THE
RECENT GENERAL ELECTION. THE FUNDS ARE USED TO PURCHASE UNIT TRUST AND FIXED DEPOSITPLACEMENT. GENERALLY, THE ACCOUNT IS USED FOR PERSONAL FINANCING INSTALMENT OF RM
2,979.00 MONTHLY. TYPE OF OFFENCE: MONEY LAUNDERING GROUND FOR SUSPICION
1. THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR THE LOCAL CHEQUE DEPOSIT FROM UMNO IS UNKNOWN.
2. IT IS PECULIAR THAT THE FUNDS FROM A POLITICAL PARTY WERE USED FOR PERSONAL UNIT
TRUST PURCHASE AND FIXED DEPOSIT PLACEMENT.
BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 186 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONPROXY CASE

BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONBAHAGIAN AMLFOPSPRM- 187 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

MAIN PROXY GROUP
CTR/STR/ITIS

NO.

NAME

STR

No

CTR Amount
(RM)

Pay
ment

1

PROXY 1-25

2,158,163.85-

2

PROXY 2

5

152

66,335,303.89

3

3

PROXY 3-41

37,059,452.98-

4

PROXY 41

28

3,711,176.52-

5

PROXY 5-33

8,041,873.40-

ITIS
Amount(RM)

Receipt

ITIS
Amount(RM)-

386,573.00--

1

10,148.00

71,865,700.00

-

-

-

-

-

-

BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

MAIN PROXY COMPANY GROUP
CTR/STR/ITIS

Company Name

STR

No

CTR
Amount (RM)

Payment

ITIS
Amount (RM)
Receipt

Amount (RM)

COMPANY PROXY A

2

188

37,088,707.24

98

64,308,614.13

7

158,497,379.41

COMPANY PROXY B-

3200,701.70

-

-

-

-

COMPANY PROXY C-

8693,441.97

-

-

-

-

COMPANY PROXY D

135

36,629,715.38-

COMPANY PROXY E-

84,650,200.00-

COMPANY PROXY F-

232,442,574.38-

COMPANY PROXY G-

273,131,865.00-

COMPANY PROXY H-

367,256,514.79-

COMPANY PROXY I-

203,485,599.44

463

COMPANY PROXY J-

395,296,041.62-

COMPANY PROXY K-

1245,000.00-

BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 188 -

130,014,665.25-

125,612,513.85

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

19,430.25

261

131,753,405.14

-

-

-

-

RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

MAIN PROXY MUSA
LINK COMPANY + BVICOMPANYBAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

1Malaysia Development Berhad(1MDB)
Scandals
BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 189 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

Introduction
 The investigation of 1MDB started on 5th July 2015, this investigation leadby former Malaysian AG with the collaborations between Malaysian AntiCorruption Commission (MACC), Royal Malaysia Police (RMP) and Central
Bank of Malaysia as a members and a joined taskforce. Main focus for thisinvestigations are the RM2.6 billion credited into Dato’ Sri Najib Razak(DSN), former PM personal account and the 1MDB investment itself.

 Technically the investigations does not gone well, received challenges
due to the former PM was still an active PM on that time. However, MACC
has completed this investigations and preparing to submission to AGC.
BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION After The 14th General Election, on 21 May 2018, upon changing to
the new government, the 1MDB Investigation Taskforce has beenreactivated under instructions of new Prime Minister of Malaysia YAB
Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad.

BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 190 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONNEW SET UP FOR THE NEW TASKFORCEBAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION & TASKFORCE
1. MALAYSIA
2. UNITED STATES
3. SWITZERLAND
4. HOLLAND
5. REPUBLIC CZECH
6. SINGAPORE
7. INDONESIABAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 191 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONSERIES INTERNATIONAL TASKFORCE MEETINGS ON 17.7.2018 & 18 – 20.9.2018 IN MALAYSIABAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONSERIES OF VISITS & INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION &TASKFORCE
1.

SERIES OF MEETING WITH SINGAPORE AUTHORITIES & AGC

2.

VISIT TO INDONESIA (JAKARTA) – 29 TO 30 JULY 2018

3.

VISIT TO USA (WASHINGTON & NY) – 29 JULY TO 3 AUG 2018

4.

VISIT TO SWITZERLAND, AMSTERDAM & REP. CZECH – 16 TO
25 NOVEMBER 2018

BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 192 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

Title

DetailCase

SRC International

Suspect

Former Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak

Date
Charge4 July 2018
Was charged with three counts of Criminal Breach Of Trust
Section 409 under Penal Code, and one count of Power Abusein misappropriating RM42 million in funds from SRC International,
Section 23 under Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009.

Date
ChargeHe was alleged to have received the monies, which were
purportedly proceeds of illegal activities, at an AmIslamic Bank
branch at Jalan Raja Chulan here between December 26, 2014,
and February 10, 2015.
8 August 2018
3 charges under Section 4 (1) (b) of the Anti-Money Launderingand Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful ActivitiesAct.
BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

August 8, 2018, Former Prime Minister Najib Razak was charged
with three more money laundering offences over the transfer of
RM42 million from SRC International into his bank account.
BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 193 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

Title

DetailCase

1MDB Phase 1 : Good Star/RBS US$1.03 billion

Suspect

Former Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak

ChargeInvestigation under Section 409, Penal Code (Criminal Breach of
Trust) by Royal Malaysia Police (RMP)1.

May 18, 2018 The Royal Malaysia Police have seized an
undisclosed amount of money and some jewellery from the
Najib-linked luxurious condo in Pavilion Residences in Bukit
Bintang.

2. The Royal Malaysia Police on August 25, 2018, issued Warrantof Arrest against Jho Low and his father (Tan Sri Larry Low
Hock Peng) and also charged both of them with 8 charges
under Section 4(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering and AntiTerrorism Financing Act 2001.
BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONBAHAGIAN AMLFOPSPRM- 194 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

Equanimity Luxury Yacht

THE 300ft superyacht Equanimity built for US$250 million with money from the2012 1MDB bond issues and a 2014 Deutsche Bank loan to 1MDB.
BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONBAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 195 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONBAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONBAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 196 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

Title

DetailCase

1MDB Phase 3 : TANORE RM2.6 billion

Suspect

Former Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak
4 Charge under Section 23 and Section 24, Malaysian Anti Corruption Act 2009 by

ChargeMalaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) and 21 charge under Section (4) (1)
AMLATFA 2001 by Royal Malaysian Police (RMP)

Date

20 September 2018

Charge1.

First Charge, That he abused his position as Prime Minister and Finance Minister by receiving RM90
million from 1MDB, that he received RM2.081 billion in his personal bank account and that heabused his position as Prime Minister and Finance Minister on June 23, 2014 to receive more than
RM49 million.

2.

In the second charge under Section 24(1) of the MACC Act, he is accused of having abused his
positions to secure RM90.9 million between Oct 31, 2012 and Nov 20, 2012.

3.

The third charge pertains to the RM2.6 billion deposited into his personal bank account. Najib is
accused of having received RM2.081 billion - as the amount was valued at the time - between
March 23, 2013 and April 10, 2013.

4.

The fourth charge against Najib concerns the alleged abusing of his position to acquire gratification
amounting to RM49.9 million, by instructing the 1MDB board of directors to approve the taking of a
BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIA
US$975 million loan from Deustch Bankfor an initial public offering (IPO) for 1MDB Energy Bhd.
SPRM

RAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

21 charges under Section (4) (1) AMLATFA 2001 by Royal Malaysia Police

BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 197 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

September 20, 2018, Former Prime Minister Najib Razak was
charged with 4 Charges under Section 23 and Section 24
Malaysian Anti Corruption Act 2009 by Malaysian Anti
Corruption Commission (MACC) and 21 charges under Section(4) (1) AMLATFA 2001 by Royal Malaysian Police (RMP)
BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

Title
Case
Suspect

DetailReceive 2 cheques from former Prime Minister, Najib Razak amounting to
RM9.5 million
Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah, lawyer of former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib
Razak

ChargeFour charges of receiving money from the proceeds of illegal activities under
Section 4 (1) (b) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act(AMLA) 2001 by Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) .

Date

13 September 2018

Charge1.

First charge, Shafee was accused of receiving unlawful proceeds in the form ofan AmIslamic cheque of RM4.3 million into his bank account on 13 September
2013;

2.

Second charge, Shafee was accused of receiving another cheque of the same
nature and from the same sender on February 17 2014, this time amounting to
RM5.2 million.

3.

Third charge of not declaring his earnings accurately for the financial year that
ended on Dec 31 2013, in which he did not include the RM4.3 million in his tax
filings.

4.

BAHAGIANAMLFOP
Fourth charge, Shafee
is accusedof not declaring his earnings accurately by
RAHSIAomitting the RM5.2 million SPRM
in his 2014 tax filing.

- 198 -RAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

13 September 2018 Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah, Lawyer to The Former
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was charged with Fourcharges of receiving money from the proceeds of illegal activities
under Section 4 (1) (b) of the Anti-Money Laundering and AntiTerrorism Financing Act (AMLA) 2001.
BAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

Title
Case
Suspect

DetailMoney Laundering amounting to about RM 7.0 million
Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, wife of former Prime Minister Datuk Seri
Najib Tun Razak
17 charges of money laundering, under Section 4 (1) (b) of theChargeAnti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act (AMLA)2001 by Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC).

Date

4 October 2018

BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 199 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONBAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

Title

Case

Suspect

DetailMoney-laundering involving RM72million and criminal breach oftrust and accepting bribes involving RM42million.
Datuk Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Current UMNO President
45 charges of money-laundering involving RM72million andChargecriminal

breach

of

trust

and

acceptingbribesinvolving

RM42million by Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) .
Date

20 October 2018

BAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 200 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONBAHAGIAN AMLFOPRAHSIASPRMRAHSIA

SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONSEIZED AMOUNTNODETAILSAMOUNT

1

AMOUNT SEIZED IN MALAYSIA

286,064,813.35
191 (accounts)

2

AMOUNT RETURNED FROM SINGAPORE

SGD15 MILLION

3

RETURNED ASSET (EQUANIMITY)

USD250 MILLION

4

VOLUNTARILY RETURNED

MYR30 MILLIONBAHAGIAN AMLFOPSPRM- 201 -RAHSIARAHSIASURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSIONTHANK YOUBAHAGIAN AMLFOP

SPRM- 202 -RAHSIACORRUPTION CRIMES IN VIET NAM AND THE ROLES OF THE
SUPREME PEOPLE’S PROCURACY OF VIET NAM IN DEALING WITHREQUESTS FOR MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL
MATTERS RELATING TO CORRUPTION CASES
Nguyen Cam Tu * and Nguyen Hai Bang †I.

THE NECESSITY OF MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR DEALING WITH
CORRUPTION CASES IN VIET NAM

In recent years, corruption crimes have become a national problem and directly threatened
the financial security of the nation, casting doubt on the prestige and reliability of Viet Nam
among the international community. According to the statistics reported by the Ministry of
Public Security of Viet Nam, corruption crimes mainly occurred in the fields of economics,
politics, the judiciary, education and training, healthcare, personnel management, etc. In 2015,
265 corruption cases were detected and handled. Many extremely serious corruption cases havebeen prosecuted and adjudicated, such as: the case of Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu and her workers at
VietinBank who appropriated property by fraud, causing damage of 4 trillion VND (about 174
billion USD); the corruption case of Construction Bank’s former President Pham Cong Danhcausing the damage of 18 trillion VND (about 783 billion USD); the corruption case of Ocean
Bank’s former President Ha Van Tham causing damage of 27 trillion VND (about 1,174 billion
USD), etc. The majority of large-scale corruption cases are foreign related ones, for instance: thecorrupt property is foreign currency, offenders have interactions with foreign partners, offenders
save their proceeds of corruption at foreign banks or use proceeds of corruption in business orinteractions abroad or in buying real estate in foreign countries. Corruption offenders often ask
their relatives or friends to help them register the proceeds of crimes in these persons’ names andmove the proceeds of crime to foreign countries for dispersal and erasing traces of crime. Aftercommitting corruption crimes, offenders do their utmost to flee for shelter in neighbouring
countries via border paths or flee to countries which do not have bilateral treaties on extradition
with Viet Nam in order to avoid being extradited back to Viet Nam and being prosecuted fortheir criminal liability. Others even flee to countries which do not impose the death penalty or do
not execute death penalty judgments so that they will not be sentenced to the death penalty ifthey are extradited back to Viet Nam.
It is predicted that corruption crimes in Viet Nam will trend towards transnational organizedcrime with collusion between domestic offenders and their foreign accomplices. There will be anincrease in the number of Vietnamese corruption fugitives to foreign countries. They conspire toobtain a huge number of properties by corruption domestically and disperse these proceeds ofcorruption to foreign countries. Once their criminal acts are detected by investigation agencies,*†

LLM, Prosecutor Assistant, Supreme People’s Procuracy of Viet Nam.
LLM, Examiner, High People’s Court in Ha Noi, Viet Nam.

- 203 -

they will intermediately escape to foreign countries to avoid being caught. Some offenders evensend their children to study abroad to make preparations in advance. With huge proceeds ofcorruption at their disposal, corruption offenders lead enjoyable lives in foreign countries, which
are indeed their ideal shelters. This situation requires criminal justice authorities of each country
to further strengthen cooperation aiming at taking tougher measures on fighting against
corruption crimes, defeating completely the conspiracy of corruption offenders to flee abroad for
shelter. Hence, mutual legal assistance in criminal matters is considered as one of the mostimportant channels for international cooperation in the criminal justice field, especially forsupporting each country in dealing with foreign-related criminal cases including foreign-related
corruption cases. It is mutual legal assistance in criminal matters that helps domestic
investigation agencies and prosecution services collect relevant information, materials andnecessary evidence in foreign countries for proving offences and deciding on whether or not toprosecute the accused. In fact, many cases have been suspended or even dismissed by the courts
because of the lack of executed requests for mutual legal assistance from foreign countries. Thus,
promotion of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters among criminal justice authorities ofevery country for fighting against corruption crimes in the context of globalization andinternational integration is completely indispensable.
II. THE ROLES OF THE SUPREME PEOPLE’S PROCURACY OF VIET NAM IN
DEALING WITH REQUESTS FOR MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL
MATTERS RELATING TO CORRUPTION CASES
Pursuant to Paragraph 2, Article 493, Criminal Procedure Code 2015 of Viet Nam, theSupreme People’s Procuracy is the Central Authority of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam for
mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and other types of international cooperation incriminal proceedings in accordance with law. As the Central Authority of Viet Nam for mutual
legal assistance in criminal matters, the Supreme People’s Procuracy has the power, on behalf of
the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, to undertake the negotiation and conclusion of Treaties on
Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between Viet Nam and other countries, as well as
to make decisions on receiving and dealing with requests for mutual legal assistance between
Viet Nam and foreign countries, which covers: 1. Service of papers, dossiers and documents
related to criminal legal assistance; 2. Summoning of witnesses and experts; 3. Collection andsupply of evidence; 4. Penal liability examination; 5. Escorting prisoners for providing evidence;
6. Transfer of offenders for prosecuting criminal liability; 7. Information sharing; 8. Other
requests for criminal legal assistance.
Under the Law on Organization of the People’s Procuracies of Viet Nam, the Supreme
People’s Procuracy has the functions of executing public prosecution power and supervision overmutual legal assistance in criminal matters. Specifically, the Supreme People’s Procuracy is
empowered to make final decisions on requesting the competent agencies of foreign countries tosummon witnesses and experts, to collect and provide relevant evidence, and to prosecuteoffenders who are appearing in the requested nation for his or her criminal liability. In addition,
the Supreme People’s Procuracy also has the power of deciding to transfer requests for mutual
legal assistance in criminal matters made by Central Authorities of requesting nations tocompetent investigation agencies of Viet Nam for initiating criminal proceedings andinvestigation. The Supreme People’s Procuracy supervises the execution of requests for mutual- 204 -

legal assistance by competent investigation agencies, procuracies and courts. Once violations aredetected, the Supreme People’s Procuracy asks them to make sure that the information, materials
and evidence collected legally via the mutual legal assistance channel will be promptly sent to
the Central Authority of the requesting nations.
Before making decisions on sending the requests for mutual legal assistance to the Central
Authority of the requesting nations, the Supreme People’s Procuracy plays a core role inexamining the dossiers of request for mutual legal assistance made by investigation agencies inViet Nam to make sure that the requests are made in accordance with both the Law on Mutual
Legal Assistance of Viet Nam and the bilateral or multilateral treaties on Mutual Legal
Assistance to which Viet Nam and the requested nation are parties; the requests have to betranslated into the languages that are stipulated in the treaties or are acceptable by the requested
nation. One of the most important points that needs to be overseen by the Supreme People’s
Procuracy is the offences mentioned in the requests for mutual legal assistance have to comply
with the dual criminality principle in order to avoid refusal to execute by the requested nations.
Fortunately, corruption is viewed as a crime under UNCAC and the penal codes of almost all ofcountries worldwide. This means the requests for mutual legal assistance relating to corruption
cases will meet the requirement of dual criminality and will be handled if they are made in thecorrect format.
In recent years, as the Central Authority of Viet Nam for mutual legal assistance in criminal
matters, the Supreme People’s Procuracy has made a positive contribution to the process ofdealing with foreign-related corruption cases in Viet Nam. Notably, in the case relating to the Ha
Noi urban railway project in 2015, six senior officials of Viet Nam Railway Corporation wereaccused of extorting a JTC contractor to give a bribe for creating favourable conditions for the
implementation of the urban railway project in Ha Noi. In the beginning stage of theinvestigation of this case, a group of prosecutors from Tokyo visited the Supreme People’s
Procuracy and cooperated closely with the Department of International Cooperation and Mutual
Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. The two sides kept in regular contact during the process ofdealing with the case, especially in the process of summoning and interviewing witnesses andrelevant persons both in Japan and in Viet Nam to clarify the criminal acts of the defendants.
Eventually, all six defendants were sentenced to imprisonment for the offence of abusing theirpositions and powers while undertaking official missions, which is one of the offences stipulated
in the group of corruption and position-related crimes under the Penal Code of Viet Nam. The
most severe penalty, 13 years of imprisonment, was imposed on the ringleader, Pham Hai Bang,former Deputy Manager of the railway project PMU under Viet Nam Railway Corporation for
his receipt of the bribe.
In another case, Giang Kim Dat, former Head of the Business Division of Vinashin
Corporation, a State-Owned Corporation, and his accomplices embezzled more than 260 billion
VND (about 11.3 million USD) and then fled to Cambodia. The Supreme People’s Procuracy
requested Cambodia to assist in searching for, arresting and transferring Giang Kim Dat back to
Viet Nam. Meanwhile, the Supreme People’s Procuracy also requested the Singaporean side toassist in providing information and recovering the proceeds of crime. In 2017, the High Court in
Ha Noi sentenced Giang Kim Dat to the death penalty for committing the offence ofembezzlement.

- 205 -

Viet Nam has witnessed the trend toward transnational corruption crimes. Thus, mutual legal
assistance in criminal matters is one of the most important steps in the process of investigation,prosecution and adjudication of foreign-related corruption cases. The evidence collected via
mutual legal assistance channels is acknowledged as a legitimate source of evidence inaccordance with the Criminal Procedure Code 2015. In foreign-related criminal cases, including
corruption cases, the cases may be suspended if the results of executing requests for mutual legal
assistance from foreign competent agencies have not been provided within the time limit ofinvestigation as stipulated clearly in Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the Supreme People’s
Procuracy, as the Central Authority of Viet Nam for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters,
has to play a positive role in dealing with foreign-related corruption cases, to bring corruption
offenders to justice, and to contribute to the sustainable development of the nation.

- 206 -

CORRUPTION IN THE BANKING SECTOR: EXPERIENCES,
CHALLENGES, TRENDS, SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Dr. Nguyen Duc Hanh *I.

DEFINITION OF CORRUPTION AND CORRUPTION CRIMINALS ACCORDING
TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

Corruption is a behaviour harmful to society, taking place not only within the territory of asingle country but also around the globe. The concept of “corruption” has been fundamentallyagreed upon between Viet Nam and the international community. Black’s Law Dictionary
defines corruption as “Illegality; a vicious and fraudulent intention to evade the prohibitions of
the law. The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his stationor character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and therights of others”.
According to the international concept, the term "corruption" introduced by the World Bankin 1997 is understood as: “the abuse of public office for private gain”. According to theVietnamese Encyclopedia, corruption is defined as: "the act of an office-holder who abuses
his/her position or power to harass, embezzle, take bribes or intentionally violate the policy for
private gain, which causes damage to property of the State, community and individuals”.
According to Article 1, Clause 1 of the Anti-Corruption Law 2005, corruption means “actscommitted by persons with positions and/or powers of abusing such positions and/or powers forprivate gain”.
There is no definition of “corruption criminal” in the Penal Code 2015, amended in 2017.
However, there are 7 articles about corruption criminals in Section 1, Chapter XXIII of this law(the names of these 7 articles are still the same as in Section A, Chapter XXI of the Penal Code1999). They are: Article 353 (Embezzlement), Article 354 (Taking bribes), Article 355 (Abuse of
power or position for appropriation of property), Article 356 (Abuse of power or position in
performance of official duties), Article 357 (Acting beyond authority in performance of official
duties), Article 358 (Abuse of power or position to influence another person for personal gain)
and Article 359 (Commission of fraud in performance of duties). The Penal Code also defines“abuse of power” as “acts of infringement upon rightful activities of an agency or organizationcommitted by an office-holder in performance of his/her official duties” and “office-holder” as“person who is given certain duties and power through appointment, election, contractconclusion, or another method. An office-holder might or might not receive salaries.”*

Hanoi University for Prosecutors, Viet Nam.

- 207 -

Some crimes regulated in the Penal Code are corruption crimes by nature because they
contain two factors:-

Firstly, the crime is committed by an office-holder by abusing his/her position or power.
(If the person taking action is not an office-holder, he/she cannot commit this type ofcrime).

-

Secondly, the crime is committed for private gain.

Therefore, the acts which contain these two factors, such as: abusing power or position toillegally use property for private gain, failure to perform their duties for private gain…, meet therequirement for corruption according to the international concept and under the Anti-Corruption
Law 2005. However, they are not included in Section A, Chapter XXI of the Penal Code 1999 or
Section 1, Chapter XXIII of the Penal Code 2015, which results in an inconsistency between the
Penal Code, the Anti-Corruption Law 2005 and the international concept. This is a shortcomingthat needs to be addressed soon.
II. METHODS FOR COMMITTING CORRUPTION IN THE BANKING FIELD IN
RECENT YEARSIn recent years, with an enormous effort in fighting corruption, Vietnamese law enforcement
agencies have detected, instituted, investigated, prosecuted and adjudicated many large-scale andexceptionally serious corruption and economic cases. Methods of criminals are getting more andmore sophisticated. The offenders are sometimes working in the banking sector. Some cases aretransnational and use advanced technologies in committing offences.
A. Common Methods in Corruption Cases Committed in the Banking Sector
The offenders who are working in the banking sector might abuse their positions and powers
to create false dossiers, papers, savings books and/or fake gold for mortgages and thenappropriate assets. They also might forge signatures of customers for embezzlement or deposit
the money into their personal accounts instead of customers' accounts and then transfer toanother bank to withdraw. Other methods are: using false accounting entries, not depositing
loans collected, making fake loans or increasing the amount of money in contracts to withdraw
later; not assessing or intentionally assessing mortgaged property inaccurately to gain a part of
the total loan amount; using people who are not working in the banking sector ("backyard") tocarry out acts of corruption, declaring on the money deposited paper and depositing in savings
books an amount of money different from the amount declared by the customer, and so on.
The offenders might abuse their bank's reputation to commit fraud through professional
methods, such as: raising capital, changing, erasing and raising the value of money several times
in the certificates of deposit of issuing banks, then mortgage them in the bank they are working;making payment vouchers, payment receipts, receipts, and then forging the signature of theaccount holder on checks and payment receipts to transfer through the deposit and loan accountsof customers to withdraw money.

- 208 -

The offenders might lack responsibility, appear credulous, bureaucratic or have weakcapacity, which causes serious consequences. They might appropriate assets through theimplementation of policies, financial and monetary regimes, and packages for stimulation,
support and rescue of enterprises. Other methods are: abusing positions or powers to directly or
through intermediaries influence others for personal gain; abusing position or power or acting
beyond authority in performance of official duties to claim bribes; using the professional
knowledge and skills for appropriation of assets; cooperating with customers to appropriate bankassets. These types of acts are sophisticated and difficult to detect.
Some remarkable corruption cases carried out by those working in the banking sector whichhave been investigated, prosecuted and adjudicated are:1.

Case 1
Pham Cong Danh together with 45 accomplices "intentionally violate[d] the State's
regulations on economic management and cause[d] serious consequences" and "violat[ed]regulations on lending in operation of credit institutions", which occurred at Viet Nam
Construction Joint Stock Bank (VNCB). In this case, Pham Cong Danh, who abused his position
as chairman of the Board of Directors of Viet Nam Construction Joint Stock Bank (VNCB), andhis accomplices lost more than 9,000 billion VND (409.000.000 USD) through the following
acts:-Danh instructed his subordinates to sign sham contracts with two companies to transfer
more than 644 billion (equivalent to $29,272,000) to individual accounts and thenwithdraw the money to pay off loans for 6 companies under Thien Thanh Group where
Thanh served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors. The money claimed as acustomer service fund was, in fact, transferred to Thanh.

-

Danh instructed his subordinates to draw up false documents for the purchase of
construction material and repayment plans for 12 corporate legal entities under Thien
Thanh Group to take out loans from VNCB. Using a number of real estate properties in
Ho Chi Minh City and Danang as collateral, raising their values to make loans worth 5
trillion VND (US $227,000,000) from VNCB. These assets were also used to borrowmoney from BIDV, Sacombank and TPBank with the total amount of 2,095 billion VND(US $95,227,000).

-Danh authorized three companies to purchase bonds worth of 903 billion VND (US $41
million) from Thien Thanh Company headed by Danh himself through false documentsof personal consumption, debt repayment and customer care. The fund was thentransferred to Danh and now unrecoverable.

-

Through loan contracts between Tran Ngoc Bich and VNCB, Danh withdrew 5.19 trillion
VND (US$235.9 million) from the bank without any document or signature of theaccount holder. This money was transferred to Danh’s account, and then withdrawn by
Danh to repay the debt to Bich's father.

- 209 -

-After misappropriating the money, Danh gave the money, about US$948 billion($44,272,000), to Hua Thi Phan to buy back the shares of the Trustbank.

-Danh instructed the Board of Directors, the Board of Management of VNCB and his
subordinates in Thien Thanh Group and VNCB to prepare the fraudulent loan
applications and withdraw a large amount of money which then was deposited into 3banks including Sacombank, TPBank, BIDV to pledge, guarantee and pay off loans madeby Danh’s companies.

2.

Case 2The second case involved Hua Thi Phan, the founder of TrustBank, and 27 otheraccomplices who were accused of "breaching regulations on loan provision in the operations ofcredit institutions", "abusing trust to appropriate property" and "deliberately acting against theState's regulations on economic management, causing serious consequences". They caused
damages of more than 6,300 billion VND (US$286,363,000) to TrustBank through various
fraudulent schemes. For example, after buying a house at No. 5 Pham Ngoc Thach in Ho Chi
Minh City, Phan instructed his subordinates to continue to resell and rebuy it (4 times) to raise its
value eightfold, then demanded the Board of Directors of Trustbank to purchase the house at theprice of 1.256 billion VND (US$57 million) and forged documents to appropriate 1,105 billion
VND (US$50,200,000).
3.

Case 3
Ha Van Tham, the former chairman of OceanBank, along with 46 associates, has beenprosecuted for various crimes such as "embezzlement of property", "deliberately acting against
the State's regulations on economic management, causing serious consequences". In particular,
Ha Van Tham abused his position as Chairman of OceanBank Commercial Joint Stock Bank tocommit the following acts. He falsified 45 contracts with 20 partners to appropriate money for
personal use and caused a loss of 118 billion VND to OceanBank (US $3.36 million). He alsoestablished BSC without any business activity to serve as a legal entity to sign service contracts
with OceanBank customers and collect fees. Moreover, he signed a loan contract of 500 billion
VND (US $227 million) despite knowing the profiles of the customers are ineligible, resulting ina huge loss of capital and serious damage to OceanBank and its shareholders.
B. Corruption Offences Committed by Persons Outside the Banking Sector-

Performing fraudulent acts such as falsifying project dossiers, forging contracts, faking
mortgage, shares, bonds, business plans or loan schemes.

-

Inflating the value of the collateral or using properties without legal papers or under
dispute as collateral; making bogus projects, forging certificates of land use rights orusing certificates of land use rights, houses and valuable papers of other people as
collateral to obtain loans and then appropriating the money; performing deceptive acts
such as financial investments through the network, capital mobilization in the disguise ofmulti-level business or global financial investment groups. For example, a criminal
disguised himself as a representative of an international financial institution, having large
credit overseas looking for a partner with a low interest rate and long loan tenor, should- 210 -

the victim go along with the plan, they would be required to sign a deposit of between 5%
and 10% of the reciprocal capital, then use the fake signature of the escrow to withdraw
the appropriated money.
-

Forging documents and papers to appropriate the bank's assets; for instance, the offendersigns forged contracts, legitimizes the financial investment for his organization bytransferring money to an intermediary account under his name; Forging project
documentation, contracts, certificates of land use rights or house ownership to use as
collateral and appropriate money.

-

Breaking into the banking network, stealing passwords, creating fake money transfer
orders in order to appropriate assets; Offering bribes to persons holding high positions
and great powers who facilitate the appropriation of property. Since the operation of thebanking system is strictly regulated, especially when it comes to loans, it is difficult tomisappropriate assets without the assistance of an accomplice working in the banking
system.

-Laundering money via the banking system using money and property acquired throughcrime to purchase real estate properties or stocks; transforming “dirty money” into "clean
money" by moving money to their accounts to participate in public transactions.

-

Taking advantage of loopholes in managing foreign exchange business; Production,
stockpiling, transportation and circulating counterfeit money, cheques and bonds;
swindling through payment or exchange of travelers’ cheques. 10-

Among corruption cases committed by persons outside the banking sector but assisted bya bank employee which have been investigated, prosecuted and tried in the past years, themost prominent one is the case against Ninh Van Quynh (in the case of Ha Van Tham)
who abused his position as a deposit agent of Petrovietnam (PVN) at the bank to receive
20 billion VND (US $900,000 USD) as "customer care funds” from Oceanbank throughNguyen Xuan Son, former deputy director general of PVN.

C. Some Tricks Used by Corruption Offenders in the Field of Banking with High Tech
Systems- Robbery of ATM cards (card number), PIN numbers, personal profiles (full name, address,
phone number, email) in order to withdraw cash without using the card.
- Establishment of ghost a company to rob a database; money will be transferred to anotheraccount instead of the company’s account.

10

Nguyen Quang Hien, Identification of crimes in the banking sector and recommendations for prevention, Journalof Legislative Studies, 15/6/2015.

- 211 -

- Production and usage of fake AMT cards to withdraw cash; to buy goods, hotels andservices. Using theft card to buy online products.
- To steal data of cardholders, correct information, falsify signatures to transfer money into
virtual accounts (which are opened under counterfeit documents). After being transferred tosuch accounts, money will be withdrawn promptly, and those accounts will never be usedagain.
- To use the bank’s Swift network to perform false transaction.
- Illegally access websites, using fake e-mail to obtain personal information, distribute spam,and create counterfeit websites.
III. SOME EXPERIENCES WHILE DEALING WITH CORRUPTION CASES IN THE
FIELD OF BANKING- Investigating agencies always emphasize the responsibility of individuals and groups being
in charge of resolving cases; clearly assign tasks to right, capable and enthusiastic officials;
intensify cooperation between the investigation agency and the People’s procuracy andrelated judicial assistance agencies.
- Investigators, prosecutors, and judges in charge of corruption cases always take theinitiative in grasping the nature of cases, the process of settlement in order to have
hypotheses, orientations and to request scientific investigation, search breakthrough point.
- In the prosecution stage, besides detection of crimes, we should pay attention to list
property and freeze accounts in order to recover assets. For example, in the case of Hua Thi
Phan, 158 properties of the accused Phan and her accessories and 27 properties of related
individuals are listed and 26 accounts and securities are blocked. The total value reaches over
VND 10,000 billion, and VND 15,000 billion must be recovered.
- Regardless of the corruption case, criminals are high-positioned, powerful, knowledgeable
persons with complex relations and they always hide their illegal activities. Investigating
agencies and officers should handle such cases carefully and resolutely fight against suchcriminals and constantly pay attention to expand the case.
IV. SOME CHALLENGES FACED BY VIET NAM IN DEALING WITH CORRUPTIONCASES IN THE BANKING SECTOR- Corruption can occur in any sector, so this type of crime involves a variety of legal
documents, such as documents on finance, banking, land, capital construction, budget, etc.
Due to the insufficiency of intensive skill training for officials of investigating agencies, thecollection, strengthening, preservation, evaluation and use of evidence encountered manydifficulties. Sometimes there are contract opinions and views when taking these actions.

- 212 -

- Corruption cases often involve the assessment and valuation of assets and need support ofcompetent state management agencies and specialized agencies. However, these activities
have not yet been paid much attention by government agencies. This fact leads to the lack ofa sufficient number of assessors with legal functions and a lack of qualifications of assessors,
specialists and assessment facilities.
Legal documents such as the Law on Judicial Expertise, the Decree on Valuation of Assets
in Criminal Procedure are still incomplete and inadequate. The cost of expertise is often high.
The remuneration system for the assessors is not appropriate for the effort they spend to performtheir duties.
-Corruption is often associated with money laundering and other transnational crimes, which
requires mutual legal assistance and international cooperation in investigation. However, Viet
Nam has only signed a limited number of bilateral agreements on mutual legal assistancewith other countries. The process of getting results of mutual legal assistance is extended
depending on the requested countries. Moreover, the Vietnamese and foreign investigation
task forces have not coordinated closely and widely.
- The fact that proceeds of crime are often moved abroad or dispersed and hidden bycorruption offenders causes difficulties in detection, seizing, freezing and recovering them.
V. NEW CORRUPTION TRENDS IN VIET NAM, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
SOLUTIONS
A. Evaluation of the Trends of Corruption Crime in Viet Nam- The concept and regulation of corruption acts in Viet Nam are not only focused on the
public sector but also more broadly on the private sector in accordance with UNCAC.
Reviewing the big corruption cases, we find that there has been the connection between thecorruption in public sector and the corruption in private sector; therefore, it is predicted thatin the coming time in the context of the development of a market economy and the attractionof foreign investment in Viet Nam, especially the policy of ensuring fairness between
businesses run by different kinds of economic elements or different kinds of entrepreneurs,
there will be a drastic increase in the number of corruption cases of a more serious degreeand on a larger scale.
- Corruption in the fields of banking, land, construction projects, and economic development
investment projects will arise from the development and improvement of infrastructure andexpansion of cities.
- In the era of 4.0 technology revolutions, corruption offenders make full use of theaccomplishments of modern science and technology to commit fraud, hiding criminal acts,
dispersing proceeds of crime, colluding with foreign accomplices or going abroad to commit
crime against domestic organizations and persons in order to avoid detection and arrest byfunctional agencies, to easily move proceeds of crime to foreign countries to hide theircrimes and prevent the recovery of proceeds of crime.

- 213 -

B. Recommendations and Solutions- Improving the effectiveness of operations to prevention and fight against corruption
performed by the Central Steering Committee for Prevention and Fight against Corruption,
Central Commission of Internal Affairs, Examination Committee at all levels, politicalinstitutions, the Viet Nam Fatherland Front and its member organizations. The prevention of,and fight against, corruption should be viewed as the task of the whole political system andthe people.
- The Criminal Procedure Code 2015 of Viet Nam defines electronic data as a source ofevidence; hence banks and criminal investigation agencies should make use of information
technology and audio-video recording means to prove crimes.
- Continue improving legal regulations on the prevention of, and fight against, money
laundering and regulations on credit organizations to hinder offenders’ circumvention of thelaw by the exploitation of loopholes.
- In the coming time, judicial agencies should take tougher measures to fight against
corruption both in the public sector and in the private sector. It should be noted that private
sector may be either the offenders or both the victims and offenders at the same time.
- Perfecting the legal framework on the prevention of, and fight against, corruption including
the regulations of the Law on Prevention and Fight against Corruption to make them suitablewith regulations of Penal Code and other relevant international laws.
- Improving business environment to make it transparent and fair between different types of
economic elements or different types of entrepreneurs within one economic element in orderto prevent collusion, group benefit, and protectionism between management agencies andentrepreneurs.
- Promoting administrative reform, improving the effect of official missions to prevent andcombat corruption. Gradually stopping the mechanism of “beg and give” in State
management and administration implemented by state agencies, with the starting point aspersonnel.
- Bringing into play the roles of the private sector in the prevention and fight against
corruption, strengthening the combination between prevention of, and fight against,
corruption in public and private sectors. It is necessary to require that the declaration ofassets be implemented by managers and officers in the public sector as well as those in theprivate sector.
- Building up cooperation among criminal investigation agencies and other relevant agencies,
institutions managing information data relating to citizens aiming at promptly providing
criminal investigation agencies with necessary information to investigate corruption cases.

- 214 -

PHOTOGRAPHS

・ Commemorative Photograph・ Opening Address by Director Seto Takeshi, UNAFEI・ Opening Address by Dr. Tran Cong Phan, SPP

・ Special Presentation by Dr. Claire Armelle Leger, Organization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment

・ Special Lecture by Mr. Mohamad Zamri Bin Zainul Abidin, Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission

・ Presentation by the Participants from Cambodia

・ Presentation by the Participants from Viet Nam- 215 -

- 216 -Commemorative PhotographOpening Address by Director Seto Takeshi, UNAFEI- 217 -

Opening Address by Dr. Tran Cong Phan, SPP

Special Presentation by Dr. Claire Armelle Leger, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development- 218 -

Special Lecture by Mr. Mohamad Zamri Bin Zainul Abidin, Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission

Presentation by the Participants from Cambodia- 219 -

Presentation by the Participants from Viet Nam- 220 -