RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.83

CHALLENGES IN THE LEGAL REGIME TO DEAL
WITH MONEY LAUNDERING
Chethiya Goonesekera*

I. INTRODUCTION
The general aim of this paper is to explore the contribution of anti-money laundering regimes to the fightagainst corruption. Corruption is a crime which has as its ultimate aim the enjoyment of ill-gotten proceeds.
In instances of grand corruption some form of laundering activity is likely to take place in an attempt to
disguise the illegitimate source of wealth. An effective anti-money laundering regime will have in placemeasures aimed at identifying and investigating such laundering activity and using the evidence obtained inbringing the person or persons concerned to justice. It will also have in place measures aimed at preventing
the dissipation or loss of the proceeds of crime and recovering and/or confiscating them. An effective antimoney laundering regime can therefore make a significant contribution to the fight against corruption in atleast two main ways:(i) it can help to uncover evidence of criminal activity through identification of suspicious movements offinancial assets, thus increasing the chances of a successful prosecution of the perpetrator of the crime;(ii) it also enables the tracing of criminal proceeds to facilitate their preservation, recovery and ultimate
return to their rightful owner. In the case of State assets which have been pilfered by corrupt officials, these
may be returned to their rightful use.

II. EFFECTS OF TERRORISM
Sri Lanka is a country that recently emerged from 30 years of terrorism unleashed by the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE). LTTE, albeit as a terrorist organization, has amassed a substantial amountof wealth through illegal activities, including drugs and arms smuggling, human smuggling, credit card fraud
and extortion from diaspora communities. In the circumstances, the government of Sri Lanka, together
with relevant international law enforcement agencies, is concentrating very much on investigating andprosecuting offenders whilst identifying and recovering all such ill-gotten wealth.

III. SRI LANKA’S INTERNATIONAL STATUS
In addition to the above, during the last decade or so, the state has been confronted with the challenge of
dealing with organized crime and proceeds of crime, most of which tend to take a transnational character. Sri
Lanka has been ranked 97th in the Corruption Perception Index 2009 of Transparency International which
reveals that bribery and corruption has to be dealt with comprehensively if the government is to ensuresustainable development and to attract legitimate and long term foreign direct investment. The above canbe identified as the principal areas in which the government needs to engage to deal with ill-gotten wealthand money laundering. It is in this context that Sri Lanka, during the last five years or so, initiated many
legislative and institutional reforms. At international level Sri Lanka is a signatory to many international andregional conventions and initiatives on anti-corruption and money laundering, including the United Nations
Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).

IV. LEGAL FRAMEWORK TO ERADICATE BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION
Sri Lanka opened its economy in 1978, heralding an era of open economy bringing with it both positive
and negative dynamics. A free market economy necessitated deregulation and removing of controls which* Senior State Counsel, Attorney General’s Department, Sri Lanka.

68146TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ AND COURSE COUNSELLORS’ PAPERS

were interpreted as impeding economic activity, particularly those of a transnational nature. This sudden
and at times ad hoc deregulation also resulted in the inability of the government to effectively monitor anddeal with sophisticated crimes, particularly economic crimes - hallmarks of bribery, corruption and money
laundering.
The Sri Lankan legal framework can be approached and analysed in two phases. The first phase iscomprised of the legislation enacted in the post-independence period, from 1948 until the end of the lastcentury. This legislation primarily relates to bribery and corruption (Bribery Act of 1950), the emphasisbeing more on punishing the offender and to some extent utilizing that as a deterrence to would-be
offenders . The Act was enforced by a dedicated department and the prosecutions were on indictment by
the Attorney General. In the mid 1970s, supporting legislation was enacted emphasizing the importanceof transparency by requiring public officials to make an annual declaration of their personal assets andthose of their immediate family members. An officer was required to explain if this declaration disclosed
a disproportionate increase in the assets of the official concerned when compared to his or her legitimate
sources of income. However, this legislation was not complied with at an optimal level.
The second phase can be analysed as the period from early 1990s to date. The legal framework waschanged with the introduction of an independent institution (Permanent Commission to Investigate
Allegations of Bribery and Corruption) which was vested with the power of direct indictment andanswerable only to the Parliament.

A. Prevention of Money Laundering Act
A significant milestone is the changes that were taking place in the international arena as a responseto the 9/11 terrorist attack: the investigation into aspects of terrorist financing. In keeping with theinternational trends and in view of the increase in the level of terrorist activity in Sri Lanka, the government
enacted the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (No. 05 of 2006). This Act basically related the crime
and the resultant liability to activities such as transacting, receiving, possessing, concealing or investing
property derived directly or otherwise from an unlawful activity with the knowledge that such property
had been derived from such unlawful activity. The law went on to provide an inclusive reference to thetypes of activities that could attract liability under this Act. These included dangerous drugs, terrorism,
bribery, corruption, firearms and explosives, foreign currency transactions, transnational organized crimes,
cybercrimes, child pornography and trafficking of persons.
Section 2 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act makes the Act applicable in relation to:(a) A person who commits an offence under the provisions of this Act whilst being resident in Sri Lanka;(b) An Institution which is used for the commission of an offence under the provisions of this Act, which
Institution is carrying on business in Sri Lanka and is either incorporated or registered in Sri Lanka or iseither incorporated or registered as a branch of a bank incorporated or registered outside Sri Lanka.
The new law provides for the imposition of penal sanctions in respect of persons found guilty by the highcourt of the commission of the offence of money laundering. They are sentenced (i) to a fine not less thanthe value of the property in respect of which the offence was committed and not more than three times thatvalue; or (ii) to rigorous imprisonment for a period of not less than five years and not more than twenty
years; or (iii) to both such fine and imprisonment. Further, the assets of the person convicted, including
the assets derived directly or indirectly from the commission of the offence of money laundering, shall be
forfeited.

B. Financial Transactions Reporting Act
To assist in investigations and to ensure continuous monitoring the parliament enacted the Financial
Transactions Reporting Act (No. 06 of 2006) which set up a Financial Intelligence Unit to independently
monitor suspected financial transactions and to conduct further investigations as may be warranted if there
is reasonable suspicion that money laundering is taking place. The Financial Transactions Reporting Act
was enacted with the objective of collecting of data relating to suspicious financial transactions to facilitate
the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of the offenders of money laundering and thefinancing of terrorism respectively. The Act also operates to require certain institutions to undertake due
diligence measures to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism, and this act seeks to provide
extensive supervisory powers to monitor the activities of all financial institutions.
69

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.83

The law sets out entities that would monitor criminal activities of financial industry institutions, dealers
in various goods and services, casinos, gambling houses or lottery owners and extends to even service
providers such as lawyers, accountants, and estate agents. The law provides to issue freezing orders toprevent money being siphoned off during the investigation period. It also provides for the forfeiture of
wealth derived from a predicate offence.

C. Financial Intelligence Unit
The Report of the Sri Lanka Financial Intelligence Unit issued by the Central Bank in November 2006
details the nature, composition and the functions of the Financial Intelligence Unit in Sri Lanka as well as in
the other countries, as follows:“FIUs vary from country to country, but all of them share three core functions which are, to receive,
analyse and disseminate information, to combat Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, which is
required to be undertaken both domestically and internationally. Since Money Laundering is often a crossborder activity, there is the need for FIUs to join forces with other intelligence units. Despite the best
domestic laws and regulations against money laundering, including those for a FIU, the need for an effective
information sharing mechanism is crucial. Financial Institutions are mandated to generate suspicious
activity reports and other mandated disclosures, such as cash transaction reports, and forward them to the
FIU. The centralization of this function and designating the FIU as the receiver of financial information isfundamental for effective prevention, both in a national and international framework for Money Laundering.
Centralization also ensures greater efficiency in information gathering. There are various types of models
of operational FIUs. For Sri Lanka, the authorities have chosen the Administrative Model. This model isusually part of the structure, or under the supervision of, an administration or an agency other than Law
Enforcement or Judicial Authorities. Accordingly, in Sri Lanka the FIU has been established by Gazette
Order, No.1437/24 of 23rd March, 2006 as a special unit in the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, reporting directly
to the Governor and the Monetary Board.’’“Financial Transactions Reporting Regulation No.1 was issued whereby, the reporting threshold forthe purposes of Section 6(a ) of the FTRA was determined to be, any transaction exceeding Rs.1, 000,000
in cash, or its equivalent in foreign currency. In terms of Section 6(b ) the threshold for the reporting ofelectronic fund transfers (EFTs) was determined to be, transfers in excess of Rs.1, 000, 000 or its equivalent
in foreign currency. The banks, in the first instance, were required to set up AML & CFT regimes and werealso advised to report all mandated Cash Transactions, Electronic Fund Transfers meeting the stipulated
threshold and any Suspected Transactions relating to money laundering and terrorist funding activities.”

D. Requirement to Maintain Records
In order to monitor the functions of the financial institutions, Section 4(1) of the Financial Transactions
Reporting Act requires the financial institutions to maintain records of transactions and of correspondence
relating to transactions and records of all reports furnished to the Financial Intelligence Unit for a period of
six years from the date of the transaction, correspondence or the furnishing of the report.
E. Obligation to Report to Financial Intelligence Unit
Section 6 of the Financial Transactions Act requires the Financial Institutions to report on Financial
Transactions. Accordingly, an Institution shall report to the Financial Intelligence Unit any transaction ofan amount in cash exceeding such sum as shall be prescribed by the Minister by Order published in theGazette, or its equivalent in any foreign currency (unless the recipient and the sender is a bank licensed by
the Central Bank); and any electronic funds transfer at the request of a customer exceeding such sum asshall be prescribed by regulation.
F. Power of Courts to make Seizure and Forfeiture Orders
Upon an application made to High Court of Colombo under Section 26 of the Financial Transaction
Reporting Act, the courts can grant an order of continued detention of the cash and bearer instruments
seized under Subsection 4 of Section 24 or 25 for a period not exceeding three months. Furthermore,
under Section 26(2) of the Act, the Court may subsequently Order, after hearing, with notice to parties, thecontinued detention of the cash and negotiable bearer instruments if satisfied of the matters mentioned in
section 26(1) but the total period of detention shall not exceed two years from the date of the Order.

70

146TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ AND COURSE COUNSELLORS’ PAPERS

However, according to Section 26(4), no cash or negotiable bearer instruments detained under Section
26 shall be released where it is relevant to an investigation, prosecution or proceeding under the Preventionof Money Laundering Act, No. 5 of 2006 or the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Financing Act,
No. 25 of 2005. Under Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, No. 5 of 2006: ‘‘Where aperson is convicted of the offence of money laundering, the Court convicting such person shall, make Orderthat any movable or immovable property of such person derived or realised, directly or indirectly from any
unlawful activity, be forfeited to the State free from all encumbrances.’’ Further, under Section 13(4) the
Court making the Order of Forfeiture may presume that any movable or immovable property belonging
to the person convicted of the offence of money laundering is derived or realised, directly or indirectly,
from any unlawful activity if such property is not commensurate with the known sources of income of such
person, and the holding of which cannot be explained on a balance of probabilities, to the satisfaction of the
Court. The burden of proof for the convicted person to prove the sources of income is a civil burden of proof,
which in fact favours the convicted person.
Under Section 5 of the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Financing Act the court is empowered
to make forfeiture orders against the offences specified in Section 3 of the said Act. Accordingly, forfeitureorders could be made against any person who, by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and wilfully
provides or collects funds, with the intention that such funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they
are to be used or having reason to believe that they are likely to be used, in full or in part, in order to commit
any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to civilians or to any other person not taking anactive part in the hostilities, in a situation of armed conflict, and the purpose of such act, by its nature orcontext, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization, to do or
to abstain from doing any act, and who is therefore guilty of the offence of financing of terrorists or terrorist
organizations.
Moreover, freezing and seizure orders also could be made under Section 4 of the Convention on the
Suppression of Terrorist Financing Act against any person indicted by the Attorney General in the High
Court for offences specified in Section 3 of the Act. If such funds are lying in an account with any Bank, theyshall be subject to an order of freezing, or if such funds are in the possession or control of any person, theyshall be liable to seizure. On the filing of indictment, the Attorney-General shall notify the Central Bank of
the freezing or seizure as the case may be.
Further, at the conclusion of the case where the cash or negotiable bearer instruments have not been
claimed by any person within one year of it being seized or detained, an authorized officer may make anapplication to the Court that such cash or negotiable instrument, or its equivalent in Sri Lankan rupees,
upon sale to the Central Bank, as the case may be, be forfeited to the Consolidated Fund under Section 26(5)of the Financial Transactions Reporting Act.
In order to facilitate an investigation into offences of money laundering, the law seeks to authorize an
investigator to, upon application to a magistrate obtain an order, receive any document relevant to suchinvestigation from any person, including information relating to any identified transaction from any covered
entity.
In addition to the aforementioned orders of the courts, the Financial Transactions Reporting Act has also
empowered authorized officers to make orders of seizure and detention. Accordingly, under Section 25 of
the Act, an authorized officer may seize and, in accordance with the provisions of this part, detain any cash
or negotiable bearer instruments which are being imported into, or exported from, Sri Lanka in any formor manner, if he or she has reasonable grounds for suspecting that it is derived from the commission of any
unlawful activity or intended by any person for use in the commission of an unlawful activity or intended
to be used for or in connection with an offence connected with the financing of terrorism in terms of theConvention on the Suppression of Terrorist Financing Act, No. 25 of 2005.

G. Financial Institutions must exercise Due Diligence
The liability of financial institutions to monitor financial transactions of their customers also has beenbroadened in the Financial Transactions Reporting Act under Section 5. This requires the institutions toexercise due diligence and scrutiny of customers on transactions. Accordingly, an Institution shall conductongoing due diligence on the business relationship with its customer, and conduct ongoing scrutiny of any
71

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.83

transaction undertaken throughout the course of the business relationship with a customer to ensure thatany transaction that is being conducted is consistent with the Institution's knowledge of the customer,
the customer's business and risk profile, including, where necessary, the source of funds. However, theeffectiveness of this section is weakened due to the lack of technical capacity of certain financial institutions
to monitor complex and sophisticated transactions that occur through their institutions.
Furthermore, until very recently in Sri Lanka, the existence of unregistered financial institutions
was a common phenomenon. These institutions even had the capacity to engage in foreign transactions.
The deposits and transactions through such unregistered institutions were not on record. Therefore no
documentary evidence was available and this hindered investigations into corrupt financial transactions.
Therefore, statutorily requiring the financial institutions to exercise due diligence on transactions is an
improvement, but such improvement may be meaningful only if the institutions are provided with thenecessary technical capacity to monitor the financial transactions. The existence of such unregisteredfinancial institutions created a gap between the international and local laws but currently every such
unregistered financial institution must register with the Central Bank of Sri Lanka which is also the
Financial Intelligence Unit and the regulator of all financial institutions. According to the “Know Your
Customer” guidelines, all licensed banks are to conduct due diligence on all customers involved in crossborder financial transactions and ensure that all requirements under the relevant statutes are met.
Therefore, domestic laws have to a certain extent reduced the gap between international and local laws.

H. FIU may refer Matters for Investigations
The Financial Intelligence Unit has the power to refer any matter to the relevant authorities responsible
for carrying out investigations (Financial Investigating Unit in the Criminal Investigating Department) on
reasonable grounds. Accordingly, Section 15(1)(f) of the Financial Transactions Reporting Act No. 06 of 2006
states that the Financial Intelligence Unit shall refer any matter or any information derived from any reportor information it receives to the appropriate law enforcement agency if, on the basis of its analysis andassessment, the Financial Intelligence Unit has reasonable grounds to suspect that the transaction would be
relevant to the investigation or prosecution under this Act or of an act constituting an unlawful activity, andin connection therewith, the Financial Intelligence Unit may send a copy of such referral or information to
the relevant supervisory authority.
I. Exchange of Information with Foreign Law-Enforcing Agencies
Furthermore, the Financial Intelligence Unit can disclose to any foreign institution or agency any reportor information. This is set out in Section 16 of the Financial Transactions Reporting Act which allows the
Financial Intelligence Unit to share any information received on proceeds of crime and evidence gathered
in investigations with any other foreign agencies. Section 16 sets out that the Financial Intelligence Unit
may disclose any report or information to an institution or agency of a foreign state or of an internationalorganization or body or other institution or agency established by the Government of a foreign State that has
powers and duties similar to those of the Financial Intelligence Unit on such terms and conditions as are set
out in the agreement or arrangement between the Financial Intelligence Unit and an institution, agency ororganization or authority regarding the exchange of such information under Section 17.
Section 17 of the Financial Transactions Reporting Act provides for, subject to the approval of the
Minister in charge, working in co-operation with other international organizations which possess powers
and duties similar to those of the Financial Intelligence Unit. Accordingly this section allows the Financial
Intelligence Unit to enter into agreement with other foreign law enforcement agencies and foreign
supervisory authorities in order to exchange information and evidence. The information exchanged in suchagreements may not only benefit the Financial Intelligence Unit in Sri Lanka in investigations, but also theforeign law enforcement agencies. Science and technology in South Asia is not as developed as in westerncountries. Therefore, the Asian region is a shelter for fugitives from western countries. This problem could
be arrested in Sri Lanka with the aid of agreements entered into with other international organizations, as
the purpose of such agreements is exchange of information. Therefore, information thus exchanged willassist to capture fugitives from foreign countries who take shelter in Sri Lanka. These agreements advancemutual assistance between Sri Lanka and foreign countries to eradicate the crime of money laundering andcapture fugitives.

72

146TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ AND COURSE COUNSELLORS’ PAPERS

J. Extradition Arrangements
Section 31 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, No. 05 2006 provides for extradition
arrangements. Accordingly, where there is an extradition arrangement in force between the Governmentof Sri Lanka and the Government of any other State, such arrangement shall be deemed, for the purposesof the Extradition Law, No. 8 of 1977, to include provision for extradition in respect of the offence ofmoney laundering as defined in this Act, and of attempting or conspiring to commit, aiding and abetting
the commission of, or conspiring to commit, such offence. Moreover, under Section 32 of the same Act theGovernment shall afford such assistance (including the supply of any relevant evidence at its disposal) to
the relevant authorities of any foreign State as may be necessary in connection with criminal proceedings
instituted in the State against any person, in respect of an offence under the law of that State corresponding
to the offence of money laundering. This promotes international co-operation between Sri Lanka and otherforeign jurisdictions to tackle the problem of money laundering.
K. Assistance to Foreign Jurisdictions for Anti-Money Laundering Efforts
Under Section 31 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act No. 25 of 2002, Sri Lanka will makearrangements for persons to give evidence or assist investigations if it receives a request by a specified
country for a prisoner in Sri Lanka to give evidence or assist in investigations. Accordingly, where a
proceeding or an investigation relating to a criminal matter has commenced in a specified country, and theappropriate authority of that specified country requests the removal of a prisoner who is in Sri Lanka, forthe purposes of giving evidence at a hearing in connection with such proceeding or of giving assistancein relation to such investigation, as the case may be, being of the opinion that such prisoner is capable ofgiving evidence relevant to such proceeding, or of giving assistance in relation to such investigation, directin writing the release of such prisoner from prison for the purposes of removal to the specified country andmake arrangements for the travel of such prisoner to the specified country.
Additionally, under Section 27 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Sri Lanka may give assistanceto commonwealth countries in investigations and prosecution of offences. Sri Lanka will give the sameassistance to countries other than Commonwealth countries upon entering in to agreement with suchcountries.
Accordingly, the provisions of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, No. 25 of 2002 shall,wherever it is necessary for the investigation and prosecution of an offence under Section 2 of this Act,
be applicable in respect of the providing of assistance as between the Government of Sri Lanka and otherStates who are either (a) Commonwealth countries specified by the Minister by Order under Section 2 of theaforesaid Act; or (b) Non-Commonwealth countries with which the Government of Sri Lanka entered into
an agreement in terms of the aforesaid Act. In the case of a country which is neither (a) nor (b) above, thenit shall be the duty of the Government to afford all such assistance to such a country, and the Government
may, through the Minister, request all such assistance from such country as may be necessary for theinvestigation and prosecution of an offence.

L. Monitoring Powers of the FIU
Tamil Rehabilitation Organization (TRO) which claims to be engaged in humanitarian operations in Sri
Lanka for the welfare of the victims of war, for several years had been suspected by the Government of Sri
Lanka and the Central Bank to have been engaged in Terrorist Financing activities. The TRO network in
Sri Lanka has for several years received large sums of money to their bank accounts in Sri Lanka from theirforeign network. Investigations were carried out based on this suspicion which resulted in the arresting ofvarious persons nationally and internationally, connected to TRO. Following the investigations, the Financial
Intelligence Unit made an application under the Financial Transactions reporting Act, in the High Court ofColombo, to freeze the funds of the TRO in local bank accounts, which amounted to over 20 million rupees.
The wide powers given by the Financial Transactions Reporting Act to the Financial Intelligence Unitfacilitated the making of such an application in the High Court in order to combat terrorism.
The Financial Transactions Reporting Act has granted dominant monitoring powers to the Financial
Intelligence Unit under Section 18 to examine books and records of the financial institutions. Accordingly,
the Financial Intelligence Unit, or any person authorized by it, may examine the records and inquire into thebusiness and affairs of an Institution for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the Act or any directions,73

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.83

orders, rules or regulations issued under the Act, and for that purpose may, at any reasonable time, enter
any premises in which the Financial Intelligence Unit or authorized person believes, on reasonable grounds,
that there are records relevant to ensuring compliance with the provisions, or use or cause to be used any
computer system or data processing system found in the premises, to examine any data contained in oravailable to the system.

M. National Procurement Agency
Sri Lanka has provided for a National Procurement Agency in order to facilitate the fight against
corruption and money laundering. The National Procurement Agency operates with the vision to berecognized as an esteemed and dynamic public entity, promoting an efficient and effective, transparent andaccountable public procurement system. The objective of the National Procurement Agency is to streamline
the government procurement system and standardize the same to be of equal application to all government
institutions, to ensure better transparency and good governance in relation to government procurement
awards and to put in place a monitoring system in relation to selection of successful bidders and awards ofgovernment procurements. The National Procurement Agency must work in co-operation with the Financial
Intelligence Unit to provide information regarding the bidders of contracts involving large amounts of money,
to prevent any possibility of money laundering activities.
V. AREAS THAT REQUIRE FURTHER ATTENTION
Recent geographical surveys indicate that the formation of the sea bed provides evidence of possible oil
deposits. If true, Sri Lanka will be the recipient of huge financial resources. To ensure that these financial
resources are legitimate and to prevent Sri Lanka from being used as a place to launder money, it is essentialthat the legal framework relating to money laundering and terrorist financing is well understood, efficiently
enforced and constantly updated.
Furthermore, Sri Lanka is an economy which is endeavouring to emerge from a 30 year fight against
terrorism. As a result, the infrastructure of Sri Lanka is destroyed and under-developed. With the end of
the war, the Government is intensely engaged in ‘Mega Development Projects’ to boost the economy anddevelop infrastructure. Large foreign direct investments are made in Sri Lanka by foreign governments andprivate companies. Consequently, a large sum of money is flowing into the country. Therefore, the Central
Bank, through the Financial Intelligence Unit, must exercise proper and substantial supervision over thatmoney to prevent money laundering activities that may occur in the guise of foreign direct investments.

VI. CONCLUSION
Corruption is a multi-faceted problem that requires a multi-faceted solution. A number of different tools,
both legal and non-legal, need to be used to deter the commission of the offence in the first place and, where
the offence is committed, to prevent those who have committed it from enjoying the proceeds of theircrime. Though anti-money laundering efforts cannot put a stop to corruption, it can be very effective inachieving the latter aim, especially in cases of grand corruption. Anti-money laundering efforts can also playa significant role in tracing and recovering the proceeds of corruption. Whenever this occurs the far-reaching
negative effects and implications of corrupt behaviour, especially grand corruption, may be assuaged.

74