Your source doesn't quite say what you are implying. They define corruption thusly:

>Generally speaking as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain”. Corruption can be classified as grand, petty and political, depending on the amounts of money lost and the sector where it occurs.

>Grand corruption consists of acts committed at a high level of government that distort policies or the central functioning of the state, enabling leaders to benefit at the expense of the public good. Petty corruption refers to everyday abuse of entrusted power by low- and mid-level public officials in their interactions with ordinary citizens, who often are trying to access basic goods or services in places like hospitals, schools, police departments and other agencies.

>Political corruption is a manipulation of policies, institutions and rules of procedure in the allocation of resources and financing by political decision makers, who abuse their position to sustain their power, status and wealth. See animated definitions of many corruption terms in our Anti-corruption Glossary.

The link you provided measures the PERCEPTION of corruption. It is perfectly plausible for there to be a huge amount of corruption and very little perception of corruption depending on many factors. The source describes it thusly:

>No. The CPI is an indicator of perceptions of public sector corruption, i.e.
administrative and political corruption. It is not a verdict on the levels of corruption of
entire nations or societies, or of their policies, or the activities of their private sector.
Citizens of those countries/territories that score at the lower end of the CPI often
show the same concern about and condemnation of corruption as the public in
countries that perform strongly.

Their data sources primarily asks 'experts' which they define differently (additionally, one specifically asks business executives, one includes the general public, and one doesn't clearly specify) whether they perceive corruption to be an issue. While the exact questions vary, these two seem like representative examples:

>In your country, how common is it for firms to make undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with the following

and

>First, how do you grade the problem of corruption in the country in which you are working? Second, has corruption decreased, stayed the same or increased compared with one year ago? Third, what aspects or implications of corruption in your country stand out to you as being particularly important?

If the majority of the populace feels that seizure of drug profits is warranted, and the police generally label everything seized 'drug profits' than it is perfectly feasible that is an accepted narrative without any meaningful evidence being provided. They are the type of people who exist and are privileged by the normative power hierarchies in that society (hence the term 'expert' being applied to them by peers). These are the people least likely to experience that type of corruption/oppression...by design

All of this comes down to the data they select. Your source uses the exact type of data which would hide corruption by this definition. That effect comes both through the selection of questions and the selection of people who will answer those questions. Their implementation of their definition of corruption largely results in a study of whether those with social capital feel like society treats them and their businesses fairly. It seems a poor metric of the types of systematic (designed) corruption experienced by others on a regular basis.