In pursuit of fees!
Corruption like beauty, it is said, is really in the eye of the beholder. It is subjective, depending on a host of factors that affect some rather differently than others. Well, those who justify, as we seem to, an open textured approach to the problem – at least when it has commercial implications, might be surprised to learn that recently researchers have discovered aspects of the human brain which allow an objective prediction of what will be considered beautiful, at least in terms of attraction. Perhaps if we refined our sense of smell, we would be able to better determine corruption when we encountered it in and around our own government.
Many years ago, as a very young public servant, being informed by a much older and wiser official, that the reason why we do not have an anti-corruption agency in Britain and do not need one, is that our cases are minor, invariably involving local councillors with ideas beyond their station and party. That official rose very high in the ranks of those charged with protecting our values and standards. Of course, while pursuing corruption has been dumped on the City of London Police and to some extent SOCA, we still do not have an anti-corruption agency that would be easily recognised as such. Indeed, at a recent international conference on the UN Convention on Corruption hosted by the International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities, it was clear that in minds of most countries represented we did not have a dedicated anti-corruption agency within the spirit of the Convention. Indeed, this view was somewhat confirmed by the fact that the British Government was not represented at all! Of course, the meeting did take place in June, when civil servants were perhaps thinking more of their holidays, ministers their future and the Attorney General, well ...!
Of course, our police and prosecutors are generally very able to pursue cases involving crimes associated with corruption, albeit not always using the specific offences relating to corrupt practices. Indeed, as even bodies such as the famous Independent Commission Against Corruption in Hong Kong has learnt, it is often more efficacious to utilise other offences which are more easily proved and understood by juries – and judges, and in recent years particularly those relating to the laundering and concealment of illicit wealth. It is perhaps not sufficiently appreciated yet, how much emphasis the UN Convention places on taking the profit out of corruption and in particular asset recovery. While Chapter V of this excellent Convention is devoted to asset recover and Article 51 states that, “the return of assets ... is a fundamental principle of this Convention...” most of the other provisions directly or indirectly relate to the pursuit and interdiction of criminal assets relating to corruption. Indeed, some of perhaps the most significant provisions are found elsewhere in the Convention. For example, the criminalisation of illicit enrichment, which will in effect create a presumption of corruption where an official has assets that he cannot explain, or the abrogation of financial privacy in cases of suspected corruption, or the privatisation of enforcement through the grant of standing and the availability of compensatory and restitutory claims.
Of course, to some at the meeting to which I have referred, it seemed rather rich that the British Government through organisations, such as the Crown Agents, is offering training in related areas of enforcement in exotic locations around the world, and the Department for International Development is co-sponsoring a new private sector centre – based in Switzerland for assisting in the civil recovery of assets. Obviously all in pursuit of a wider“public interest” just like the BAE case. Sadly, however, our credibility in the international arena depends on more than sending retired customs and police officers to Malaysia, no matter how able, and funding academics, no matter how distinguished and well connected, in Basle.
Barry Rider
