Monthly Archives: March 2025

So That’s Why the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative Was Abolished

Posted on by
1

Thanks to Alexis Loeb’s March 26 Lawfare post, another Trump Administration attack on the global effort to curb corruption has been revealed. Buried in Attorney General Bondi’s February 5 Memorandum making the elimination of drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations the Justice Department’s number one priority, she reports, is an order disbanding the Department’s Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative.

Loeb does a fine job of explaining what a loss its dissolution will be to the international fight against corruption, recounting its efforts to help nations around the world battle kleptocracy. Among its successes: Initiative’s lawyers forced notorious kleptocrat Nguema Obiang, Equatorial Guinea’s Vice President, to forfeit nearly $30 million in assets, and their efforts resulted in the return of millions stolen by Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha and former Uzbekistan “first daughter” Gulnara Karimova to their countries. The blockbuster was 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). With the Initiative’s assistance, Malaysia has so far recovered $6.5 billion in stolen assets from the thieves (here). Indeed, Jeff Sessions, Trump’s first Attorney General, called the 1MDB scandal “kleptocracy at its worst,” and lauded the help the Initiative provided Malaysia’s government (here).

But Loeb leaves the big question unanswered. Why in the world would AG Bondi disband such a valuable unit? Especially since, when assets are forfeited to the U.S. government, the staff time and expenses incurred were covered.

Thanks to Washington Post reporter Peter Whoriskey’s story in today’s paper, we now have the answer.

Continue reading →

Conference on Global Capitalism, Trust and Accountability

Posted on by
Reply

Can democratic governments hold global capital accountable? What are the consequences if they fail?  

These are the questions that will be examined at an April 4 and 5 conference at Stanford University. Among the issues speakers will address are the law and politics of corruption, opacity and illicit flows, and corporate misconduct and the law.

The live streamed event is being organized by Stanford’s Program on Capitalism and Democracy and is co-sponsored by its Graduate School of Business and the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies . In addition to academic authorities, speakers include Judge Jed Rakoff, Kenya corruption fighter John Githongo, TI USA Director Gary Kalman, and Italian prosecutor Fabio de Paquale.  

Registration and program details here.

An Assessment of the Swiss Return of Stolen Assets to Uzbekistan

Posted on by
Reply

The return of assets stolen by corrupt means is “a fundamental principle” of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, and the Convention mandates that its now 191 state parties “afford one another the widest measure of cooperation and assistance” to ensure states victimized by corruption recover the proceeds of the crime wherever they are located (article 51).

Easy enough to state the principle. And easy enough to implement where the victim state’s leaders are democratically chosen, committed to advancing citizens’ well-being, and corruption is under control. But what if those conditions don’t hold? What if the same kleptocrats who stole the assets are still in power? Even if the crooks have been purged, so long as autocrats run the government, what guarantee is there that the assets won’t simply enrich the current powerholders? Or worse yet, fund measure to further repress their citizens?

As my friend and former Soros Foundation colleague Alisher Ilkhamov describes in the current issue of Central Asian Due Diligence (here), Switzerland is working through these issues as it begins to return to Uzbekistan the several hundred million dollars the former president’s daughter Gulnara Karimova stole. Uzbekistan’s government is a step above where it was when Gulnara set the record for shaking down foreign investors, but a budding democracy it is not. By a long shot.

Alisher describes the conditions Switzerland attached to the return of a first tranche of $131 million in 2022, how they were implemented, and how that experience should inform the recent agreement between Switzerland and Uzbekistan to return another $182 million. His assessment will be of value to policymakers everywhere wrestling with the return of stolen assets to states that fall far short of democratic, good governance norms.

Who Will Defend the FCPA?

Posted on by
Reply

Last month President Trump ordered Attorney General Bondi to “cease initiation of any new FCPA investigations or enforcement actions” while she determines whether the way the act is now enforced advances American interests. If she finds it is not, the Presidential Executive Order directs her to revise the current enforcement guidelines. In theory any revision will be driven by what an objective review finds; in fact Trump’s February 10 order has loaded the dice. It starts off proclaiming FCPA enforcement:

“has been systematically, and to an increasing degree, stretched beyond proper bounds and abused in a manner that harms the interests of the United States”

It continues:

“Overexpansive and unpredictable FCPA enforcement against American citizens and businesses … for routine business practices in other nations … wastes limited prosecutorial resources [and] actively harms American economic competitiveness.

These claims are patently false — as those who have watched the uptick in FCPA prosecutions or been involved in them know.  They must now speak up: To prevent Trump and Bondi from derailing one of the most successful efforts to fight global corruption since the international community made it a priority.

The list of witnesses is long. It includes not only American executives, lawyers, FBI investigators and federal prosecutors but the counterparts in countries rich and poor who have worked with them to curb the scourge of bribery. They need to present the “true facts” to Attorney General Bondi to counter the “alternate facts” in the Trump order.

Already two former OECD General Counsels and three former chairs of its Working Group on Bribery have. In a February letter to Bondi they explain that the FCPA has advanced American interests by protecting “US companies from unfair practices by foreign companies” and they go on to provide additional evidence and reasons why FCPA enforcement policy requires little if any revision. Others need to go on record with stories of how and where enforcement measures helped American businesses and created good will for American interests generally.

Given Bondi’s unwavering fealty to Trump, the real facts are unlikely to stand in the way of her making drastic changes in FCPA enforcement, but changes will be subject to challenge in both a court of law and the court of public opinion. The more evidence on the record that that current enforcement policy advances American interests, the more likely any misguided revisions will be rejected.

Bondi has until August 9 to complete her review with the possibility of a 180 day extension. The sooner the true facts are on the record and the alternate ones revealed as half-truths existing in an alternate universe, the better. Submissions should be addressed to: The Honorable Pamela Bondi with the salutation Dear Attorney General Bondi: Her address:

  •  950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
  •  Washington, D.C. 20530

GAB would be pleased to receive and share with readers copies of any submission.

Will the Outgoing Namibian President Pardon the Fishrot Defendants?

Posted on by
Reply

On August 4 two former Namibian ministers, other once high-ranking government officials, and their accomplices go on trial for stealing millions of dollars from Namibian citizens. Unless, that is, President Nangolo Mbumba pardons them before leaving office March 20.

The pardon would not only subvert the rule of law but indelibly tarnish ruling party SWAPO’s legacy. 

SWAPO, the South West Africa People’s Organization, began life fighting to free Namibians from the grip of apartheid South Africa. Since securing Namibia’s independence in 1990, the party has won the respect of democracy advocates everywhere. In contrast to Mozambique’s FRELIMO and Angola’s MPLA, it has begun the transition from a tightly disciplined, brook-no-opposition guerilla army to a broad-based political party.

SWAPO is not all the way there yet, but seeing that senior party members are held accountable for taking bribes in Fishrot, where Icelandic fishing giant Samerherji paid defendants and possibly other SWAPO members for the rights to fish off the Namibian coast, is surely a major stride forward. (Fishrot details here, here, here, here)

The trial could well put on display more of the party’s dirty laundry. Hence the reason why some in the party’s inner-circle are pressuring President Nangolo to pardon the crooks. Their argument: a pardon will clear the decks for incoming President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah to carry through on needed reforms without the distraction of Fishrot prosecutions. And Nangolo is retiring and so can take the political fall out from letting defendants off the hook.

The truth is the inner-circle’s real motive is nakedly self-serving. During the campaign, Nandi-Ndaitwah made her commitment to the rule of law crystal clear, virtually ensuring she will neither derail the prosecution nor lighten defendants’ sentences if, as expected, they are convicted. Indeed, some in SWAPO’s inner-circle fear she may countenance civil suits to force all those responsible for Fishrot, including those insiders pushing pardons, to compensate Fishrot victims for the tremendous harms the bribery caused them. (Damages fisherman suffered documented here and here.)

Will those among SWAPO’s founders committed to a liberal democratic, corruption-free future for Namibia join with the party’s younger, more progressive members to persuade President Mbumba to leave office honorably? To ensure that the efforts revered party founder Sam Nujoma and others have made to set SWAPO and Namibia on the democratic path continue?