UNISHKA Research Service, a worldwide alliance dedicated to fostering ethics and integrity in government, business, and society, is developing directories showing for each country where to find property records, business registrations, and other information on who holds what assets. The project is adding countries at a rate of 1-2 per week.
A screenshot of the first page of the Qatar directory is below. Link to the full page here.
Central Asia Due Diligence and the Uzbek Forum for Human Rights have identified the latest fallout from the Trump Administration’s destruction of American institutions devoted to fighting global corruption. The governments of Belgium and Uzbekistan have each pocketed $108 million in stolen assets that should have gone to the people of Uzbekistan.
In this just released paper, the two human rights NGOs explain how the demise of the Department of Justice’s Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative allowed the two governments to ignore provisions in the UN Convention Against Corruption and the principles of the Global Forum on Asset Recovery that together bar assets stolen by a corrupt official from being kept by the government of the country where the official stashed them or returned to the official’s corrupt cronies.
Lawyers for the Initiative had designed a sophisticated process (details here) to see the $216 million in bribes to former Uzbek first daughter Gulnara Karimova found in Belgian banks DoJ would go to the UN trust fund overseeing development programs in Uzbekistan. With the Initiative’s demise, the Belgian and Uzbek governments apparently saw no reason they should not divvy up the money between them.
So thanks to the Trump Administration, Belgium, one of the world’s wealthiest countries, is now $108 million wealthier, and Uzbek’s leaders, several Gulnara’s accomplices, now have $108 million to spend keeping themselves in power. Meanwhile, the citizens of Uzbekistan, GDP per capita $3,500, scrape by.
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 readingThe 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.
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:
GAB would be pleased to receive and share with readers copies of any submission.
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?
To say it is hard to get around in Nigeria is an understatement. Only about 30% of Nigeria’s roads are paved. And even the paved roads are in terrible condition, with crater-sized potholes, stagnant pools of water, floods of waste, and disintegrating tarmac. Everyday commuters, who often sit in traffic for up to five hours daily, regard Nigeria’s roads as “death traps,” “deplorable,” and “dilapidated.” The low quality of Nigeria’s roads not only increases insecurity but also poses a major impediment to economic progress.
The poor quality of roads is not the result of insufficient funding allocated for road construction. Indeed, the Nigerian government has spent enormous amounts of money on road construction projects (approximately $922.2 million just last year). If this money was going where it was supposed to go, Nigeria’s roads should at least be decent. But the money is not going where it’s supposed to go. Very often construction firms bribe public officials to secure road contracts, and then the firms recoup the loss of the bribe by using low quality materials and substandard construction methods, resulting in roads that do not last even up to seven years. In some cases, contractors simply pocket the government money and disappear, abandoning their projects but simply pocket the government money and disappear. To take an especially high profile example of how massive road projects can be tainted by suspicions of corruption, a recent $13 billion highway project, commenced by President Tinubu in May 2024, was awarded—with no regard for a public bidding process—to a company of whose subsidiary Tinubu’s son is a director. In fact, Tinubu’s son owned an offshore company with the son of the tycoon who received the contract. (In 2000, that tycoon was convicted of money laundering and helping the Abacha regime siphon at least $120 million from the Central Bank of Nigeria.) This road project has been criticized for its lack of transparency, alleged fraud, and risk of noncompletion.
In short, corruption is one of the most significant reasons for Nigeria’s terrible road system. But the most effective way to improve road quality in Nigeria is to focus not directly on the corruption—even though that is the root cause of the problem. Of course, corrupt acts, in this context and others, should be caught and punished. But, rather than relying primarily on detecting and punishing corruption, the more effective way to address this problem would be to establish effective mechanisms to hold contractors and public officials accountable for the quality of the roads that are ultimately built. Enforcing performance standards will reduce incentives to engage in corruption—at least the sorts of corruption that have a significant adverse impact on quality.
Continue readingThe UK Bribery Act 2010 has been widely heralded as “the gold standard” of anti-bribery laws, an “exemplary” statute that is “a lodestar for other countries.” That the UK is now seen as a “world leader” in the fight against foreign bribery, after years of being seen as a laggard, is due in no small part to UK Bribery Act’s most innovative aspect: the failure to prevent bribery offense under section 7. This section makes commercial organizations doing business in the UK criminally liable if they fail to prevent a person associated with their organization from bribing another for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an advantage for the organization. “Associated” persons are defined broadly as including anyone who performs services on behalf of the organization, including employees, contractors and agents. But companies can avoid liability for failure to prevent bribery if they can show that they had adopted “adequate procedures” to prevent such wrongdoing. This feature of the Act has received growing international endorsement. Numerous jurisdictions have adopted similar provisions (e.g. Australia, Kenya, Bermuda, Ireland, South Africa) or are considering doing so (New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong). Moreover, within the UK itself, this failure to prevent framework has been expanded to contexts such as tax evasion and fraud offenses, and is also being considered for tackling human rights harms, mistreatment of vulnerable persons and computer misuse offenses.
Yet despite such widespread praise, section 7, and the UK Bribery Act more generally, have their detractors. The main criticisms tend to fall into two categories. First, some have argued that section 7 has not been as effective in changing corporate behavior as might have reasonably been expected. Second, some have argued that section 7’s “adequate procedures” defense is too vague. Both of these criticisms are overstated. Continue reading
Anticorruption activists will almost certainly soon awake to more bad news about the Trump Administration and corruption: A Supreme Court decision upholding the sacking of the official responsible for protecting government whistleblowers.
A Trump win at the Supreme Court is bad news, both in legal and public relations terms. But the anticorruption community and those worried about Trump’s abuse of executive power should temper their laments. Especially because their lamentations will amplify the PR value of the win.
Continue readingCorruption fighters around the world are surely appalled at the Trump Administration’ s latest strike against the rule of law. And certainly heartened by the refusal of both politically-appointed and career prosecutors to be complicit.
On February 10 Acting Deputy Attorney General Emile Bove ordered federal prosecutor Danielle Sassoon to dismiss bribery charges pending against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Sassoon, a Trump appointee, resigned in protest. Bove then went down a list of career prosecutors hunting for someone who would obey his order. At last count seven had also resigned rather than carry out the order. Details on the still developing story from open sources are here, here, and here.
Continue reading
GAB | The Global Anticorruption Blog 