The Promise – and Risk – of Internationalizing the Corruption Fight: Prosecuting the Mozambique Loan Fraud

Posted on by
1

Manuel Chang, Mozambique’s longest serving Finance Minister, has just lost the first round in his attempt to duck U.S. charges he defrauded the Mozambique people out of some $2 billion.  A South African Magistrate ruled January 9 that Chang’s December 30 arrest in South Africa, requested by the U.S. Justice Department, was valid.  Assuming South Africa stands firm in the face of legal maneuvering by Chang and political pressure by the Mozambique government, Chang will join accomplices in a Brooklyn jail to await trial for corruption.

That the corruption trial of a former official of the one of the world’s poorest nations will be held in the courts of one of the world’s wealthiest and that whether there will be a trial turns on the strength of a third country’s legal system and the political resolve of its government shows both the promise – and the risk – of the internationalization of the fight against corruption. Continue reading →

Tracking Corruption and Conflicts of Interest in the Trump Administration–January 2019 Update

Posted on by
Reply

Since May 2017, GAB has been tracking credible allegations that President Trump, as well as his family members and close associates, are seeking to use the presidency to advance their personal financial interests, and providing monthly updates on media reports of such issues. The January 2019 update is now available here. There are a number of important (and disturbing) additions to this month’s update. Most notably:

  • Federal prosecutors are now investigating a range of possible legal violations related to Trump’s inauguration committee, which raised a record amount ($107 million) for President Trump’s inauguration. According to reports, there is evidence that much of this money was raised from questionable sources, and that much of it was spent in ways that brought windfall profits to the Trump Organization–in violation of various federal laws. In particular, on the fundraising side, it seems that both domestic and foreign interests donated heavily to the inaugural committee with the apparent intent of influencing US policy. And on the spending side, the inauguration committee spent heavily at Trump Organization properties, apparently at above-market rates. Though the investigation is ongoing, there’s at least suggestive evidence that the inauguration committee might have been a surreptitious way for interest groups and foreign governments to funnel money directly to the Trump family.
  • Previous editions of this tracking project have noted concerns about the Trump Organization’s past and current business dealings in the Dominican Republic. A recent Global Witness report suggests that although the Trump Organization claims that its current business in the Dominican Republic is a continuation of an older deal that started before Trump took office, in fact the Trump Organization and its local partner are pursuing an entirely new development project, in clear violation of President Trump’s pledge that the Trump Organization would not pursue any “new foreign deals” during his presidency.
  • Jared Kushner and his family stand to benefit personally from a federal program–the “Opportunity Zone” program–that offers large tax breaks to developers who invest in low-income neighborhoods. This program was heavily promoted by Ivanka Trump, Kushner’s wife, and though neither of them will play a direct formal role in determining which neighborhoods will be designated “opportunity zones” eligible for tax credits, there is an obvious conflict of interest concern, especially since the Kushner family owns multiple properties in areas that have already been designated as opportunity zones–including neighborhoods that are actually quite affluent.

As always, we note that while we try to include only those allegations that appear credible, we acknowledge that many of the allegations that we discuss are speculative and/or contested. We also do not attempt a full analysis of the laws and regulations that may or may not have been broken if the allegations are true. For an overview of some of the relevant federal laws and regulations that might apply to some of the alleged problematic conduct, see here.

Technical Foul: When Anticorruption Enforcement In Sports Goes Too Far

Posted on by
3

From the U.S. federal government prosecuting FIFA officials in New York City to Transparency International both announcing an organizational initiative on sports anticorruption and publishing a 398-page report on the topic, it seems clear that governments and NGOs alike have deemed sports corruption a high priority. One can debate whether sports corruption is sufficiently important to merit this level of attention, though there’s a case to be made (as Lauren Ross argued on this blog a few years back) that sports’ broad appeal, media coverage, and status as a symbol for fair competition together give anticorruption efforts in sports an importance that exceeds the direct social harm caused by, say, match fixing relative to other forms of corruption (like medicine theft). That said, just because there may be special value to sports-related anticorruption initiatives in general doesn’t mean that all legally viable sports-related anticorruption enforcement opportunities should be pursued. Indeed, over-emphasizing sports can lead to a dubious allocation of government resources, a problem illustrated by a recent US case (United States v. Gatto) in which several defendants were convicted for their roles in a college-basketball bribery scheme.

To understand the Gatto case, it’s important first to understand the underground economy for student-athletes. In the U.S., the non-profit National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) governs the $13-billion college sports industry, with most of the NCAA’s revenue coming from men’s college basketball. (If men’s college basketball programs could be bought and sold like professional sports franchises, the most valuable would be worth $342.6 million.) Critically, however, because of the NCAA’s amateurism rules, the student-athletes whose talent drives this industry can neither receive compensation from their universities (beyond cost-of-attendance athletic scholarships), nor earn money through endorsements, autographs, jersey sales, or any other monetization of their name or likeness. The value generated by the unpaid players is captured by others in this system, such as head coaches (who are the highest-paid public employees in 39 out of 50 states), NCAA executives, and university athletic directors. Given this system, it’s altogether unsurprising that top high-school basketball prospects often receive compensation for attending a given university via an underground economy. The corruption scheme at issue in Gatto was a particularly egregious example of this underground economy in action: Employees at an athletic-shoe company (Adidas), which sponsors a number of men’s college basketball programs, conspired with assistant coaches at those programs, and with an aspiring talent agent, to bribe elite high-school basketball prospects to attend the Adidas-affiliated universities. This deal looked to be win-win-win-win. The athletes benefited because they received compensation that better reflected their market value. Adidas benefited both from having elite college-basketball players wearing their brand on national television and from the increased probability that some of these players would sign an endorsement deal with Adidas if they turned professional. The universities profited from the economic windfall associated with enrolling an elite basketball prospect. And the aspiring talent agent boosted his odds of being formally retained when the player turned professional.

Nonetheless, this scheme was technically illegal, and so the jury was analytically correct in convicting the defendants at trial. But just because the defendants broke the law doesn’t mean that the prosecutors should have brought the case. Indeed, this case is one where, for three policy-related reasons, it would’ve been better if the U.S. Department of Justice hadn’t gotten involved: Continue reading →

India’s Futile Attempt to Root Out Sextortion Through Anticorruption Legislation

Posted on by
1

A recent series of brutal rape cases in India, which attracted international media coverage and provoked domestic protests, seems to have finally prompted India’s government to take more seriously the problem of sexual violence. For instance, India’s Parliament has created a number of new sex-related crimes—stalking, disrobing, voyeurism—and is now considering an executive order introducing the death penalty for rapists of children under the age of 12. Strikingly, even India’s new anticorruption legislation—the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Amendment)—tries to address the sexual violence problem as well. The Amendment, passed in July 2018, introduced a number of changes to the country’s thirty-year-old anticorruption legislation (the PCA), which criminalizes bribery involving public officials. Among the changes is an expansion of what corruption and bribery can entail, to include not just money or material goods, but also sexual favors. Previously, the PCA had defined bribery as providing a “financial or other advantage” to public officials, but in response to criticism that this language was too narrow, the Amendment replaced this phrase with the term “undue advantage,” and further specified that “undue advantage” is not restricted to those advantages that are “pecuniary” or “estimable in money.” This means that the law, while not explicitly mentioning sex, now apparently covers the offer, request, or extortion of sexual favors as something covered by the criminal prohibition on bribery of or by a public official.

On its face, expanding the scope of the anticorruption legislation to include corrupt sexual extortion, or “sextortion,” seems to be a move in the right direction. And indeed there’s a good case to be made that recognizing the extortion of sexual favors not only as a crime of sexual assault, but also as a form of public corruption, is compelling. But in fact, by implicitly treating sextortion as essentially the same as the extortion of monetary bribes, the Amendment will do little to combat sextortion as a form of corruption, and in fact is likely to do more harm than good. There are three interrelated reasons for this: Continue reading →

Announcement: Two Great Anticorruption Conference Opportunities for New(ish) Scholars

Posted on by
Reply

Happy New Year, GAB readers! As you all start planning your 2019 professional calendars, I wanted to take this opportunity to alert you–especially those among you who are academics (or professional researchers more generally)–to two exciting conferences this coming June 2019, for which the call for papers recently went out:

  • First, the Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education (ITESM) will be holding its second annual Academia Against Corruption in the Americas (ACA) conference on June 7-8 in Monterrey, Mexico. Organized Professor (and occasional GAB contributor) Bonnie Palifka, the ACA conference has three main goals: (1) to enrich and promote multidisciplinary research on corruption and anticorruption in the Americas; (2) to promote the inclusion of courses or subtopics on corruption in university curricula; and (3) to form a research and teaching network on corruption in the Americas.The ACA Conference invites professors and researchers from all disciplines to submit papers on any corruption or anticorruption topic, with a preference for those studying corruption or anticorruption in any part of the Americas. Additionally, professors who would like to participate in the special sessions on teaching and curriculum may submit syllabi, teaching notes, and/or a PowerPoint presentation relating the presenter’s experience teaching anticorruption. Submissions (which may be in English, Spanish, French, or Portuguese) may be emailed to Professor Palifka at bonnie@tec.mx. Submissions are due on February 1, 2019, and decisions will be announced on March 15, 2019.
  • Second, the Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Network (ICRN), a consortium of terrific young academic researchers, will be holding their Fourth Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Forum in Kyiv, Ukraine (at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla) on June 13-15. The Forum aims to bring together international junior researchers, as well as practitioners working in the fields of corruption and anticorruption, to present their work. Junior researchers (including PhD, post-doc, and advanced Master’s level students) from all disciplines are eligible to submit papers, as are practitioners. Papers can be submitted through the online platform., and if you have questions you can contact the organizational committee at info@icrnetwork.org. Applications for the ICRN conference area also due on February 15, and decisions will be made in early March.

By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, I’m on the ICRN’s advisory board and attended their second Fourm a couple of years ago; I also delivered a keynote address at the first ACA Conference last year. I think highly of the organizers of both conferences and expect that they will put together a very strong program, so I encourage eligible researchers to apply!

2018: Five Great Reads on Corruption

Posted on by
3

 

Twenty eighteen produced many fine analyses of corruption and how to fight it. The five books pictured above, four by journalists and one by a former Nigerian Finance Minister, are among the best.  Combing in-depth reporting with thoughtful analyses, all merit a place on corruption fighters’ book shelf. Continue reading →

Let Them Speak: Why Brazilian Courts Were Wrong to Bar Press Interviews with an Incarcerated Ex-President

Posted on by
2

In July 2017, Brazil’s former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (“Lula”) was convicted on corruption and money laundering charges. His appeal was denied in January 2018, and he started serving his sentence in April 2018. Although Lula was in jail, his party (the Workers Party, or PT) attempted to nominate him as its candidate for the October 2018 presidential elections. But pursuant to Brazil’s Clean Records Act (which Lula himself signed into law when he was President), individuals whose convictions have been affirmed on appeal cannot run for elective offices. Though Lula and his defenders argued that he should be allowed to run anyway, his candidacy application was denied; ultimately, as most readers of this blog are likely aware, far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro defeated the PT’s alterative candidate, Fernando Haddad, in last October’s election.

Perhaps less well known, at least outside of Brazil, is the fact that in the run-up to the election, Lula received several invitations from the press to give interviews. Although there is no clear rule on whether prisoners are allowed to give interviews in Brazil, past practice has been to allow the press to reach out those in jail under the authorization of the prison management. After the prison denied several requests by media organizations to interview Lula, those media outlets turned to the courts, asking for the right to interview Lula. The courts said no. The Brazilian Supreme Court, in an order by Supreme Court Justice Luis Fux, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the interviews stating (in a free translation from Portuguese): Continue reading →

Putting Anticorruption Up for a Vote: The Challenge of Designing Effective National Referendums

Posted on by
1

One of the biggest challenges in the fight against corruption is getting people in power to reform the very system from which they currently benefit. Over the past year, we have seen anticorruption advocates in Colombia and Peru attempt to bypass this hurdle using national popular referenda on anticorruption measures.

In Peru, the referendum on December 9, 2018 came on the heels of the massive Odebrecht scandal, which implicated all of Peru’s living former Presidents. Current President Vizcarra and his supporters originally proposed a referendum containing three anticorruption reforms: banning the immediate reelection of legislators and executives, reforming the system by which prosecutors and judges are appointed, and instituting new campaign finance regulations. The required legislative approval of the referendum took several months, and during this process the legislature added another proposal (not supported by President) to create a second legislative chamber. In the end, the three original reforms passed, and the proposed bicameral legislature failed after a successful “Yes, yes, yes, no” campaign by the President and his supporters.

Colombia’s referendum also came in response to the fallout from the Odebrecht scandal. On August 28, 2018, Colombia had a national referendum on seven anticorruption measures that aimed to improve transparency in governance, institute legislative term limits, and cut legislator pay. Six of the seven measures proposed in the referendum had previously failed in the lower house of the Colombian legislature, but 99% of voters approved all seven measures in the referendum. Though the total number of citizens voting fell just short of the quorum required for the referendum to be binding, President Duque convened an anticorruption roundtable and vowed to implement all seven measures by December 2018. The President proposed eight measures inspired by the referendum to the legislature, but momentum has stalled as legislators look to modify the proposals or avoid voting on them. With no clear deadline for if and when they will be passed, their fate is now uncertain.

As I discussed in an earlier post, the Colombian referendum was not without its faults, specifically with respect to the inclusion of counterproductive retributive measures. More generally, while a national referendum may seem like an ideal way to bypass conflicted legislators, a referendum poses serious three risks that need to be addressed if one hopes to use this lawmaking mechanism to combat corruption:

Continue reading →

Anticorruption Bibliography–December 2018 Update

Posted on by
Reply

An updated version of my anticorruption bibliography is available from my faculty webpage. A direct link to the pdf of the full bibliography is here, and a list of the new sources added in this update is here. As always, I welcome suggestions for other sources that are not yet included, including any papers GAB readers have written.

Top-Notch Advice from the Inter-American Development Bank on Combatting Corruption

Posted on by
2

To say I opened a copy of Report of the Expert Advisory Group on Anticorruption, Transparency and Integrity in Latin America, the Inter-American Development Bank’s latestadvice to Latin American and Caribbean governments on fighting corruption, with low expectations would be an overstatement. What specific, detailed, actionable and therefore useful measures could a report directed at 45 governments contain? Particularly given the diversity of the region’s governments, which range from prosperous, thriving middle-income democracies to desperately poor, repressive authoritarian regimes.  I thus assumed the report would follow the tiresome formula of so many previous attempts to spur developing nations to take meaningful steps to curb corruptions: a hodgepodge of obvious but vague generalizations wrapped around pleas for greater political will.

My subterranean expectations were only lowered given its institutional sponsor. Like the other regional development banks and the World Bank, the IDB exists to loan money and therefore strives to stay on the good side of the region’s governments to ensure they will continue to borrow.  In reports past from other development banks that consideration has often ruled out even the hint of politically controversial measures or criticism levelled at any government’s faltering anticorruption efforts.

The third strike against the report is its authors.  A distinguished collection of mostly Latin American “names” in the anticorruption field, all are busy experts whose main job is delivering high-profile lectures, authoring academic papers, and advising private sector entities and governments.  Devoting time and effort to an IDB publication that neither burnishes one’s academic credentials nor services clients was probably not high on their list of priorities. Most likely, I thought, they were asked to bless a precooked series of bromides assembled by interns and junior staff.

Boy, were my expectations off base.  Rather than a strike out, the report is a home run.  Or at least a stand-up triple. Continue reading →