Enforcing the anticorruption laws is the backbone of the fight against corruption, and improving enforcement agencies’ performance is thus critical. Two recent reports, one by the European Investment Bank’s Fraud Investigation Unit and a second by the Inspectorate of the United Kingdom’s Crown Prosecution Service, offer a wealth of data, analysis, and tips from which all enforcement agencies can profit. Highlights from each below.
Fraud Investigations Activity Report 2018. This latest report of the EIB’s Fraud Investigations Unit documents the Unit’s fight against fraud and corruption in projects funded by the lending arm of the European Union, the world’s largest development finance agency. Compliance and investigative personnel in other bilateral and multilateral financial institutions will find much useful data for benchmarking their performance against the EIB unit. Case studies of different fraud and corruption schemes it has uncovered will help investigators in other institutions spot similar types of wrongdoing.
Most interesting to this reader was the description of the Proactive Integrity Reviews (PIRs) the Fraud Investigation Unit conducts. All active operations in the Bank’s portfolio are scored each year against 30 risk factors to identify corruption and fraud vulnerabilities, and a PIR conducted on two or three of the operations most at risk. Of the 27 projects subjected to a PIR, the unit found five, almost 20 percent, where funds have been misused.
Would a similar intensive review of a small number of World Bank, Asian, Inter-American, or African Development Bank produce similar numbers? Will the new United States International Development Finance Corporation follow the EIB’s lead and institute a similar review?
Case Progression in the Serious Fraud Office. The Serious Fraud Office is the United Kingdom’s version of an anticorruption agency, with investigators, accountants, IT specialists, and prosecutors who work in teams to investigate complex fraud and corruption cases. Case progression is the U.K. term to describe the time it takes for a team to reach a conclusion about a case, from opening an investigation to a decision either to file a criminal charge or to drop the matter altogether. The Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate recently examined the procedures the SFO uses to ensure cases move through the system in a timely manner. Other anticorruption agencies wanting to improve their performance will find a wealth of useful information and practical tips. Some of the key observations:
* Recognize that in a lengthy case there will be staff turnover. Maintain a key documents folder for those joining the team so they can get up to speed quickly.
* A unit with the technical skill to decrypt and download data kept on cell phones, computers, and other electronic devices is essential. But realize that decryption can take enormous time. Don’t overload the unit by seizing equipment of only secondary or passing interest.
* Periodic review of the progress of each case is essential to ensure deadlines for achieving key objectives or stages in the case are set, and met, and unfruitful lines of investigation abandoned. The SFO exercises oversight in several ways. How each one works and suggestions for improving each will be of value to any anticorruption enforcement authority.
* The average number of days from the acceptance of a case to charging has been reduced from 41 months to 38 months, or 7.5%.