Maggie Murphy, Senior Global Advocacy Manager for Transparency International, contributes today's guest post:
Remember the big headline from the recent G20 Summit in Hamburg, about what leaders are going to do to tackle corruption head-on? No, we don’t either. Corruption remains a bit of an afterthought in G20 thinking on progressing the G20’s objective of “strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth” (page 14 of the most recent Communiqué), despite the almost plaintive opening line in the current G20 Anti-Corruption Action Plan that “[r]educing corruption remains a top priority for the G20.” Corruption should be preoccupying for G20 leaders. In the last 12 months alone, the presidents of G20 members South Korea and Brazil have been impeached (and Brazil’s current president is also facing corruption allegations) and the former Argentinian president was indicted for corruption. Despite the lack of public emphasis on fighting corruption, the G20 does have well-functioning G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group (ACWG). The ACWG meets three times a year, works to biennial Action Plans, and advises G20 leaders on where to channel their energy in tackling corruption. The ACWG touches on a wide range of topics, from asset recovery, to open data, to the illegal trade in wildlife. The ACWG adopts principles, issues individual country guides, conducts self-assessments, and develops good practice, research, and toolkits on certain issues. The 60 documents the group has developed since 2010 can be found on a helpful but hidden website compiled by the German Ministry of Justice. But we don’t hear much about the ACWG's work, even less its impact. Clearly it needs a shake-up. As new G20 host, Argentina should lead the development and adoption of a new biennial Anti-Corruption Action Plan. But that would be simply more of the same. Is it time for the G20 ACWG to have a rethink? Continue reading →
Anyone remember the London Anti-Corruption Summit last May? It seems like a long, long time ago now, but it was a big deal for us when 14 countries stepped forward at the Summit to implement the Open Contracting Data Standard to open, share, and track all data and documents coming from the billions of dollars that they are spending on public contracting and procurement each year.
One year later, how well have these countries have followed through on their commitments, and how much of a difference open contracting has made in combating corruption in public procurement? After all, it is government’s number one corruption risk; it’s where money, opacity, and government discretion collide.
The news is generally positive: the Summit commitments appear to have promoted genuine progress toward more open contracting in many of those countries, and the preliminary evidence indicates that such moves help reduce procurement corruption. Continue reading →
Tina Søreide, Senior Researcher at the Christian Michelsen Institute and post-doctoral fellow at the University of Bergen Faculty of Law, contributes the following guest post:
Yesterday Rick posted a critique of the OECD’s recent Report, “Consequences of Corruption at the Sector Level and Implications for Economic Growth and Development.” He did not find much value in that report (and as anyone who read his post knows, that’s an understatement). I was heavily involved in the research and preparation of this report, and although criticism is always welcome, I think that many of his criticisms are unfair, and are based on a misapprehension of the report’s purposes. This rebuttal is an attempt to clarify the aims of the report and explain why, notwithstanding Rick’s criticisms, the report makes substantial progress toward achieving those aims. Continue reading →
GAB is delighted to welcome back guest contributor Professor Jason Sharman of Griffith University, Australia, who contributes the following post:
Among the various mechanisms for hiding and laundering large sums of money associated with corruption, shell companies that cannot be linked with their real owners have proved one of the most troublesome. A 2011 Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative report on laundering the proceeds of grand corruption noted that from a total of 213 cases, 150 involved the use of shell companies (or, more rarely, trusts) to launder $56.4 billion. Since 2003, all those governments bound by the standards of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) have promised to ensure timely access to information on identity of those owning shell companies, and FATF rates member countries according to their compliance and the overall level of risk they present. Despite (or perhaps because of) a renewed stress on tracing shell companies’ beneficial (i.e. real) owners, most recently at the G20 leaders’ summit in my home state of Brisbane, there are good reasons to be skeptical about whether the standards are really enforced.
Frustrated with the poor measurement of policy effectiveness in this area, Michael Findley, Daniel Nielson, and I decided to try a new approach. We ran a real-world experiment to see whether corporate service providers would comply with the rules on client screening, particularly in cases where the client profile raised “red flags.” Our findings, reported in our book Global Shell Games, were both worrying and counter-intuitive. Continue reading →
Professor Jason Sharman of Griffith University, Australia, contributes the following guest post:
On November 15th–two days from now–the latest G20 leaders’ summit kicks off in my home town of Brisbane, Australia, with anticorruption once again on the agenda. Though the G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group has made some important progress, many of the member states have been letting down the side. Specifically, Australia tends to receive less critical scrutiny than it should when it comes to international action against corruption, particularly in terms of hosting stolen assets from other countries in the region. And the G20 leaders’ summit is as good a time as any for the international community to press Australia for its many failures to deal with its status as a regional haven for money laundering in the Asia-Pacific. Continue reading →
As many readers of this blog are likely aware, Transparency International–the leading worldwide anticorruption NGO–has made the corporate secrecy problem a centerpiece of its “Unmask the Corrupt” campaign. TI is focusing in particular on the problem of shell companies whose true (or “beneficial”) owners are unknown, and which can be used by corrupt officials and businesspeople to shelter and launder stolen public funds. The TI Secretariat, along with several of TI’s national chapters, have been pushing for action at both the national and international level, especially for reforms that would make transparent the beneficial owners of these companies. I wanted to use this post as an opportunity to call attention to two of TI’s recent efforts in this area, which might be of interest to GAB readers:
First, the TI Secretariat wants to use the G20 leaders’ summit this weekend in Brisbane, Australia as an opportunity to raise awareness of the issue and to put pressure on the G20 leaders to commit to take action on this issue. To this end, TI organized an open letter, signed by a number of prominent civil society activists and other public figures (including John Githongo, Desmond Tutu, and Richard Goldstone), calling on the G20 leaders to outlaw secret company ownership and mandate public registries of the true beneficial owners of all legal entities.
Second, as I noted last month, the US government is currently in the midst of a rulemaking process to strengthen due diligence and disclosure requirements on beneficial ownership. TI-USA submitted a set of supportive but critical comments on the rule, urging the US Treasury Department to expand the definition of “beneficial owner” to include individuals who control the entities through means other than a formal management position, to apply the new rules apply to existing accounts as well as new accounts, and to require financial institutions not only to verify the identity of the (alleged) beneficial owner, but to independently verify that the person listed as the beneficial owner is in fact the true beneficial owner.
TI’s efforts in this direction are most welcome, and I hope they have some impact on the G20 summit and the development of new rules in the US (and elsewhere). I’m happy to take this this opportunity to publicize TI’s efforts, and I hope some of our readers out there might be able to contribute to the push that TI and other organizations are making on this issue.