A Welcome Analysis of Where Mozambique’s Goats Eat

To say that a successful attack on corruption begins with a political economy analysis is commonplace.  To declare that absent such an analysis of the political, economic, and social conditions that foster a particular type of corruption, an anticorruption policy has little chance of succeeding is hardly remarkable.  What remains noteworthy is in the two decades plus since the global war on corruption began how few such analyses have been done.

Of the more than 7500 entries in Matthew’s corruption studies bibliography, titles of fewer than 50 indicate a political economy focus. The corruption and development “gray literature,” reports on corruption in developing nations commissioned by donor organizations, is little better.  Perhaps a larger number of studies, but few quality ones, and perhaps surprisingly, a real dearth of analyses of petty corruption, the kind that citizens of developing nations, most often the poor, regularly encounter in their daily life.

That’s why it was a pleasure to discover Inge Tvedten and Rachi Picardo’s recent study of where Mozambican goats eat.  The Mozambican expression cabrito come onde está amarado (“goats eat where they are tied up”’) refers, as they explain, to the two-legged species rather than the four-legged one.  The kind that exploit their place in government to enrich themselves, friends, and supporters.  The two draw upon years of accumulated research to show how, in a variety of thickly described situations, “a set of structuring principles and common schemes” lead to the “internalization” or “embodiment” of corruption.  (Others might term the principles and schemes “institutions” and internalization or embodiment a “Nash equilibrium.”) An especially thought-provoking example is how traditional norms of deference to authority figures interacts with the way the District Development Fund, a program to help the poorest, is managed to keep beneficiaries marginalized.

Whether hunting for how to deprive a greedy Mozambican goat of nourishment or for a first-rate example of political economy analysis of petty corruption, readers will profit from perusing Tvedten and Picardo’s article.

Recovering Damages for Mozambican Victims of the Hidden Debt Scandal: Possible Suits in the United Kingdom

A recent post explained that Mozambicans harmed by the corruption behind the “hidden debt” scandal may well be able to sue the perpetrators for damages in the courts of many nations.  Mozambique, where the harm was suffered, and most probably France, Lebanon, Russia, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom, countries where one or more of the alleged perpetrators is located or does business.  The legal basis would be article 35 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.  It requires convention parties to open their courts to actions by corruption victims against “those responsible” for the corruption “in order to obtain compensation.”

The U.N. Office of Drugs and Crimes reports that all 187 parties accept the principle of compensation for corruption.  Suits for corruption damages are a relatively recent development, however, and in its latest review of the convention’s implementation, UNODC explains that establishing causation and proving damages remain to be elaborated through application of parties’ domestic law principles governing harm caused by intentional acts.  At the same time, it noted that in corruption damage cases article 35 mandates that these principles be interpreted broadly.  There need be no direct interaction between the perpetrators of corruption and the victim; nor is recovery limited to cases where the perpetrators foresaw the injury the victim would suffer.

In a just released paper, London barrister James Mather shows how English law would apply to claims Mozambicans brought for hidden debt damages in the United Kingdom. He opines that recovery could be had on the basis of an unlawful means conspiracy and perhaps too on the tort of bribery and dishonest assistance.  English law, he writes, incorporates the liberal principles of causation of damages enshrined in article 35. “The approach to the award of damages for conspiracy in particular is quite liberal in English law and extends to losses which cannot be strictly proved.”  English law also offers Mozambican claimants a procedural advantage.  Rather than each person having to file a separate suit, a group action could be filed with a single claimant suing on behalf of all those who suffered a similar injury.

Mather, a distinguished member of Serle Court in London, cautions that while based on what has been reported it would appear Mozambicans injured by the hidden debt scandal could recover damages in the United Kingdom, much factual research is required to be sure. His paper is an important step forward in seeing that those who suffered enormous harm thanks to the corruption behind the hidden debt scandal are made whole by the perpetrators.  Click on Mather paper to download a copy of his first-rate analysis.

Civil Damage Actions for Corruption: Possibilities Offered by the Mozambican Hidden Debt Scandal

The April 2016 disclosure that Mozambican officials accepted large bribes to secretly guarantee hundreds of millions of dollars in loans wreaked enormous damage on the nation’s economy and its citizens. The “hidden debt” scandal caused economic growth to plummet and donors to freeze funding, forcing the government to make deep cuts in public spending (media accounts here, here, here, and here; selected GAB posts here, here, and here).

The Mozambique government has brought a criminal action against a number of the alleged perpetrators in its own court (Mozambique indictment) and filed a civil suit for damages against others in the London High Court (Mozambique complaint).  So far, though, no citizen has filed an action for the harm hidden debt scandal caused them.

In a recent paper, “Civil Suits for Damages by Mozambicans Harmed by the Hidden Debt Scandal,” I consider who in Mozambique might be able to bring a damage action, for what and where, and the additional legal and factual research required before one or more more suits are filed. Comments welcome.

Will Hosting the UNCAC Meeting Prompt the UAE to Comply with the Convention?

The largest, most important anticorruption conference of the year is underway this week in the United Arab Emirates. Formally known as the eighth session of the Conference of States Parties to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, the 186 nations that have ratified UNCAC are convening to examine how they can strengthen the fight against corruption.  They have not said why they chose to meet in the UAE, a collection of seven tiny, wealthy monarchies.  Perhaps it is because the Emirates’ location on the eastern end of the Arabian Peninsula makes it an easy place to reach from anywhere on the globe. Or perhaps it is because of its top-notch conference facilities and first-rate restaurants and hotels.

Or perhaps something more subtle is at work.

It’s no secret that the UAE and the governments of its seven federated emirates, especially Abu Dhabi and Dubai, have repeatedly flouted their UNCAC obligations.  In researching The Despot’s Guide to Wealth Management, author Jason Sharman was told by staff from the World Bank/UNODC Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative, the IMF, and the governments of Switzerland and the United States that “the UAE and particularly Dubai . . . were the leading haven for international corruption funds,” a conclusion Susan Hawley confirmed on this blog, writing that an “increasing numbers of corrupt money trails lead” to the UAE. Mozambique’s Prosecutor General reports that the UAE has stonewalled her request for help in prosecuting the accused in the “hidden debt” scandal, and evidence presented in the recently concluded U.S. trial of one of the accused revealed numerous violations of its anticorruption laws that the UAE has ignored.

Perhaps the other 185 parties to UNCAC hope that holding the meeting in the UAE will persuade its government to finally meet the nation’s obligations as an UNCAC party. Five indicators of whether their stratagem is succeeding: Continue reading

Don’t Believe the Spin on the Mozambican Acquittal

The jury in the federal criminal trial in Brooklyn of  Jean Boustani acquitted him December 2 of charges arising from a scheme to pay Mozambican officials tens of millions of dollars in bribes in return for the government borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for ships it could not afford. No sooner was the verdict announced than Privinvest — Boustani’s employer, the supplier of the ships, and a major beneficiary of the scheme — crowed it had been completely vindicated.  Despite evidence produced at the trial, charges pending in Mozambique, and allegations in a civil action in the United Kingdom, Privinvest lawyers are telling the press the acquittal proves the company had no part of the scheme.  That it did not pay bribes to win the business.

If it were true the company paid no bribes, three Credit Suisse executives would not have pled guilty to accepting bribes from it in the same court where Boustani was acquitted. Nor would they have named its CEO Iskander Safa, CFO Najib Allam, and Boustani as bribe payers (here). Nor would a trial witness have explained that Government Exhibit 2758, an April 2014 e-mail from Boustani to Allam, is a list of bribes the company paid Mozambican officials.  A list that includes President Filipe Jacinto Nyusi (“Nuy” in the e-mail), former Finance Minister Manuel Chang (“Chopstick”), and former intelligence chief António Carlos do Rosário (“Ros”). (Complete decoded list here.)

No, the verdict of acquittal does not exonerate Privinvest.  Nor anyone else for that matter.  What it shows is two things.

Continue reading

No More Mozambiques! No More Hidden Debts!

Surely the most egregious corruption offense of the decade is Mozambique’s “hidden debt” scandal.  According to a January U.S. indictment, executives of the Lebanese shipbuilding company Privinvest and Swiss banking giant Credit Suisse paid senior Mozambican officials tens of millions of dollars to approve loans to finance a coastal protection service, a tuna fishing fleet, and a shipyard to maintain the vessels.  The scam produced little more than a cluster of overpriced boats rusting in the Maputo harbor while saddling the citizens of one of the world’s poorest countries with billions in debts they cannot repay.

The key to the scam was the debts were incurred without the executive telling auditors, the parliament, or citizens.  As Mozambique’s Constitutional Court recently affirmed,  Mozambique law requires the disclosure and parliamentary approval of government debt.  Part of the bribe allegedly went to ensuring then Minister of Finance Manuel Chang and his accomplices would keep the debts secret. It will take years to repair the damage done by these hidden debts.  Full recovery may never be realized.

One scandal is enough.  The international community must make ending “irresponsible lending” a priority.  At a July conference the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa held in Johannesburg, I was on a panel that discussed what can be done to end hidden debts.  While the other members, all from borrowing countries, offered measures borrowers could take, I advanced five that financial regulators in the countries where private lenders are located should take.  Largely stolen from a paper by Tim Jones of Debt Jubilee Campaign and a forthcoming Illinois Law Journal article co-authored by Fordham Law Professor Susan Block-Lieb and University of North Carolina Law Professor W. Mark C. Weidemaier, they follow.  Comments welcome. Continue reading

Corruption Damages: Options UNCAC Offers Mozambique to Recover “Hidden Debt” Losses

Mozambique continues to suffer from the “hidden debt” scandal, loans a U.S. indictment alleges employees of Credit Suisse, Lebanese shipbuilder Privinvest, and others foisted off on it for dodgy projects through bribery.  Damages include not only the several billion dollars that, thanks to accrued interest and penalties, the government now owes on the original loans of $2.2 billion, but the enormous harm caused by a halt in donors’ disbursements and the resulting slowdown in growth when the scandal was revealed. The whole sorry affair could cost the people of Mozambique upwards of $10 billion, a staggering sum for a country with a total GDP in 2017 of little more than $12 billion. 

Fortunately, Mozambique does not have to absorb the loss. As party to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, the government can directly recover much if not all of it through article 53.  Article 53(a) requires the other 185 Convention parties to grant it the right to file a civil action to recover property acquired through the offences defined in the Convention.  Article 53(b) directs the other 185 to establish procedures permitting their courts “to order those who have committed offences [established in accordance with the Convention] to pay compensation or damage” to another party injured by the offence.  

Based on the allegations in the U.S. indictment, Mozambique could likely initiate or prompt proceedings to recover assets or recover damages in at least six nations, all parties to UNCAC: France, Lebanon, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Indeed, thanks to a precedent setting decision by its highest court, Mozambique civil society might itself be able to recover damages in a French case independent of any action by the Mozambican government.  

These options were discussed at a May 14 conference sponsored by the Centro de Integridade Pública.  They are elaborated on in this follow up paper I prepared for CIP after the conference.   

Mozambique’s Hidden Debt Scandal: Noose Tightening Around Credit Suisse and Privinvest?

Mozambique has sustained enormous damage thanks to the “hidden debt” scandal.  The 2016 revelation the government had guaranteed $2.2 billion in loans for projects of little or no value led donors to freeze disbursements, slamming the brakes on the economy and leaving many stuck in poverty.

Press accounts and indictments issued in Mozambique and the United States blame the scandal on Jean Boustani, an executive with Privinest, a Middle Eastern shipbuilding firm; three now ex-employees of Swiss banking giant Credit Suisse; and Mozambican officials Boustani and the bankers allegedly bribed. Privinvest has denied involvement in the scheme as has Boustani. Credit Suisse claims the employees evaded its elaborate controls meant to keep it from becoming enmeshed in such schemes.

Thanks to a surprise development Monday, Privinvest and Credit Suisse may find it harder to continue ducking responsibility for the corrupt, fraudulent scheme and the massive harm it inflicted on Mozambique.  Continue reading

Mozambicans To Credit Suisse: Make Good on Crooked Debt

Credit Suisse’s complicity in the $2.4 billion corruptly lent to the Mozambican government dampened festivities at its April 26 annual shareholders’ meeting.  While shareholders celebrated receipt of a fat dividend, a representative from Mozambique reminded them that some of this money comes at the expense of the citizens of Mozambique – 28 million persons, most desperately poor, saddled with repaying loans foisted off on their government through corruption.  Three senior Credit Suisse employees have been indicted for their role in the scheme, one Credit Suisse management (rewarded with a hefty pay hike at the meeting) claims cleverly circumvented its controls preventing unlawful deals.

The statement to shareholders, delivered by a representative of the civil society organization Fórum de Monitoria do Orçamento (FMO, budget monitoring forum in English), asks Credit Suisse to support restorative justice to atone for its role in the Mozambican debt crisis.  To this end, Credit Suisse is asked to: i) accept accountability for its actions in the debt issue;  ii) commit to return to Mozambique all proceeds from the Mozambican Illegal debt scandal; iii) collaborate with authorities to ensure that all responsible parties are held accountable for their roles in the scandal; iv) write off outstanding debt arising out of debt crisis; and v) help ensure the people of Mozambique do not have to make good on debts they had no part in incurring and which did nothing to benefit them.

Full text below; video here (at 2:18:50 –  2:28).

Continue reading

Mozambicans Ask: Will the United Arab Emirates Enforce UNCAC?

The United Arab Emirates faces the first serious test of its commitment the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.  Will it open a case against long-time resident Jean Boustani, who the U.S. Justice Department says masterminded the bribery scheme that robbed the people of Mozambique of some $2 billion.  The “Mozambican hidden debt” scandal pitched the nation into a deep recession, depriving thousands of basic necessities and leaving government without the resources to respond to Cyclone Idai

In its latest submission in its case against Boustani, the Justice Department reveals that much of the bribery scheme was carried out in the UAE. Boustani helped one co-conspirator open an account in a UAE bank to stash bribes, facilitated the travel of others to the UAE to further the bribery scheme, and secured UAE employment permits for three under false pretenses.  Each permit, says the Justice Department, “falsely stated that the [accomplices] professions were ‘petrol engine mechanic,’ ‘diesel engine mechanic,’ and ‘hydraulic mechanic.’”  In fact, the Justice Department told the court in its filing, “all three were members of the conspiracy who would receive millions of dollars of bribes and kickbacks for their roles in the scheme.”

The Justice Department’s charges against Boustani and accomplices are here. To view the Justice Department filing describing Boustani’s alleged violations of UAE law, click on DoJ Boustani filing .  To view the e-mails and other documents that support the Department’s narrative, click on evidence of UAE offenses.

Mozambican citizens have suffered a terrible wrong, one which UNCAC is meant to right.  Will UAE authorities do their part to help right that wrong?  Will the UAE live up to its obligations under the UNODC to prosecute those who pay bribes? Those who flagrantly violate other of its laws as part of a bribery scheme?