Tag Archives: Switzerland

So That’s Why the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative Was Abolished

Posted on by
1

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 reading →

Why Is There No Zurichgrad? Protectionism in Swiss Real Estate

Posted on by
1

Anonymous investments in foreign real estate markets have become a popular way to launder money and evade taxes. Opaque offshore structures now control a substantial share of high-end real estate in many major cities across the world. While the international sharing of financial data has made it harder to hide assets in offshore accounts, overseas property remains an easy target for illicit actors due to a lack of equivalent cross-border reporting. The city that has come to symbolize this problem is London—sometimes derisively referred to as “Londongrad” due to the extent to which Russian oligarchs own many of the city’s luxury homes.

Many might be surprised to learn that Switzerland, despite its longstanding reputation as a haven for illicit financial funds, has no major problem with money laundering in real estate. This is all the more surprising given that the Swiss property market would seem to be an exceptionally attractive target for dirty money in a number of ways. Swiss law affords extensive anonymity to individuals behind the corporate veil and does not require any licensing in the real estate sector. Furthermore, unlike many other countries, Switzerland still does not subject real estate agents, lawyers, or notaries – the key actors in property acquisition – to its anti-money laundering laws, as long as the property transaction in question does not involve a payment of more than the equivalent of about $110,000 in cash. At the same time, real estate prices in Switzerland are high and have risen dramatically in recent decades, especially in the cities and tourist areas. Illicit actors, who already roam financial centers such as Zurich, should thus have an easy time parking their assets in Swiss real estate. So why is there no “Zurichgrad”? Continue reading →

Corporate Transparency Is the Next Step in Switzerland’s Fight Against Corruption

Posted on by
Reply

In response to abuses of the corporate form by corrupt actors and other criminals, an increasing number of countries have been requiring companies and other legal entities to provide information on their “beneficial owners” (that is, the real human beings who own or control the entity) and compiling that information in centralized registries. Additionally, more governments are also requiring professionals in designated high-risk areas (not just finance) to verify the identity of clients behind the corporate veil and the risks of doing business with them.

Switzerland is lagging well behind this global movement towards more corporate transparency. Although Switzerland has done a lot recently to shake off its historic reputation as a haven for illicit funds, Swiss law still makes it too easy for bad actors to hide behind corporate constructs. Switzerland currently only requires a fraction of its domestic corporations to keep internal lists of their largest shareholders. Even this limited information – which focuses on legal ownership only and therefore does not necessarily reflect actual control over a company – need not to be verified, and the information can be difficult for Swiss authorities to access. Just this past year, Switzerland adopted rules requiring Swiss professionals who manage corporate cash flows, such as bankers and asset managers, to verify the identity of clients behind corporate constructs, but other professionals can continue to do business without any such obligations.

But this might be about to change.

Continue reading →

Guest Post: The Brazilian Supreme Court’s Erroneous Nullification of the Car Wash Evidence

Posted on by
1

Today’s guest post is from Eduardo Carvalho, a Brazilian prosecutor from the State of Rio de Janeiro.

There has been a great deal of commentary in the Brazilian and global anticorruption community – including on this blog (see here, here, and here) – on a recent decision by Supreme Court Justice Dias Toffoli concerning important evidence on which Brazilian prosecutors relied in securing numerous convictions in the so-called Lava Jato (Car Wash) Operation. The evidence in question—principally files stored on computer disks—was obtained from the Odebrecht company as part of settlement agreements with Brazilian, Swiss, and US authorities. Justice Toffoli, expanding on a previous ruling by Justice Lewandowski, found that this evidence was obtained in violation of Brazilian laws on international cooperation and evidence handling, and therefore could not be used in court. As a result, an enormous number of Car Wash convictions are likely to be nullified. From an anticorruption perspective, this is a disaster, undoing years of hard work and allowing scores, perhaps hundreds, of corrupt politicians to go free.

But according to Adonis Brozoza’s post last week on this blog, the responsibility for this lies with the prosecutors, not the Justices. Mr. Brozoza argues that the prosecutors, in their zeal to secure corruption convictions, ignored relevant laws and procedures on international cooperation and evidence handling. This sloppiness, he maintains, so compromised the reliability of this crucial evidence that the Justices were obligated, under the relevant Brazilian laws, to rule this evidence inadmissible.

Respectfully, this assertion is both legally questionable and factually incorrect. While I do not impugn the good faith of either the Justices or Mr.Brozoza, careful attention to the relevant laws, and to what the relevant authorities actually did, demonstrates that Justice Toffoli’s ruling ought to be overturned by the full Court. Continue reading →

Institutionalizing People Power: How Switzerland Overcame Systemic Corruption

Posted on by
1

How do states escape pervasive corruption? Expanding the small set of success stories, a burgeoning line of research (see here, here, here, here, or here) seeks answers to this question through the study of polities that have achieved control of corruption before Second World War. This group of so-called “early achievers” mostly consist of Western and Northern European countries as well as territories that seceded from them. One lesson that has been drawn from the study of early achievers is that the gradual depoliticization of governance is an essential step on a society’s path to becoming free from endemic corruption. Indeed, some have suggested that transitioning to a robust democracy before building a sufficiently effective and clean state is a recipe for corruption and state capture, as political parties will organize on clientalist lines and focus mainly on capturing rents. The key to combating systemic corruption, on this account, is building a strong and professional class of civil servants and judges who are insulated from politics.

The case of Switzerland, which has received little attention so far, presents a puzzle in this regard. Now a textbook example of effective (domestic) corruption control, early nineteenth century Switzerland shared many of the klepocratic governance patterns we find in low- and middle-income countries today. Long dominated by a handful of wealthy families, from the 1830s onwards Swiss state institutions fell under the sway of a group of entrepreneurs involved in the financing and organization of railway construction. These “Railway Barons” dominated Swiss politics through a web of patronage networks and used the captured institutions of the state to assert their individual interests. But by the beginning of the twentieth century, Switzerland was free from such systemic corruption. Remarkably, and contrary to conventional thinking about early achievers, Switzerland accomplished this not by limiting democracy, but by doubling down on it. Continue reading →

New Podcast Episode, Featuring Frederik Obermaier

Posted on by
Reply
A new episode of KickBack: The Global Anticorruption Podcast is now available. In this week’s episode, we are pleased to welcome back to the podcast the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Frederik Obermaier of the German publication Süddeutsche Zeitung, who is also affiliated with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. We’ve been fortunate enough to have Mr. Obermaier on the podcast twice before, first in 2019 to discuss the Panama Papers, and then in 2020 to discuss the FinCEN Files. In this week’s episode, my ICRN colleague Christopher Starke talks with Mr. Obermaier about the work he and has collaborators have done on a set of stories based on another major leak, the so-called Suisse Secrets documents–files on thousands of customers of the Swiss Bank Credit Suisse, leaked by an anonymous source, which revealed that many Credit Suisse companies were extremely suspicious figures, including numerous corrupt politicians, as well as other organized crime figures and human rights abusers. The conversation highlights the systemic problems that continue to persist in the Swiss banking system, and more broadly. You can also find both this episode and an archive of prior episodes at the following locations: KickBack is a collaborative effort between GAB and the Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Network (ICRN). If you like it, please subscribe/follow, and tell all your friends! And if you have suggestions for voices you’d like to hear on the podcast, just send me a message and let me know.  

World Bank Monitoring of Repatriated Assets Should Be Part of Major Settlements

Posted on by
1

The issue of repatriating the proceeds of corruption to the countries from which they were stolen has attracted substantial commentary, including in multiple posts on this blog (see here, here, here, here and here). Much of the discussion focuses on whether and how to return funds to countries that still suffer from systemic corruption or outright kleptocracy. In these cases, the risk that the assets, if simply returned, will be stolen again is, in the view of some critics, unacceptably high. In some cases, despite these risks, the government that seized the assets nevertheless repatriates the seized funds directly to the government from which they were originally stolen; the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has done this in several cases, including asset returns to Peru, Italy, and Nicaragua. In other cases, by contrast, the seized funds have been funneled to a local NGO rather than to the government. This was done in the agreement among the United States, Switzerland, and Kazakhstan regarding the transfer of corruption proceeds to Kazakhstan (an agreement which created a new NGO called the BOTA Foundation). This mechanism was also included in the DOJ’s settlement with Equatorial Guinea over the disposition of assets stolen by the President’s son, Teodorin Obiang. Another approach, which we saw in this past February’s trilateral agreement among the United States, Jersey, and Nigeria regarding the return of $308 million in assets stolen by former Nigerian dictator General Sani Abacha (which I discussed at greater length in a previous post), entails the earmarking of the repatriated funds for specific infrastructure projects, coupled with oversight by a yet-to-be-determined independent auditor and yet-to-be-determined independent civil society organizations (CSOs), with both the auditor and the CSOs selected by Nigeria, but subject to a veto by the United States and Jersey.

The inclusion of these various conditions is understandable. Notwithstanding the sovereignty-based objections advanced by the so-called “victim countries”—which often assert that they have an absolute right to the unconditional return of assets stolen from their national treasuries—returning huge sums to corrupt or weak governments without any safeguards would be irresponsible. Nevertheless, there are many pitfalls involved with leaving oversight largely to the victim country government and local CSOs, and the ability of countries like the United States to monitor compliance with the terms of repatriation agreements in foreign countries is limited. The best way to address these concerns is to involve an international institution—such as the World Bank, or possibly one of the regional multilateral development banks—in monitoring the terms of repatriation agreements.

Continue reading →

The Swiss U-Turn on Asset Return Explained

Posted on by
5

Historically, a Swiss bank has been the bank of choice for corrupt leaders wanting to hide money. The reality is quite different today.  Just ask Tunisia’s ousted strong man Ben Ali, deposed Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovich, or the relatives of deceased former Haitian president Jean-Claude Duvalier, of the late Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha, or of Hosni Mubarak, the recently passed Egyptian president.  All believed money stolen from their nations’ citizens was safe in a Swiss bank.

At the time, they were not wrong. Dating back to when its secrecy rules protected the wealth of France’s Catholic kings from the prying eyes of nosey Protestant journalists, Swiss law permitted banks to take money with few questions asked and sanctioned those disclosing information about an account or its holder. Strict bank secrecy laws gave the Swiss financial industry an enormous advantage over other financial centers; it’s one reason why today financial services plays an outsized role in the Swiss economy — accounting for 10 percent of the GDP, twice the average of other OECD nations.

As the Duvaliers, Abachas, and Murabanks of the world learned to their chagrin  however, over the past decade Swiss policy has made a sharp U-turn.  Despite the weight of history and tradition, and the economic interest of so many Swiss citizens, current Swiss policy not only no longer condones the deposit of stolen assets in its banks, it now demands that banks and others in the financial services industry come to the aid of governments searching for money stolen by former rulers and cronies.  No other nation today goes to such lengths to help countries recover stolen assets.

Swiss lawyers François Membrez and Matthieu Hösli document this extraordinary change in Swiss policy in How To Return Stolen Assets: The Swiss policy pathway. Just published by the Geneva Centre for Civil and Political Rights, the two explain how Swiss  asset recovery law has turned Switzerland from the destination of choice for stolen funds into the least hospitable jurisdiction in the world.  The paper is an essential guide to Swiss law on asset recovery and provides a blueprint for other nations wanting nothing to do with stolen assets.

 

Will the Swiss Condone Torture in the Rush to Return Assets to Uzbekistan?

Posted on by
4

Allegations of torture have dogged the planned return of stolen assets from Switzerland to Uzbekistan for years (here). In a recent interview, a cellmate of one of the alleged torture victims has given the claims new life.  And should give Swiss citizens and their government pause before proceeding with any return.

The assets to be returned are the several hundred million dollars in bribes paid to Gulnara Karimova for the grant of mobile phone licenses in Uzbekistan, something within her power as daughter of the country’s then president.  She stashed most of the money in Switzerland, and when the scheme was exposed, Swiss prosecutors promptly opened a money laundering case against Gulnara and her accomplices. From the outset, the Swiss government made it clear that, if and when defendants were found guilty, the laundered funds would be returned to Uzbekistan.

A breakthrough came in 2018 when Gayane Avakyan, one of Gulnara’s accomplices, signed a Swiss Summary Penalty Order confessing to her role in the money laundering scheme and giving up any claim to the laundered funds.  The order was signed while she was serving time in an Uzbekistan prison, and because of multiple, credible reports that torture is commonly practiced in Uzbek prisons, questions were immediately raised about whether torture or the threat of torture was used to get Avakyan to sign.  A prison cellmate now says she was in fact subjected to a particularly harsh form of torture while incarcerated. Continue reading →

Should a Kleptocrat Be Able to Bribe Her Way Out of Trouble?

Posted on by
2

Gulnara Karimova parlayed her position as daughter of Uzbekistan’s first post-Soviet ruler into an international symbol of kleptocracy.  Reviled at home and abroad for vulgar excess, after her father’s death she was sentenced to a long prison term following a sham trial.  But most of the billion or so dollars she stole remains beyond the Uzbek government’s reach, tied up in complex litigation principally in Switzerland.

Now, as she recently revealed, she is in negotiations to hand back most of what she stole – in return for her release from one of Uzbekistan’s notorious prison colonies and the right to hang onto to perhaps as much as a hundred million for herself and the lawyers and fixers negotiating the deal. Uzbek citizens and activists are in arms over this blatant attempt by a posterchild for kleptocracy to bribe her way out of prison.  In an open letter, civil society activists call on the Swiss government, which would have to accede to this unseemly bargain, to repudiate it. They ask too that other government with claims over some of the assets, and thus possibly some say over the deal, to help kill it.

Allowing a kleptocrat to bribe her way out of jail sets a terrible precedent. Is it one the international community wants to see set?  Do Swiss citizens really want their government to be the one setting it? Why is the Swiss government in such a hurry to return dirty money to the Uzbek government?  Particularly in the face of opposition from representatives of the real victims of Karimova’s crimes, the citizens of Uzbekistan.

In their letter, the activists outline an alternative to a hasty return, one that would see Karimova held accountable in a real trial for her crimes and the stolen assets returned in ways that would advance the welfare of all Uzbeks. The English version of the letter here, the Russian one here, and the French one here.