The Missing Piece in UK's Unexplained Wealth Order Mechanism

All of a sudden politicians,公众人物,and oligarchs – such asRussian First Deputy Prime Minister Ignor Shuvalov尼日利亚前石油部长迪扎尼·艾莉森·马杜克– have to explain how they are able to afford the swanky apartments in London's posh Mayfair neighborhood on their modest official salaries.这是由于英国的刑事财务法(CFA)which came into force in February and is meant to crack down on the flow of dirty money into the UK—a flow that has given London in particular a reputation as a全球腐败的“死星”.最值得注意的是,CFA增加了一个新的调查工具,无法解释的财富秩序(UWO)进入民事恢复制度。Originallyproposedby Transparency International UK a few years ago,UWO是高等法院在有合理理由相信(1)被告拥有价值超过50000英镑的财产的情况下作出的命令;(2)答辩人是politically exposed person(PEP)或者被申请人或者与被申请人有关联的人有重大犯罪行为的;(3)被告的合法收入不足以取得有关财产。如果有合理的理由相信这三个条件都得到满足,the High Court may issue an order requiring the respondent to provide information regarding the nature of her interests in the property in question and how she was able to lawfully obtained such property.如果被申请人不能提供合理解释,英国政府随后可以启动民事没收程序并扣押这些资产。

Lauded as "一种强大的新武器“如果在原籍国没有对被访者定罪,UVO将特别有帮助,or when efforts to get a corrupt foreign government to cooperate with investigations have led to naught.Moreover,即使UWO是一个民事执行机制,the information they uncover may be useful in pursuing criminal investigations,and if respondents recklessly or knowingly make false statements or mislead the enforcement body in responding to an order,他们可能是criminally prosecuted.已经有证据表明新的法律会有所不同:3月份,CFA发布一个月后,two UWOs were issued requiringa tycoon in Central Asia to explain how he is able to afford real properties in the UK totaling £22 million.

Yet notwithstanding the enthusiasm for UWOs in some quarters,不明飞行物机制的有效性可能会受到英国反腐败框架中一个重要缺失部分的阻碍,即确保不动产和动产受益所有权真正透明的有效手段。不知道谁真正拥有什么,the new law is unlikely to realize its full potential,and indeed may not make much difference outside of a handful of cases involving particularly careless criminals.

继续阅读

嘉宾:打击卫生部门腐败阿富汗的五大教训

加布欢迎马克·皮曼回来,伦敦高级研究员Institute for Statecraft,他曾担任阿富汗联合独立反腐败监测和评估委员会(MEC).He contributes this post together with Hussain Rezai,a researcher at MEC.

尽管有恐怖故事,在处理阿富汗的腐败问题上发生了有趣的事情。除了在上一篇文章中讨论的进展之外,教育采购,a重大反腐败倡议自2016年6月以来,阿富汗卫生系统一直在进行中。主动权,which is another surprising (if qualified) anticorruption success story in a very difficult environment,offers five lessons for anticorruption practitioners and health ministers in other countries.继续阅读

Report on the OECD's 6th Global Anti-Corruption and Integrity Forum

经济合作组织(Organization for Economic and Cooperation)第六年将举办为期两天的道德与腐败会议。今年的主题是腐败如何侵蚀对政府的信任,并帮助推进秘书长古里亚在开幕词中所说的困扰当今世界的三大破坏性“主义”:民粹主义,nationalism,以及保护主义。

The organization's members are35世界上最富有的国家(除俄罗斯和中国外)中,尽管以任何历史衡量,财富水平都非常高,以及最近乐观的经济消息,35个国家的公民对政府不满。35个国家对政府的信任度创下历史新低,而对民选领导人的愤世嫉俗和不信任度创下历史新高,and though the Secretary General put much of the blame for the current funk on the 2008 economic crisis and the still uneven and unbalanced recovery,腐败,他强调,已经做到了这一点。揭露政府高层的错误行为,再加上阻碍提供基本政府服务的小腐败,只会加深公民对政府的怀疑。如果经合组织成员国要重新赢得公民的信任,and avoid those destructive "isms," they cannot,他争辩说:忽略腐败问题。

对于无法资助巴黎之旅或与愿意支付账单的赞助人或客户合作的人,the conference home page with the agenda is在这里第一天我发现有四件事有用:继续阅读

关于2017年腐败认知指数的更多信息,媒体/公民社会自由与腐败的关系

其他反腐败评论员(和主流媒体)可能已经从透明国际的2017年腐败感知指数(CPI),但我想从本月早些时候开始跟进我的其他帖子(在这里在这里)讨论新消费物价指数的另一个方面。概述,新闻稿,以及与最新消费物价指数相关的其他支持材料,作为其主要主题,自由出版和稳健的重要性,独立的民间社会在反腐败斗争中。As TI states succinctly in the概览页对于2017年消费者物价指数,“[a]对[消费者物价指数]结果的分析表明,对新闻界和非政府组织(非政府组织)保护最少的国家的腐败率也最差。”从这一观察来看,TI argues that in order to make progress in the fight against corruption,政府应该“做更多的事来鼓励言论自由,独立媒体,political dissent and an open an engaged civil society," and should "minimize regulations on media … and ensure that journalists can work without fear of repression or violence." (TI also suggests that international donors should consider press freedom relevant to development aid or access to international organizations,一个值得在别处进行更充分探索的挑衅性建议。)

从广义上讲,I agree with TI's position,我很高兴看到电信努力利用与发布消费者物价指数有关的宣传来推动对某一重要领域的具体改进,而不是简单地强调腐败的不良影响(例如所谓的负面影响不平等poverty)or过分关注to (statistically meaningless) movements in country scores from previous years.电信是否成功地利用了消费者物价指数的宣传来更多地关注媒体和公民社会的自由,这是另一回事。但这一努力值得称赞。

That said,我花了点时间在支持性研究文件that TI provided on this issue,我发现自己处于一种令人不安的境地,即找到自由新闻/公民社会与反腐败斗争进展之间存在问题的充分证据基础,to put it mildly—even though my own reading of the larger academic literature on the topic makes me think the ultimate conclusion is likely correct,至少从广义上来说。后一个事实,再加上我承认我正在评估的材料是宣传文件而不是学术研究论文,使我不愿意批评得太严厉。尽管如此,从逻辑上讲,即使是我们的朋友和盟国也必须承担责任,and that in the long term promoting more careful and rigorous analysis will produce both more suitable policy prescriptions and better advocacy,我将阐述我在Ti关于新闻自由腐败关系的数据分析方面的主要困难:继续阅读

Are Jury Trials the Solution to Corruption in Armenian Courts?

Judicial corruption should be a priority for anticorruption efforts in nearly every country,since so much anticorruption work relies on the judiciary.然而,许多国家都在努力解决司法腐败问题。Armenia is one such country,as its citizens well know.In 2015,Transparency International报道that "70 percent of citizens in Armenia do not consider the judiciary free from influence." The practice of bribery is so open and notorious that in 2013,Armenia's human rights ombudsmanpublished一种“价格表”,法官用来确定获得各种结果所需的价格。One official estimated that most bribes add up to 10% of the cost of the lawsuit,但对于更高级别的法院来说可能更高。2017,four judges were逮捕收受1200至30000美元的贿赂。Corruption is not the only problem with Armenian courts—Armenia's judiciary is weak and generally subservient to the executive branch,法院经常与制度能力和公众的不信任作斗争,但所有这些问题都因腐败而加剧。

一些拥护者,包括美国律师协会,提出亚美尼亚司法腐败的一个解决办法是引入陪审团审判。事实上,the first post-Soviet Armenian constitution explicitly allowed jury trials,虽然最终没有陪审团审判,因为没有执行立法和缺乏政治意愿。When the constitution was amended in 2005,the language allowing jury trials was远离的.尽管如此,there has been some recent public debate in Armenia 188bet appabout whether introducing jury trials would be a good idea (see,for example,在这里在这里).

陪审团可以成为解决方案司法腐败?There are several reasons to think juries can fight judicial corruption in Armenia,以及其他地方:

继续阅读

印度政党财政改革未能确保完全透明,但仍朝着正确的方向迈出了一步。

3月1日,2018,India began its latest effort to clean up the financing of political parties and elections.这项努力涉及到销售所谓的electoral bonds“在全国范围内选定的国有银行。The term "electoral bonds" is a misnomer,for these "bonds" are not linked to elections,它们也不涉及偿还贷款或产生利息。Rather,these instruments are simply a new means to facilitate financial donations to political parties,并打算取代印度政治命脉中的非法现金转移。作为印度的财政部长辩称,this cash-based system causes two problems: First,“不明来源的不洁资金”有助于腐败和洗钱。第二,对现金的依赖使各缔约方能够少报预算和支出。这些担忧导致政府去年将匿名现金捐赠的限额从300美元减少到30美元。选举债券打算进一步破坏该系统,并至少提高政治支出的透明度。

新制度的公布引起了重大评论,与少数崇拜者被众多的诽谤者挤出(见,for example,在这里在这里,和在这里).批评的主要焦点是新方案对捐助者匿名性的保证:选举债券将没有名字也没有人。除了银行和捐助者,除非捐赠者愿意透露她的身份,否则可以知道是谁捐赠的。The government has defended the anonymity guarantee as a way to prevent reprisals against donors,but critics understandably argue that the lack of transparency means that much political financing will continue to come from "unidentifiable sources," allowing big business to keep lobbing money in exchange for policy favors while the public remains in the dark.(此外,政府强调害怕报复作为匿名理由,这表明政府过度关注保护唯一一类捐助者,这将是一个重大关切,因此,选举债券计划被描绘成一种可能加强对印度糟糕的经济形势负责的裙带资本主义的行动。

This strong negative reaction to the electoral bond scheme is,在我看来,过度劳累的True,新政策并不能解决印度政治金融的深层次和严重问题。But it does have some notable advantages over status quo.此外,选举债券制度的批评者有时似乎把捐助者的透明度视为一种纯粹的好处,事实上,捐助者的透明度也可能有一些缺点(即使人们不太重视政府在政治报复方面的官方立场)。Let me elaborate on each of these points:继续阅读

嘉宾贴子:金融保密指数确定了对促进全球腐败的非法资金流动负责最多的国家

安德烈斯诺贝尔,一名分析师Tax Justice Network,提供今天的来宾帖子:

非法的金融流动在世界各地造成了可怕的后果,尤其是因为他们助长了腐败和其他形式的大腐败。解决这一问题的关键一步是确定那些对问题最重要的贡献者的司法管辖区,并提供具体的,关于如何改进的具体建议。The Tax Justice Network aims to help do this through itsFinancial Secrecy Index(FSI),the latest edition of which was published this last January.2018年金融稳定机构包括112个国家和地区,根据其金融保密的全球影响,通过平衡保密水平和该国在国际金融领域的比重来衡量。

金融服务机构与标准的“避税天堂”名单不同之处在于,它并不打算单独列出少数管辖区进行特别谴责。这些名单往往意味着只有少数几个司法管辖区,often small countries,负责世界上所有的非法资金流动。The 2018 FSI,相比之下,涵盖112个司法管辖区,下一次评估将分析130。(目标是最终覆盖所有国家和地区。)此外,金融服务机构对各国进行排名,不仅是在它们允许的金融保密程度上,而是在一个结合of the degree of financial secrecy (the "Secrecy Score") and the actual use of a jurisdiction's financial services (the "Global Scale Weight"),in order to rank countries according to their overall contribution to the problem of illicit financial flows.In other words,the FSI ranking is not necessarily ranking the most secretive countries at the top;更确切地说,金融服务机构确定了最大的“问题国家”——那些拥有既秘密(即使不是最秘密)又大型且经常被非居民使用的金融系统的国家。According to this measure,这个ten jurisdictionsthat make the largest contribution to global financial secrecy are (in order starting with the worst contributors): Switzerland,the United States,开曼群岛,香港,新加坡,Luxembourg,Germany,台湾阿拉伯联合酋长国,and Guernsey.These are the jurisdictions that bear the greatest share of responsibility for enabling global illicit financial flows,including those stemming from corruption and tax evasion,因此,如果我们要看到打击非法全球金融流动的真正进展,这些司法管辖区最迫切需要变得更加透明。尽管所有司法管辖区都应采取行动提高透明度,从这十个司法管辖区开始,短期内影响最大。

有趣的是,也许对于那些关注这些问题的人来说,这并不奇怪,FSI上最严重的罪犯的“热图”看起来像更熟悉的热图的倒数showing the countries perceived to be most corrupt,根据透明国际的Corruption Perception Index(CPI)。一种解释这一点的方法是:根据消费者物价指数,在世界上最腐败的国家,公职人员及其私营部门的亲信(如也门,苏丹阿富汗Venezuela,Libya,等)很有可能利用金融保密在金融服务机构认为对金融保密贡献最大的国家隐藏腐败所得。Put differently,最糟糕的消费物价指数国家依靠像金融服务机构前十名这样的司法管辖区来洗钱非法活动的收益。

这些(和其他)司法管辖区应该做什么?关于这个问题,it is important to emphasize that the FSI is not just a ranking system.The FSI report also includes in-depth discussions of all relevant loopholes and sources of information related to financial secrecy in each jurisdiction.This enables researchers,政府当局,活动家,and financial institutions to obtain relevant information to be used for risk assessment,policy decisions,或倡导具体的透明度措施。(所有这些细节在线可用,for free and in open data format.) And while every country is different,大多数司法管辖区在执行税务司法网络所指的“财政透明度ABC”方面都会做得很好:

  • A语义学的exchange of bank account information与所有其他国家,especially developing countries,根据经合组织的共同报告标准;
  • eneficial ownership registration in a central public register for companies,伙伴关系,trusts and foundations (for more specific information,参见税务司法网络出版物在这里在这里在这里,和在这里,as well asthis recent paperI published with the Inter-American Development Bank);和
  • Country-by-Countryreporting,所有跨国公司都在网上发布这些信息。