The fight against corruption is the set of activities and measures that aim to detect political corruption, punish it once detected or make it difficult for it to arise. Just as corruption takes many forms, anti-corruption initiatives vary in scope and strategy.[1].
Sometimes a distinction is made between reactive and preventive measures. Investigation and attempts to reveal corrupt practices would be considered reactive, while education about the negative impact of corruption or companies' internal compliance programs would be classified as preventive.
In English anti-corruption or anticorruption is a noun and an adjective,[2] while in Spanish "anticorruption" is only an adjective,[3] so we cannot talk about anti-corruption simply, but rather about anti-corruption measures, anti-corruption prosecutors, anti-corruption laws, etc. The adjective always has to qualify a noun.
History
Early history
The Code of Hammurabi (c.), the Edict of Horemheb (c.), and the Artha-shastra (1st century BC)[4] are among the earliest written evidence of anti-corruption initiatives. All of these texts condemn bribery to influence the decisions of public officials, especially in the judicial sector. During the Roman Empire, corruption was also fought, for example through a decree of Emperor Constantine I in 331 AD[5].
In ancient times, moral principles based on religious beliefs were common, as several major religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, and Taoism condemn corrupt behavior in their respective religious texts. The behaviors described for legal and moral purposes exclusively addressed bribery, but did not address other aspects that only began to be considered corruption much later.
In ancient times, embezzlement, cronyism, nepotism, and other behavior by public employees to unfairly benefit from their position were not considered illegal or immoral, as positions of power were considered a personal possession rather than an entrusted function. With the popularization of the concept of public interest and the development of a professional bureaucracy in the 20th century, positions began to be perceived, no longer as the property of the holder, but as a commission from the people or the nation, so the holder had to act following the general interest and not for his own benefit. This led to these additional forms of corruption being frowned upon and various legislation being enacted against them. Although in diplomacy and for the purposes of international trade, corruption remained a generally accepted phenomenon of political and economic life throughout the century and much of the century.
Anti-corruption
Introduction
The fight against corruption is the set of activities and measures that aim to detect political corruption, punish it once detected or make it difficult for it to arise. Just as corruption takes many forms, anti-corruption initiatives vary in scope and strategy.[1].
Sometimes a distinction is made between reactive and preventive measures. Investigation and attempts to reveal corrupt practices would be considered reactive, while education about the negative impact of corruption or companies' internal compliance programs would be classified as preventive.
In English anti-corruption or anticorruption is a noun and an adjective,[2] while in Spanish "anticorruption" is only an adjective,[3] so we cannot talk about anti-corruption simply, but rather about anti-corruption measures, anti-corruption prosecutors, anti-corruption laws, etc. The adjective always has to qualify a noun.
History
Early history
The Code of Hammurabi (c.), the Edict of Horemheb (c.), and the Artha-shastra (1st century BC)[4] are among the earliest written evidence of anti-corruption initiatives. All of these texts condemn bribery to influence the decisions of public officials, especially in the judicial sector. During the Roman Empire, corruption was also fought, for example through a decree of Emperor Constantine I in 331 AD[5].
In ancient times, moral principles based on religious beliefs were common, as several major religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, and Taoism condemn corrupt behavior in their respective religious texts. The behaviors described for legal and moral purposes exclusively addressed bribery, but did not address other aspects that only began to be considered corruption much later.
In ancient times, embezzlement, cronyism, nepotism, and other behavior by public employees to unfairly benefit from their position were not considered illegal or immoral, as positions of power were considered a personal possession rather than an entrusted function. With the popularization of the concept of public interest and the development of a professional bureaucracy in the 20th century, positions began to be perceived, no longer as the property of the holder, but as a commission from the people or the nation, so the holder had to act following the general interest and not for his own benefit. This led to these additional forms of corruption being frowned upon and various legislation being enacted against them. Although in diplomacy and for the purposes of international trade, corruption remained a generally accepted phenomenon of political and economic life throughout the century and much of the century.
In contemporary society
In the 1990s, corruption was increasingly perceived to have a negative impact on the economy, democracy and the rule of law, as noted by then-United Nations Secretary Kofi Annan.[6] Those effects denounced by Annan could be proven through various empirical studies, as Juli Bacio Terracino made clear.[7].
Increased awareness of corruption was widespread and shared across professional, political, and geographic boundaries. While an international anti-corruption effort seemed unrealistic during the Cold War, a new discussion on the global impact of corruption became possible, leading to official condemnation of corruption by governments, businesses, and various other stakeholders.
The 1990s also saw an increase in press freedom, civil society activism and global communication through improved communication infrastructure, which paved the way towards a more complete understanding of the global prevalence and negative impact of corruption.[8] As a consequence of those developments, international non-governmental organizations were founded (e.g. Transparency International) and intergovernmental initiatives were taken (e.g. the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Task Force). —OECD—on bribery) to combat corruption.
From the decade 2001-2010, the discourse broadened: it became more common to refer to corruption as a violation of human rights, which was debated by responsible international organizations.[9] In addition to trying to find an adequate description of corruption, the integration of corruption into a human rights framework was also motivated by underscoring its importance and educating the population about its costs.[10].
Legal framework
Contenido
En la legislación nacional e internacional, existen leyes que se consideran dirigidas contra la corrupción. Estas leyes pueden surgir de resoluciones de organizaciones internacionales, y luego traspuestas a la legislación nacional por los países que las ratifican, o ser aprobadas directamente por el respectivo poder legislativo nacional.
Las leyes contra la corrupción están motivadas por razones similares a las que generalmente motivan la existencia del Derecho penal, ya que se cree que esas leyes, por un lado, brindan justicia al responsabilizar a los individuos por sus malas acciones, y por otro lado, disuaden a los que están considerando delinquir al hacer entrar en sus cálculos los castigos por actos ilegales.[11].
International law
Addressing the fight against corruption in an international context is often preferred to addressing it exclusively in the context of the nation state. The reasons for this preference are multidimensional, from the necessary international cooperation to track international corruption scandals[12] to the binding nature of international treaties and the loss of competitiveness that could occur in a country that illegalizes an activity if it continues to be legal in other countries. Although corruption is generally considered an obstacle to competitiveness.[13].
The Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions[14] (original title in Englishː Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions;[15] convention can be translated into Spanish by convenio or by convención, and bribery, by bribery or by bribery), sometimes abbreviated to "Anti-bribery Convention of the OECD" or "OECD Anti-Bribery Convention" was the first large-scale convention to address an aspect of corruption, when it came into force in 1999. Ratification of the convention obliges governments to implement it, which is monitored by the OECD Anti-Bribery Working Group. The convention states that it will be illegal to bribe foreign public officials. 46 countries have signed the convention,[16] the 38 members of the OECD and another 8 that do not belong to it.
The scope of the convention is deliberately limited, since it only deals with active bribery (a crime committed by the person who receives the gift, while the person who offers it, or agrees to give it when the public employee requests it, commits passive bribery). It is more restricted than other anti-corruption treaties precisely to have more influence on its specific objective, as explained by the president of the aforementioned working group, Mark Pieth.
Empirical research by Nathan Jensen and Edmund Malesky suggests that companies based in countries that have ratified this convention are less likely to pay bribes abroad.[17] The results are not exclusively explainable by regulatory mechanisms and the possible sanctions that may come through this process, but are also influenced by less formal mechanisms. For example, peer review of a country by officials from other signatory countries and the possible damage to the image of the reviewed country. However, organizations such as Transparency International questioned whether the results of the process are sufficient, especially since a significant number of countries are not actively pursuing bribery cases.
20 years before the OECD convention was ratified, the United Nations discussed a draft for a convention on corruption. The draft of an international agreement on illicit payments, proposed in 1979 by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, did not find an echo in the General Assembly and did not prosper. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) had more success when it presented its draft of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) in 2003.
The UNCAC was ratified in 2003 and entered into force in 2005. It constitutes an international treaty, currently signed by 186 partners, including 182 United Nations Member States and 4 non-state signatories. The UNCAC has a broader scope than the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, as it does not focus exclusively on public officials, but also includes, among others, corruption in the private sector and corruption not related to bribery, such as money laundering and abuse of power.
The UNCAC also specifies various mechanisms to combat corruption, such as international cooperation to detect and prosecute corruption, cancellation of permits when related to corrupt conduct, and protection of whistleblowers. The application of this convention is supervised by the International Association of Anti-Corruption Agencies (IAACA).
In 2012, Mark Lawrence Wolf raised the idea of creating an International Anti-Corruption Court, either as part of the already existing International Criminal Court or as an equivalent. The suggestion was widely debated and supported by various NGOs, including the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption (GOPAC), Global Witness, Human Rights Watch, Integrity Initiatives International") (III) and Transparency International.[18] Currently, no organization with the authority to carry out this measure plans to implement it.
In 2011, the International Anti-Corruption Academy was created as an intergovernmental organization by treaty[19] to provide training on anti-corruption.[20].
Many other intergovernmental organizations combat corruption by means other than binding conventions. Among them are the World Bank (for example, through its Independent Evaluation Group), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [21] and the Andean Community (within the framework of the Andean Plan to combat corruption).[22].
The first anti-corruption convention adopted by a regional organization was the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (IACC) of the Organization of American States (OAS). This convention, which addressed both active and passive bribery, came into force in 1997. It is currently ratified by the 34 active member states of the OAS.[23] [note 1].
In 1997, the European Union (EU) adopted the EU Convention against Corruption of Officials, which prohibits participation in corrupt activities with officials of the administrative staff of the European Union or with officials of any EU Member State. It obliges signatories to prohibit bribery, both active and passive, involving any of the aforementioned officials. Responsibility for illegal acts extends to the directors of the entities whose agents bribed officials.[24].
The Council of Europe established, on the one hand, the Civil Law Convention on Corruption,[25] intended not so much to punish corruption, but to homogenize the civil law of the signatory countries so that people or companies harmed by corruption could claim compensation before the courts. By 2025, all member countries of the Council of Europe had signed it, except Portugal and Switzerland, and all signatories had ratified it, except Germany, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. The person negatively affected by an act of corruption has the right to rely on the laws to receive compensation from the guilty party or the entity represented by the guilty party, explicitly including the possibility of compensation from the State if the corrupt act was perpetrated by an official.[26].
On the other hand, it established in 1999 the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, intended to homogenize the criminal law of the signatory countries so that certain corrupt practices would be punished in all of them.[27] 48 countries, including all of the Council of Europe, have signed and ratified it. An additional protocol was subsequently approved to penalize other corrupt behavior, such as bribery of sports referees.[28] This protocol has been signed by 44 countries.[29] [note 2].
The Council of Europe's anti-corruption efforts are monitored and supported by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) as its main monitoring organisation. Any country can join GRECO without needing to belong to the Council of Europe.
Since its launch in 2003, the African Union Convention to Prevent and Combat Corruption has been ratified by 38 States Parties.[30] It represents the consensus of signatories on minimum standards to combat corruption. The resolution was criticized in the Journal of African Law for failing to take into account other aspects of the rule of law, such as the protection of personal data and the principle of presumption of innocence.[31]
National law
Although the laws of each country generally criminalize bribery of officials of that country, even before the ratification of international conventions and treaties,[32] many national legal systems did not consider bribery of foreign officials or more sophisticated methods of corruption illegal. Only after the ratification of these agreements, and their transposition into the legal framework of the country that ratified them, did these behaviors become a crime in that country.[33] When legislation already existed before the ratification of the agreement, its implementation resulted in greater compliance with the legal framework.[34].
Corruption is typically addressed by specialized investigative authorities, often referred to as anti-corruption agencies, which have various functions and are subject to varying degrees of independence from government, regulations and relevant powers, depending on their role in the architecture of the national law enforcement system. A precursor of these organizations is the Anti-Corruption Commission of the City of New York, established in 1873.[35] An increase in the number of these national organizations is observed in the last decade of the century and the first of the 21st.[36].
In 2019, the Government of Armenia approved the Anti-Corruption Strategy and its implementation plan between 2019 and 2022.[37] Its 3 axes would beː.
Even before the adoption of the Anti-Corruption Strategy and implementation plan, after the Velvet Revolution in Armenia in 2018 (different from the 1989 Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia) the number of cases of criminal investigation of corruption almost doubled in Armenia. As the report issued by the Attorney General's Office says, the number of corruption investigations initiated by law enforcement agencies in the country during the first half of 2018 is more than double compared to the number of criminal cases against corruption cases initiated during the first half of 2017. Of the 786 cases initiated at the beginning of 2018, 579 resulted in criminal proceedings. From the first months of the implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy, Armenia acted against corruption, mainly by improving the country's investment environment, which positively influenced economic indices.[38].
Brazil's Anti-Corruption Law (officially "Law No. 12 846, of August 1, 2013", and commonly known as the "Clean Company Law") was enacted in 2014 to combat corrupt practices among business entities operating in Brazil. It defines civil and administrative sanctions, and offers the possibility of reducing sanctions to offending companies if they cooperate with Justice through a leniency agreement between the company and the Government. This had major implications for Operation Lava Jato and resulted in important settlements such as the plea agreements between Odebrecht and Lava Jato, and the recovery of billions of dollars in fines.[39].
Canada was one of the last signatories to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention that did not implement the criminalization of bribery of foreign officials in its national laws. While the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA) was passed in 1999, it was not often used to prosecute foreign bribery by Canadian companies, as it contained a provision stating that the act of bribery must have a "actual and substantial link" to Canada. That provision was repealed in 2013 by Bill S-14 (also known as the Anti-Foreign Corruption Act). Additionally, Bill S-14 banned facilitation payments and increased potential penalties for violating the CFPOA.[40] An increase in the maximum prison sentence for bribery to 14 years was one of the tougher sanctions.[41] According to Transparency International's 2014 report, Canada is moderately enforcing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.[42].
Fighting corruption by means other than laws
Corruption prevention
It is believed that education in values is a tool that can teach the negative effects of corruption and create resilience against corruption, when the possibility of corrupting or becoming corrupt arises. Another school of thought on the prevention of corruption is linked to the economist Robert Klitgaard, who developed an economic theory of corruption: corrupt behavior occurs by producing greater benefits for the corrupt and the corrupter than the established punishment multiplied by the probability that both perceive that they will be caught. Consequently, Klitgaard advocates increasing the costs of corruption for those involved, making fines more likely and severe.
Good governance
Since incidents of corruption often occur in the interaction between representatives of private sector companies and public officials, significant action can be taken against corruption within public administrations.[1] The concept of good governance can, therefore, be applied to increase the integrity of administrations, thereby decreasing the likelihood of officials becoming corrupt.[78] Transparency is an aspect of good governance.[79] Transparency initiatives can help detect corruption and hold officials and politicians accountable. corrupt.[80].
Another aspect of good governance as a tool to combat corruption lies in creating trust in state institutions. Gong Ting and Xiao Hanyu, for example, argue that citizens who have positive perceptions of state institutions are more likely to report corruption-related incidents than those who express lower levels of trust.[81].
Agency sanctions
Although sanctions "Sanction (law)") appear to be supported by a legal framework, their application often falls outside the state legal system, as they are frequently applied by multilateral development banks (MDBs), state agencies and other organizations, which implement such sanctions not through the application of laws, but based on their internal statutes. The World Bank, although reluctant in the century to use sanctions, became an important source of this specific type of anti-corruption enforcement. The MDBs involved usually apply an administrative process that includes judicial elements, when suspicion of corruption arises with respect to the projects they finance. If sanctionable behavior is identified, the respective authority may issue a disqualification of the corrupt company from working with that MDB, or milder forms, for example, mandatory supervision of business conduct or the payment of fines.
Public sector contracting
Excluding companies with a history of corruption from contract bidding is another form of sanction that contracting agencies can apply to ensure compliance with external and internal anti-corruption regulations. This aspect is of special importance, since public procurement is especially vulnerable to corruption, both in volume and frequency. In addition to establishing incentives for companies to comply with anti-corruption rules by threatening their exclusion from future contracts, internal compliance with anti-corruption rules by the contracting agency is of vital importance. According to anti-corruption experts Adam Graycar and Tim Prenzler, such a measure should include precisely and unambiguously worded rules, functional protection and support for whistleblowers, and a system that notifies supervisors in advance of potential dangers of conflicts of interest or corruption-related incidents.[82]
Corruption perception index
The Corruption Perceptions Index is published annually by Transparency International. Score all the countries in the world according to the corruption that is perceived in them. If a country declines in this index, it is an incentive for it to adopt anti-corruption measures or revitalize those it already has in place.
civil society
Michael Johnston y otros sostienen que las organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG), las organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OSC) y los medios de comunicación pueden influir eficazmente contra la corrupción.[83] Además, Bertot et al. (2010) ampliaron la lista de agentes de la sociedad civil potencialmente involucrados al introducir la noción de activismo anticorrupción descentralizado y organizado de manera informal a través de los canales de las redes sociales.[84].
Al no definir con precisión las leyes de todos los países todos los posibles actos de corrupción, la perspectiva jurídica es estructuralmente incapaz de eliminar la corrupción. Dadas la considerable variedad de leyes nacionales, la frecuente evolución de la normativa y la ambigüedad de algunas leyes, se argumenta que se necesitan actores no estatales para complementar la lucha contra la corrupción y estructurarla de forma más integral.[35].
Ensure transparency
An example of a more inclusive approach to combating corruption that goes beyond the framework established by legislators and the main role assumed by civil society representatives is the monitoring of governments, politicians, public officials and others to increase transparency.
Other means to this end could include pressure campaigns against certain organizations, institutions or companies.[85] Investigative journalism is another way to identify potentially corrupt dealings by officials.
This monitoring is often combined with reporting, in order to create publicity for the observed misconduct. Therefore, these mechanisms are increasing the cost of corrupt acts, by making them public and negatively impacting the image of the official involved.
An example of such a strategy of combating corruption by publicly disseminating corrupt acts is the Albanian television program Fiks Fare which repeatedly reported on corruption by broadcasting videos filmed with hidden cameras, in which officials accept bribes.[86].
Corruption education
Another area of civil society participation is prevention through education about the negative consequences of corruption and strengthening the moral values that oppose it. Considering corruption as a moral issue used to be the predominant way to combat it, but it lost importance in the century as other approaches gained greater influence.[87].
The largest organization in the field of civil society opposition to corruption is the globally active NGO Transparency International (TI).[88] NGOs also provide material to educate professionals about fighting corruption. Examples of such publications are the standards and suggestions provided by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the World Economic Forum (WEF) and TI. The persistent work of civil society organizations can also go beyond establishing awareness about the negative impact of corruption and serve as a way to generate political will to pursue corruption and engage in anti-corruption measures.[89].
Non-state actors in the field of asset recovery
A prominent area of activism for non-state actors is international asset recovery, which involves returning assets (usually money) to their rightful owners (usually countries) after their illegal acquisition through acts of corruption (such as bribery). The process ranges from the collection of information about the crime that gave rise to the transfer of assets, through their confiscation, to their return.
Although this recovery is regulated by the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), it is not an exclusive activity of governments, but rather attracts actors with different backgrounds, such as academia, the media, civil society organizations and other non-state actors. In this area of anti-corruption activism, civil society representatives often adopt a different stance than in other areas, as they are regularly consulted to assist administrations with their respective expertise and therefore facilitate state actions. This important role of non-state actors was recognized by the States parties to the UNCAC.[90].
Anti-corruption activism
Anti-corruption activism has raised public awareness about corruption, but has been criticized for focusing on perceptions of corruption rather than corruption itself, top-down strategies, and limited success in reducing corruption.[91]
Corporate anti-corruption approaches
Compliance
Rather than relying exclusively on deterrence, as Robert Klitgaard suggests (see section on prevention), economists seek to put in place incentives that reward regulatory compliance and punish non-compliance. By aligning the agent's self-interest with the social interest of avoiding corruption, a reduction in corruption can be achieved.[92].
The field of compliance can generally be perceived as an internalization into the company of external laws to avoid its fines. There are also laws that not only punish non-compliance with regulations, but also oblige companies to have mechanisms dedicated to monitoring compliance.[93].
The adoption of laws, such as the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the UK Bribery Act 2010,[94] strengthened the importance of concepts such as compliance, as fines for corrupt behavior became more likely and there was a financial increase in these fines. Internal mechanisms to monitor compliance were cheaper for companies than fines for non-compliance.
When a company is sued because its employees engaged in acts of corruption, a well-established compliance system can serve as evidence that the organization attempted to prevent those acts of corruption. Consequently, fines can be reduced, which incentivizes the implementation of an efficient compliance system.[52].
In 2012, US authorities decided not to prosecute Morgan Stanley in a bribery case in China under the provisions of the FCPA due to its compliance program.[41] This case demonstrates the relevance of the compliance approach.
Collective action
Anti-corruption collective action is a form of collective action that aims to combat corruption and bribery risks in public procurement. This is a collaborative anti-corruption activity that brings together representatives from the private sector, the public sector and civil society. The idea arises from academic analysis of the prisoner's dilemma in game theory and focuses on establishing practices that respect the rules and benefit all interested parties, even if each of them could unilaterally have an incentive to circumvent specific anti-corruption rules. Transparency International first proposed a precursor to modern collective action initiatives in the 1990s with its Integrity Island* concept, now known as the integrity pact.[95] According to Transparency International, "collective action is necessary when a problem cannot be solved by individual actors" and therefore requires stakeholders to build trust and share information and resources.[96].
The World Bank Institute states that collective action “increases the impact and credibility of individual action, brings vulnerable individual actors into an alliance of like-minded organizations, and moves toward a level playing field.”
Anti-corruption collective action initiatives vary in type, purpose and stakeholders, but generally target the supply side of bribery.[97] They often take the form of collectively agreed anti-corruption statements or standard-setting initiatives, such as a sector code of conduct.
A prominent example is the Wolfsberg Group and in particular its Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking and Anti-Corruption Guidance, which require member banks to adhere to several principles aimed at anti-money laundering and anti-corruption. The mechanism is designed to protect individual banks from any negative consequences of complying with strict rules by collectively enforcing those regulations (if only one bank complied with those rules, corrupt customers would go to another). The Wolfsberg Group additionally serves as a secondary channel for communication between the compliance officers of the participating banks.
The World Economic Forum's anti-corruption initiatives can also be seen in this framework.[98] Other initiatives in the field of collective action include the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative/Infrastructure Transparency Initiative (CoST) and the International Forum on Ethical Business Conduct (IFBEC). Collective action is included in the Kingdom's national anti-corruption statements. United Kingdom,[99] France[100] and Ghana,[101] presented at the 2018 International Anti-Corruption Conference.
B20 political interventions are another way to engage in anti-corruption discourse, as B20 members attempt to support the G20 by offering their perspectives as business leaders, including with respect to strengthening anti-corruption policies, for example, transparency in government procurement or more comprehensive anti-corruption laws.[102].
In 2013, the B20 commissioned the Basel Governance Institute to develop and maintain the B20 Collective Action Centre, an online platform for anti-corruption collective action tools and resources that includes a database of collective action initiatives around the world. The B20 Collective Action Center is managed by the International Center for Collective Action (ICCA) of the Basel Governance Institute in partnership with the United Nations Global Compact.
Another tangible result of the B20 meetings was the discussion (and implementation as a test case in Colombia) of the high-level reporting mechanism (HLRM), which seeks to implement a type of ombudsman's office in a prominent government position for companies to report possible problems of bribery or corruption in public tenders. In addition to Colombia, the HLRM concept has been implemented in different ways in Argentina, Ukraine and Panama.[103].
Implementation
Sylvie Bleker-van Eyk of VU University Amsterdam sees value in implementing strong compliance departments in companies.[52] Fritz Heimann and Mark Pieth describe the work environment of such departments as, at best, overseen by external experts. Another measure that Heimann and Pieth say supports the work of compliance officers is the company's adherence to collective action initiatives.
Instruments such as codes of ethics can serve as base documents to promote anti-corruption policies of companies Seumas Miller et al. (2005) also highlight that the process to implement these policies must include an open debate among the company's employees to apply measures on which there is internal consensus.[104] This cultural change can be carried out through exemplary behavior on the part of senior management, regular training programs on the fight against corruption and constant monitoring of development in these areas.
in culture
International Anti-Corruption Day has been celebrated annually on December 9 since it was established by the United Nations in 2003 to underline the importance of the fight against corruption and provide a visible signal for campaigns against this scourge.[105].
References
[24] ↑ Cuba fue suspendida de la Organización de Estados Americanos de 1962 a 2009. Después de que se levantara la prohibición, el país escogió no participar.
[31] ↑ La República Checa, Italia y la Federación Rusa firmaron el protocolo, pero no lo han ratificado.
In contemporary society
In the 1990s, corruption was increasingly perceived to have a negative impact on the economy, democracy and the rule of law, as noted by then-United Nations Secretary Kofi Annan.[6] Those effects denounced by Annan could be proven through various empirical studies, as Juli Bacio Terracino made clear.[7].
Increased awareness of corruption was widespread and shared across professional, political, and geographic boundaries. While an international anti-corruption effort seemed unrealistic during the Cold War, a new discussion on the global impact of corruption became possible, leading to official condemnation of corruption by governments, businesses, and various other stakeholders.
The 1990s also saw an increase in press freedom, civil society activism and global communication through improved communication infrastructure, which paved the way towards a more complete understanding of the global prevalence and negative impact of corruption.[8] As a consequence of those developments, international non-governmental organizations were founded (e.g. Transparency International) and intergovernmental initiatives were taken (e.g. the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Task Force). —OECD—on bribery) to combat corruption.
From the decade 2001-2010, the discourse broadened: it became more common to refer to corruption as a violation of human rights, which was debated by responsible international organizations.[9] In addition to trying to find an adequate description of corruption, the integration of corruption into a human rights framework was also motivated by underscoring its importance and educating the population about its costs.[10].
Legal framework
Contenido
En la legislación nacional e internacional, existen leyes que se consideran dirigidas contra la corrupción. Estas leyes pueden surgir de resoluciones de organizaciones internacionales, y luego traspuestas a la legislación nacional por los países que las ratifican, o ser aprobadas directamente por el respectivo poder legislativo nacional.
Las leyes contra la corrupción están motivadas por razones similares a las que generalmente motivan la existencia del Derecho penal, ya que se cree que esas leyes, por un lado, brindan justicia al responsabilizar a los individuos por sus malas acciones, y por otro lado, disuaden a los que están considerando delinquir al hacer entrar en sus cálculos los castigos por actos ilegales.[11].
International law
Addressing the fight against corruption in an international context is often preferred to addressing it exclusively in the context of the nation state. The reasons for this preference are multidimensional, from the necessary international cooperation to track international corruption scandals[12] to the binding nature of international treaties and the loss of competitiveness that could occur in a country that illegalizes an activity if it continues to be legal in other countries. Although corruption is generally considered an obstacle to competitiveness.[13].
The Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions[14] (original title in Englishː Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions;[15] convention can be translated into Spanish by convenio or by convención, and bribery, by bribery or by bribery), sometimes abbreviated to "Anti-bribery Convention of the OECD" or "OECD Anti-Bribery Convention" was the first large-scale convention to address an aspect of corruption, when it came into force in 1999. Ratification of the convention obliges governments to implement it, which is monitored by the OECD Anti-Bribery Working Group. The convention states that it will be illegal to bribe foreign public officials. 46 countries have signed the convention,[16] the 38 members of the OECD and another 8 that do not belong to it.
The scope of the convention is deliberately limited, since it only deals with active bribery (a crime committed by the person who receives the gift, while the person who offers it, or agrees to give it when the public employee requests it, commits passive bribery). It is more restricted than other anti-corruption treaties precisely to have more influence on its specific objective, as explained by the president of the aforementioned working group, Mark Pieth.
Empirical research by Nathan Jensen and Edmund Malesky suggests that companies based in countries that have ratified this convention are less likely to pay bribes abroad.[17] The results are not exclusively explainable by regulatory mechanisms and the possible sanctions that may come through this process, but are also influenced by less formal mechanisms. For example, peer review of a country by officials from other signatory countries and the possible damage to the image of the reviewed country. However, organizations such as Transparency International questioned whether the results of the process are sufficient, especially since a significant number of countries are not actively pursuing bribery cases.
20 years before the OECD convention was ratified, the United Nations discussed a draft for a convention on corruption. The draft of an international agreement on illicit payments, proposed in 1979 by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, did not find an echo in the General Assembly and did not prosper. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) had more success when it presented its draft of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) in 2003.
The UNCAC was ratified in 2003 and entered into force in 2005. It constitutes an international treaty, currently signed by 186 partners, including 182 United Nations Member States and 4 non-state signatories. The UNCAC has a broader scope than the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, as it does not focus exclusively on public officials, but also includes, among others, corruption in the private sector and corruption not related to bribery, such as money laundering and abuse of power.
The UNCAC also specifies various mechanisms to combat corruption, such as international cooperation to detect and prosecute corruption, cancellation of permits when related to corrupt conduct, and protection of whistleblowers. The application of this convention is supervised by the International Association of Anti-Corruption Agencies (IAACA).
In 2012, Mark Lawrence Wolf raised the idea of creating an International Anti-Corruption Court, either as part of the already existing International Criminal Court or as an equivalent. The suggestion was widely debated and supported by various NGOs, including the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption (GOPAC), Global Witness, Human Rights Watch, Integrity Initiatives International") (III) and Transparency International.[18] Currently, no organization with the authority to carry out this measure plans to implement it.
In 2011, the International Anti-Corruption Academy was created as an intergovernmental organization by treaty[19] to provide training on anti-corruption.[20].
Many other intergovernmental organizations combat corruption by means other than binding conventions. Among them are the World Bank (for example, through its Independent Evaluation Group), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [21] and the Andean Community (within the framework of the Andean Plan to combat corruption).[22].
The first anti-corruption convention adopted by a regional organization was the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (IACC) of the Organization of American States (OAS). This convention, which addressed both active and passive bribery, came into force in 1997. It is currently ratified by the 34 active member states of the OAS.[23] [note 1].
In 1997, the European Union (EU) adopted the EU Convention against Corruption of Officials, which prohibits participation in corrupt activities with officials of the administrative staff of the European Union or with officials of any EU Member State. It obliges signatories to prohibit bribery, both active and passive, involving any of the aforementioned officials. Responsibility for illegal acts extends to the directors of the entities whose agents bribed officials.[24].
The Council of Europe established, on the one hand, the Civil Law Convention on Corruption,[25] intended not so much to punish corruption, but to homogenize the civil law of the signatory countries so that people or companies harmed by corruption could claim compensation before the courts. By 2025, all member countries of the Council of Europe had signed it, except Portugal and Switzerland, and all signatories had ratified it, except Germany, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. The person negatively affected by an act of corruption has the right to rely on the laws to receive compensation from the guilty party or the entity represented by the guilty party, explicitly including the possibility of compensation from the State if the corrupt act was perpetrated by an official.[26].
On the other hand, it established in 1999 the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, intended to homogenize the criminal law of the signatory countries so that certain corrupt practices would be punished in all of them.[27] 48 countries, including all of the Council of Europe, have signed and ratified it. An additional protocol was subsequently approved to penalize other corrupt behavior, such as bribery of sports referees.[28] This protocol has been signed by 44 countries.[29] [note 2].
The Council of Europe's anti-corruption efforts are monitored and supported by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) as its main monitoring organisation. Any country can join GRECO without needing to belong to the Council of Europe.
Since its launch in 2003, the African Union Convention to Prevent and Combat Corruption has been ratified by 38 States Parties.[30] It represents the consensus of signatories on minimum standards to combat corruption. The resolution was criticized in the Journal of African Law for failing to take into account other aspects of the rule of law, such as the protection of personal data and the principle of presumption of innocence.[31]
National law
Although the laws of each country generally criminalize bribery of officials of that country, even before the ratification of international conventions and treaties,[32] many national legal systems did not consider bribery of foreign officials or more sophisticated methods of corruption illegal. Only after the ratification of these agreements, and their transposition into the legal framework of the country that ratified them, did these behaviors become a crime in that country.[33] When legislation already existed before the ratification of the agreement, its implementation resulted in greater compliance with the legal framework.[34].
Corruption is typically addressed by specialized investigative authorities, often referred to as anti-corruption agencies, which have various functions and are subject to varying degrees of independence from government, regulations and relevant powers, depending on their role in the architecture of the national law enforcement system. A precursor of these organizations is the Anti-Corruption Commission of the City of New York, established in 1873.[35] An increase in the number of these national organizations is observed in the last decade of the century and the first of the 21st.[36].
In 2019, the Government of Armenia approved the Anti-Corruption Strategy and its implementation plan between 2019 and 2022.[37] Its 3 axes would beː.
Even before the adoption of the Anti-Corruption Strategy and implementation plan, after the Velvet Revolution in Armenia in 2018 (different from the 1989 Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia) the number of cases of criminal investigation of corruption almost doubled in Armenia. As the report issued by the Attorney General's Office says, the number of corruption investigations initiated by law enforcement agencies in the country during the first half of 2018 is more than double compared to the number of criminal cases against corruption cases initiated during the first half of 2017. Of the 786 cases initiated at the beginning of 2018, 579 resulted in criminal proceedings. From the first months of the implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy, Armenia acted against corruption, mainly by improving the country's investment environment, which positively influenced economic indices.[38].
Brazil's Anti-Corruption Law (officially "Law No. 12 846, of August 1, 2013", and commonly known as the "Clean Company Law") was enacted in 2014 to combat corrupt practices among business entities operating in Brazil. It defines civil and administrative sanctions, and offers the possibility of reducing sanctions to offending companies if they cooperate with Justice through a leniency agreement between the company and the Government. This had major implications for Operation Lava Jato and resulted in important settlements such as the plea agreements between Odebrecht and Lava Jato, and the recovery of billions of dollars in fines.[39].
Canada was one of the last signatories to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention that did not implement the criminalization of bribery of foreign officials in its national laws. While the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA) was passed in 1999, it was not often used to prosecute foreign bribery by Canadian companies, as it contained a provision stating that the act of bribery must have a "actual and substantial link" to Canada. That provision was repealed in 2013 by Bill S-14 (also known as the Anti-Foreign Corruption Act). Additionally, Bill S-14 banned facilitation payments and increased potential penalties for violating the CFPOA.[40] An increase in the maximum prison sentence for bribery to 14 years was one of the tougher sanctions.[41] According to Transparency International's 2014 report, Canada is moderately enforcing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.[42].
Fighting corruption by means other than laws
Corruption prevention
It is believed that education in values is a tool that can teach the negative effects of corruption and create resilience against corruption, when the possibility of corrupting or becoming corrupt arises. Another school of thought on the prevention of corruption is linked to the economist Robert Klitgaard, who developed an economic theory of corruption: corrupt behavior occurs by producing greater benefits for the corrupt and the corrupter than the established punishment multiplied by the probability that both perceive that they will be caught. Consequently, Klitgaard advocates increasing the costs of corruption for those involved, making fines more likely and severe.
Good governance
Since incidents of corruption often occur in the interaction between representatives of private sector companies and public officials, significant action can be taken against corruption within public administrations.[1] The concept of good governance can, therefore, be applied to increase the integrity of administrations, thereby decreasing the likelihood of officials becoming corrupt.[78] Transparency is an aspect of good governance.[79] Transparency initiatives can help detect corruption and hold officials and politicians accountable. corrupt.[80].
Another aspect of good governance as a tool to combat corruption lies in creating trust in state institutions. Gong Ting and Xiao Hanyu, for example, argue that citizens who have positive perceptions of state institutions are more likely to report corruption-related incidents than those who express lower levels of trust.[81].
Agency sanctions
Although sanctions "Sanction (law)") appear to be supported by a legal framework, their application often falls outside the state legal system, as they are frequently applied by multilateral development banks (MDBs), state agencies and other organizations, which implement such sanctions not through the application of laws, but based on their internal statutes. The World Bank, although reluctant in the century to use sanctions, became an important source of this specific type of anti-corruption enforcement. The MDBs involved usually apply an administrative process that includes judicial elements, when suspicion of corruption arises with respect to the projects they finance. If sanctionable behavior is identified, the respective authority may issue a disqualification of the corrupt company from working with that MDB, or milder forms, for example, mandatory supervision of business conduct or the payment of fines.
Public sector contracting
Excluding companies with a history of corruption from contract bidding is another form of sanction that contracting agencies can apply to ensure compliance with external and internal anti-corruption regulations. This aspect is of special importance, since public procurement is especially vulnerable to corruption, both in volume and frequency. In addition to establishing incentives for companies to comply with anti-corruption rules by threatening their exclusion from future contracts, internal compliance with anti-corruption rules by the contracting agency is of vital importance. According to anti-corruption experts Adam Graycar and Tim Prenzler, such a measure should include precisely and unambiguously worded rules, functional protection and support for whistleblowers, and a system that notifies supervisors in advance of potential dangers of conflicts of interest or corruption-related incidents.[82]
Corruption perception index
The Corruption Perceptions Index is published annually by Transparency International. Score all the countries in the world according to the corruption that is perceived in them. If a country declines in this index, it is an incentive for it to adopt anti-corruption measures or revitalize those it already has in place.
civil society
Michael Johnston y otros sostienen que las organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG), las organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OSC) y los medios de comunicación pueden influir eficazmente contra la corrupción.[83] Además, Bertot et al. (2010) ampliaron la lista de agentes de la sociedad civil potencialmente involucrados al introducir la noción de activismo anticorrupción descentralizado y organizado de manera informal a través de los canales de las redes sociales.[84].
Al no definir con precisión las leyes de todos los países todos los posibles actos de corrupción, la perspectiva jurídica es estructuralmente incapaz de eliminar la corrupción. Dadas la considerable variedad de leyes nacionales, la frecuente evolución de la normativa y la ambigüedad de algunas leyes, se argumenta que se necesitan actores no estatales para complementar la lucha contra la corrupción y estructurarla de forma más integral.[35].
Ensure transparency
An example of a more inclusive approach to combating corruption that goes beyond the framework established by legislators and the main role assumed by civil society representatives is the monitoring of governments, politicians, public officials and others to increase transparency.
Other means to this end could include pressure campaigns against certain organizations, institutions or companies.[85] Investigative journalism is another way to identify potentially corrupt dealings by officials.
This monitoring is often combined with reporting, in order to create publicity for the observed misconduct. Therefore, these mechanisms are increasing the cost of corrupt acts, by making them public and negatively impacting the image of the official involved.
An example of such a strategy of combating corruption by publicly disseminating corrupt acts is the Albanian television program Fiks Fare which repeatedly reported on corruption by broadcasting videos filmed with hidden cameras, in which officials accept bribes.[86].
Corruption education
Another area of civil society participation is prevention through education about the negative consequences of corruption and strengthening the moral values that oppose it. Considering corruption as a moral issue used to be the predominant way to combat it, but it lost importance in the century as other approaches gained greater influence.[87].
The largest organization in the field of civil society opposition to corruption is the globally active NGO Transparency International (TI).[88] NGOs also provide material to educate professionals about fighting corruption. Examples of such publications are the standards and suggestions provided by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the World Economic Forum (WEF) and TI. The persistent work of civil society organizations can also go beyond establishing awareness about the negative impact of corruption and serve as a way to generate political will to pursue corruption and engage in anti-corruption measures.[89].
Non-state actors in the field of asset recovery
A prominent area of activism for non-state actors is international asset recovery, which involves returning assets (usually money) to their rightful owners (usually countries) after their illegal acquisition through acts of corruption (such as bribery). The process ranges from the collection of information about the crime that gave rise to the transfer of assets, through their confiscation, to their return.
Although this recovery is regulated by the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), it is not an exclusive activity of governments, but rather attracts actors with different backgrounds, such as academia, the media, civil society organizations and other non-state actors. In this area of anti-corruption activism, civil society representatives often adopt a different stance than in other areas, as they are regularly consulted to assist administrations with their respective expertise and therefore facilitate state actions. This important role of non-state actors was recognized by the States parties to the UNCAC.[90].
Anti-corruption activism
Anti-corruption activism has raised public awareness about corruption, but has been criticized for focusing on perceptions of corruption rather than corruption itself, top-down strategies, and limited success in reducing corruption.[91]
Corporate anti-corruption approaches
Compliance
Rather than relying exclusively on deterrence, as Robert Klitgaard suggests (see section on prevention), economists seek to put in place incentives that reward regulatory compliance and punish non-compliance. By aligning the agent's self-interest with the social interest of avoiding corruption, a reduction in corruption can be achieved.[92].
The field of compliance can generally be perceived as an internalization into the company of external laws to avoid its fines. There are also laws that not only punish non-compliance with regulations, but also oblige companies to have mechanisms dedicated to monitoring compliance.[93].
The adoption of laws, such as the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the UK Bribery Act 2010,[94] strengthened the importance of concepts such as compliance, as fines for corrupt behavior became more likely and there was a financial increase in these fines. Internal mechanisms to monitor compliance were cheaper for companies than fines for non-compliance.
When a company is sued because its employees engaged in acts of corruption, a well-established compliance system can serve as evidence that the organization attempted to prevent those acts of corruption. Consequently, fines can be reduced, which incentivizes the implementation of an efficient compliance system.[52].
In 2012, US authorities decided not to prosecute Morgan Stanley in a bribery case in China under the provisions of the FCPA due to its compliance program.[41] This case demonstrates the relevance of the compliance approach.
Collective action
Anti-corruption collective action is a form of collective action that aims to combat corruption and bribery risks in public procurement. This is a collaborative anti-corruption activity that brings together representatives from the private sector, the public sector and civil society. The idea arises from academic analysis of the prisoner's dilemma in game theory and focuses on establishing practices that respect the rules and benefit all interested parties, even if each of them could unilaterally have an incentive to circumvent specific anti-corruption rules. Transparency International first proposed a precursor to modern collective action initiatives in the 1990s with its Integrity Island* concept, now known as the integrity pact.[95] According to Transparency International, "collective action is necessary when a problem cannot be solved by individual actors" and therefore requires stakeholders to build trust and share information and resources.[96].
The World Bank Institute states that collective action “increases the impact and credibility of individual action, brings vulnerable individual actors into an alliance of like-minded organizations, and moves toward a level playing field.”
Anti-corruption collective action initiatives vary in type, purpose and stakeholders, but generally target the supply side of bribery.[97] They often take the form of collectively agreed anti-corruption statements or standard-setting initiatives, such as a sector code of conduct.
A prominent example is the Wolfsberg Group and in particular its Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking and Anti-Corruption Guidance, which require member banks to adhere to several principles aimed at anti-money laundering and anti-corruption. The mechanism is designed to protect individual banks from any negative consequences of complying with strict rules by collectively enforcing those regulations (if only one bank complied with those rules, corrupt customers would go to another). The Wolfsberg Group additionally serves as a secondary channel for communication between the compliance officers of the participating banks.
The World Economic Forum's anti-corruption initiatives can also be seen in this framework.[98] Other initiatives in the field of collective action include the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative/Infrastructure Transparency Initiative (CoST) and the International Forum on Ethical Business Conduct (IFBEC). Collective action is included in the Kingdom's national anti-corruption statements. United Kingdom,[99] France[100] and Ghana,[101] presented at the 2018 International Anti-Corruption Conference.
B20 political interventions are another way to engage in anti-corruption discourse, as B20 members attempt to support the G20 by offering their perspectives as business leaders, including with respect to strengthening anti-corruption policies, for example, transparency in government procurement or more comprehensive anti-corruption laws.[102].
In 2013, the B20 commissioned the Basel Governance Institute to develop and maintain the B20 Collective Action Centre, an online platform for anti-corruption collective action tools and resources that includes a database of collective action initiatives around the world. The B20 Collective Action Center is managed by the International Center for Collective Action (ICCA) of the Basel Governance Institute in partnership with the United Nations Global Compact.
Another tangible result of the B20 meetings was the discussion (and implementation as a test case in Colombia) of the high-level reporting mechanism (HLRM), which seeks to implement a type of ombudsman's office in a prominent government position for companies to report possible problems of bribery or corruption in public tenders. In addition to Colombia, the HLRM concept has been implemented in different ways in Argentina, Ukraine and Panama.[103].
Implementation
Sylvie Bleker-van Eyk of VU University Amsterdam sees value in implementing strong compliance departments in companies.[52] Fritz Heimann and Mark Pieth describe the work environment of such departments as, at best, overseen by external experts. Another measure that Heimann and Pieth say supports the work of compliance officers is the company's adherence to collective action initiatives.
Instruments such as codes of ethics can serve as base documents to promote anti-corruption policies of companies Seumas Miller et al. (2005) also highlight that the process to implement these policies must include an open debate among the company's employees to apply measures on which there is internal consensus.[104] This cultural change can be carried out through exemplary behavior on the part of senior management, regular training programs on the fight against corruption and constant monitoring of development in these areas.
in culture
International Anti-Corruption Day has been celebrated annually on December 9 since it was established by the United Nations in 2003 to underline the importance of the fight against corruption and provide a visible signal for campaigns against this scourge.[105].
References
[24] ↑ Cuba fue suspendida de la Organización de Estados Americanos de 1962 a 2009. Después de que se levantara la prohibición, el país escogió no participar.
[31] ↑ La República Checa, Italia y la Federación Rusa firmaron el protocolo, pero no lo han ratificado.
Following economic liberalization, corruption increased in China due to insufficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws.[43] However, the anti-corruption campaign that began in 2012 changed attitudes toward corruption. This campaign led to increased media coverage and a marked increase in court cases. The campaign was led primarily by the Central Commission for Disciplinary Inspection (CCDI), an internal body of the Communist Party, and secondarily by the People's Procuratorate.[44] The CCDI cooperated with the investigating authorities in various ways, such as passing on incriminating material detected by its internal investigation to prosecutors.
The legal regulations underlying the campaign are based on provisions of the Law against Unfair Competition and Criminal Law. In the first 9 months of 2023, China sanctioned 405,000 officials for corruption.[45] China's top leader, Xi Jinping, has been accused of using anti-corruption campaigns to get rid of political rivals.[46].
Between 2003 and 2012, Georgia went from being one of the 10 most corrupt countries, according to the Corruption Perceptions Index, to being among the top three in terms of government transparency. The anti-corruption reforms implemented by President Mikheil Saakashvili resulted in the dismissal of all 16,000 traffic officers in a single day, the simplification of government bureaucracy, and university entrance based on standardized exams instead of interviews.[47] Georgia's laws addressing corruption include articles 332 – 342 of its Criminal Code, the Georgian Law on Conflicts of Interest and Corruption in Office Public Service, the Money Laundering Law and the Georgia Law on Conflicts of Interest and Corruption in Public Service (Art. 20).[48] Georgia's trajectory from a highly corrupt government to a much more transparent one supports the idea that piecemeal anti-corruption reforms are less effective than wide-ranging anti-corruption initiatives.[49].
After signing the OECD Convention to Combat Bribery of Foreign Public Employees,[50] Japan enacted the Unfair Competition Prevention Law to comply with it. This law prohibits bribing foreign public officials. Both the person offering the bribes and the company on whose behalf they are offered may face negative consequences. The Companies Act also allows for punishment of top management if payment was made possible by their negligence "Negligence (law)"). Transparency International criticized Japan in 2014 for failing to enforce the law, thus complying with the convention only in theory, without imposing practical consequences on violators.[42] However, a study by Jensen and Malesky in 2017 provides empirical evidence that Japanese companies are less involved in bribery than companies based in other Asian countries that did not sign the convention.[17].
The United Kingdom was a founding member of the OECD Anti-Bribery Task Force, and signed and ratified the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Employees. But then he faced significant problems in fulfilling it. It was severely affected by the Al-Yamamah arms deal, in which the British company BAE Systems was accused of bribing members of the Saudi royal family to facilitate it. The British prosecution of BAE Systems was halted following the intervention of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, prompting the OECD task force to criticize British anti-corruption laws and investigations.[51]
The UK Bribery Act 2010 came into force on 1 July 2011, repealing all previous laws on the issue. This law focuses on bribery and the acceptance of bribes, both from domestic and foreign public officials. In addition, it places responsibility on organizations whose employees participate in bribery and therefore requires companies to implement compliance mechanisms to prevent bribery on their behalf. The Anti-Bribery Act covers many aspects beyond the US FCPA, as it also criminalizes facilitation payments and corruption in the private sector, among others.[52].
Heimann and Pieth argue that British policymakers supported the Bribery Act to offset the reputational damage caused by the Al-Yamamah deal.[53] Sappho Xenakis and Kalin Ivanov, on the other hand, claim that the negative impact on the UK's reputation was very limited.[54].
Transparency International declared in 2014 that the United Kingdom was in full compliance with the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Employees.[42].
Already at the founding of the United States, debates about preventing corruption took place, leading to greater awareness of the paths it travels. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution can be considered an early anti-corruption law, as it prohibited the acceptance of gifts and other favors from foreign governments and their representatives. Zephyr Teachout argued that giving and receiving gifts had an important role in diplomacy, but was often seen as potentially dangerous to a politician's integrity.[55]
Other legal attempts to combat corruption were made after World War II. The Bribery and Conflict of Interest Act of 1962, for example, regulates penalties for bribery of national officials, acceptance of bribes by national officials, and abuse of power for personal interest. The Hobbs Act of 1946 is another law frequently applied by US prosecutors in anti-corruption cases. They argue that accepting benefits for official acts is considered a crime. Less common laws to prosecute corruption through ancillary criminal activities include the Mail Fraud Statute, which criminalizes the use of mail, public or private, to defraud; that is, what this law penalizes is not the fraud itself, but rather using the mail to commit it) and the False Statements Accountability Act.[56]
In 1977, the United States adopted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which criminalized corrupt interactions with foreign officials. Since its enactment, it has served to prosecute US and foreign companies (but with branches or operations in the United States) that bribed officials outside the United States.
Since no other country enacted a similar law until the decade 1991-2000, American companies found themselves at a disadvantage in their external operations. Many other countries not only did not legally prohibit bribery of foreign public employees, but in some, such as Australia, such bribes were even tax deductible.
The US government attempted to reduce the negative impact of the FCPA on US companies by applying the law to foreign companies linked to the United States and promoting global conventions against foreign bribery.
In addition to the FCPA, additional laws have been implemented that directly influence anti-corruption activities. For example, Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act expands the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with a new Section 21F that protects whistleblowers from retaliation and provides financial compensation for cooperating with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Conway-Hatcher et al. (2013) attributed to this provision the increase in the number of whistleblowers who report to the SEC, among other things, about incidents of corruption.[57] A worker who reported irregularities in his company received a reward of 114 million dollars.[58] On the other hand, in other countries, those who report corruption go through a real ordeal.[59].
The latest report, published in 2014, by Transparency International on the application of the OECD Convention to Combat Bribery of Foreign Public Employees, concluded that the United States is complying.[42].
In 2011, the United States Anti-Corruption Act was drafted, in part by former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter, with the collaboration of dozens of strategists, reformers, and constitutional lawyers of various ideologies, as a type of model legislation to limit or prohibit practices that contribute to political corruption. facilitate the identification and limitation of political corruption. It is supported by non-partisan and non-profit reform organizations such as RepresentUs.[61] In 2025 it is still a project.
For centuries, corruption has reached the highest levels of Spain and the fight against corruption has brought down the corrupt people who occupied them. The verses "In order not to die by hanging, the greatest thief in Spain dressed in red" are famous about the Duke of Lerma,[62] valet of King Philip III, who in 1624 was condemned to return more than a million ducats to the kingdom, an immense fortune.
In 1923, the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera set two objectives: the reestablishment of social peace and the regeneration of public life, putting an end to the caciquil networks. The new civilian governors, all military, were tasked with investigating cases of corruption, initially admitting anonymous complaints, and to assist the governors, gubernatorial delegates (also military) were appointed in each judicial party "Judicial Party (Spain)"). More than 800 local corporations were investigated and more than 100 files were opened because irregularities were detected. However, in practice the measure of appointing government delegates was "ineffective" because among them "there were also cases of corruption" "and some even became authentic chiefs."[63].
During the Franco dictatorship, the Matesa case was used by the then Minister of Information and Tourism, Manuel Fraga Iribarne, to discredit the technocrats. As a result, 13 of the 18 ministers were replaced by Francisco Franco.
Already in democracy, the Filesa case (1997) seriously damaged the image of the fourth Government of Felipe González and led to the arrival of José María Aznar.[64].
To try to alleviate the causes of numerous scandals, in 2007 Organic Law 8/2007, of July 4, on the financing of political parties, was promulgated.[65] Subsequently, to try to cover the gaps detected, Organic Law 3/2015, of March 30, on control of the economic-financial activity of political parties, and Law 9/2015, of March 7, were promulgated. August, financing of political formations and foundations and entities linked or dependent on them.[66].
Corruption (Nóos case) was also behind the abdication of Juan Carlos I in favor of his son, Felipe VI of Spain, along with his extramarital relationship with Corinna Larsen,[67] his health problems and his defrauding the Treasury.[68].
The motion of censure against Mariano Rajoy in 2018 was motivated by the ruling of the National Court that ruled that the Popular Party (chaired by Mariano Rajoy) helped establish "a genuine and effective system of institutional corruption through the manipulation of central, regional and local public procurement."[69] This motion led to the arrival of Pedro Sánchez to the Presidency of the Government.
A few years later, in 2025, Pedro Sánchez himself is besieged by numerous cases of corruption[70] (Koldo case, also called Cerdán case or Ábalos case). In February 2025, Transparency International published the Corruption Perception Index 2024. Spain drops 10 places. «Without comprehensive and effective structural reforms, the country will continue to face substantial declines»[71] On August 1, 2025, Spain continues to fail to comply with 19 recommendations of the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), of which it is a part, although it has made progress on some of them.[72].
In Italy, the fight against corruption is especially difficult due to the strong presence of several powerful criminal organizations: the Sicilian mafia (Cosa Nostra), the Camorra and the Calabrian 'Ndrangheta. The immense Tangentopoli scandal (1992, also known as Clean Hands "Clean Hands (Italy)") completely disrupted Italian politics, leading to the retirement - and even the conviction - of numerous politicians, the extinction of several parties and the coming to power of Silvio Berlusconi, in turn also later convicted of corruption (2015).[73].
The basis of the Italian anti-corruption legislative system is the “Anti-Corruption” Law, no. 190 of 2012, also known as "Severino Law". On this basis rest 3 other fundamental pillars: the abolition of the authority for public contracts with the transfer of its powers to the National Anti-Corruption Authority, the reform of the regulations on administrative transparency and the new Public Procurement Code.[74].
Corruption has been an endemic problem in Ukraine since it became independent from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991.[75] It has constituted an obstacle to its incorporation into the European Union and to the war effort it is carrying out against the Russian invasion, since North American aid is questioned due to fears that it will be misused.[76] In 2025, Parliament, after massive protests, restored the independence of the organizations. anti-corruption, which had been undermined by previous provisions.[77].
Following economic liberalization, corruption increased in China due to insufficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws.[43] However, the anti-corruption campaign that began in 2012 changed attitudes toward corruption. This campaign led to increased media coverage and a marked increase in court cases. The campaign was led primarily by the Central Commission for Disciplinary Inspection (CCDI), an internal body of the Communist Party, and secondarily by the People's Procuratorate.[44] The CCDI cooperated with the investigating authorities in various ways, such as passing on incriminating material detected by its internal investigation to prosecutors.
The legal regulations underlying the campaign are based on provisions of the Law against Unfair Competition and Criminal Law. In the first 9 months of 2023, China sanctioned 405,000 officials for corruption.[45] China's top leader, Xi Jinping, has been accused of using anti-corruption campaigns to get rid of political rivals.[46].
Between 2003 and 2012, Georgia went from being one of the 10 most corrupt countries, according to the Corruption Perceptions Index, to being among the top three in terms of government transparency. The anti-corruption reforms implemented by President Mikheil Saakashvili resulted in the dismissal of all 16,000 traffic officers in a single day, the simplification of government bureaucracy, and university entrance based on standardized exams instead of interviews.[47] Georgia's laws addressing corruption include articles 332 – 342 of its Criminal Code, the Georgian Law on Conflicts of Interest and Corruption in Office Public Service, the Money Laundering Law and the Georgia Law on Conflicts of Interest and Corruption in Public Service (Art. 20).[48] Georgia's trajectory from a highly corrupt government to a much more transparent one supports the idea that piecemeal anti-corruption reforms are less effective than wide-ranging anti-corruption initiatives.[49].
After signing the OECD Convention to Combat Bribery of Foreign Public Employees,[50] Japan enacted the Unfair Competition Prevention Law to comply with it. This law prohibits bribing foreign public officials. Both the person offering the bribes and the company on whose behalf they are offered may face negative consequences. The Companies Act also allows for punishment of top management if payment was made possible by their negligence "Negligence (law)"). Transparency International criticized Japan in 2014 for failing to enforce the law, thus complying with the convention only in theory, without imposing practical consequences on violators.[42] However, a study by Jensen and Malesky in 2017 provides empirical evidence that Japanese companies are less involved in bribery than companies based in other Asian countries that did not sign the convention.[17].
The United Kingdom was a founding member of the OECD Anti-Bribery Task Force, and signed and ratified the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Employees. But then he faced significant problems in fulfilling it. It was severely affected by the Al-Yamamah arms deal, in which the British company BAE Systems was accused of bribing members of the Saudi royal family to facilitate it. The British prosecution of BAE Systems was halted following the intervention of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, prompting the OECD task force to criticize British anti-corruption laws and investigations.[51]
The UK Bribery Act 2010 came into force on 1 July 2011, repealing all previous laws on the issue. This law focuses on bribery and the acceptance of bribes, both from domestic and foreign public officials. In addition, it places responsibility on organizations whose employees participate in bribery and therefore requires companies to implement compliance mechanisms to prevent bribery on their behalf. The Anti-Bribery Act covers many aspects beyond the US FCPA, as it also criminalizes facilitation payments and corruption in the private sector, among others.[52].
Heimann and Pieth argue that British policymakers supported the Bribery Act to offset the reputational damage caused by the Al-Yamamah deal.[53] Sappho Xenakis and Kalin Ivanov, on the other hand, claim that the negative impact on the UK's reputation was very limited.[54].
Transparency International declared in 2014 that the United Kingdom was in full compliance with the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Employees.[42].
Already at the founding of the United States, debates about preventing corruption took place, leading to greater awareness of the paths it travels. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution can be considered an early anti-corruption law, as it prohibited the acceptance of gifts and other favors from foreign governments and their representatives. Zephyr Teachout argued that giving and receiving gifts had an important role in diplomacy, but was often seen as potentially dangerous to a politician's integrity.[55]
Other legal attempts to combat corruption were made after World War II. The Bribery and Conflict of Interest Act of 1962, for example, regulates penalties for bribery of national officials, acceptance of bribes by national officials, and abuse of power for personal interest. The Hobbs Act of 1946 is another law frequently applied by US prosecutors in anti-corruption cases. They argue that accepting benefits for official acts is considered a crime. Less common laws to prosecute corruption through ancillary criminal activities include the Mail Fraud Statute, which criminalizes the use of mail, public or private, to defraud; that is, what this law penalizes is not the fraud itself, but rather using the mail to commit it) and the False Statements Accountability Act.[56]
In 1977, the United States adopted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which criminalized corrupt interactions with foreign officials. Since its enactment, it has served to prosecute US and foreign companies (but with branches or operations in the United States) that bribed officials outside the United States.
Since no other country enacted a similar law until the decade 1991-2000, American companies found themselves at a disadvantage in their external operations. Many other countries not only did not legally prohibit bribery of foreign public employees, but in some, such as Australia, such bribes were even tax deductible.
The US government attempted to reduce the negative impact of the FCPA on US companies by applying the law to foreign companies linked to the United States and promoting global conventions against foreign bribery.
In addition to the FCPA, additional laws have been implemented that directly influence anti-corruption activities. For example, Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act expands the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with a new Section 21F that protects whistleblowers from retaliation and provides financial compensation for cooperating with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Conway-Hatcher et al. (2013) attributed to this provision the increase in the number of whistleblowers who report to the SEC, among other things, about incidents of corruption.[57] A worker who reported irregularities in his company received a reward of 114 million dollars.[58] On the other hand, in other countries, those who report corruption go through a real ordeal.[59].
The latest report, published in 2014, by Transparency International on the application of the OECD Convention to Combat Bribery of Foreign Public Employees, concluded that the United States is complying.[42].
In 2011, the United States Anti-Corruption Act was drafted, in part by former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter, with the collaboration of dozens of strategists, reformers, and constitutional lawyers of various ideologies, as a type of model legislation to limit or prohibit practices that contribute to political corruption. facilitate the identification and limitation of political corruption. It is supported by non-partisan and non-profit reform organizations such as RepresentUs.[61] In 2025 it is still a project.
For centuries, corruption has reached the highest levels of Spain and the fight against corruption has brought down the corrupt people who occupied them. The verses "In order not to die by hanging, the greatest thief in Spain dressed in red" are famous about the Duke of Lerma,[62] valet of King Philip III, who in 1624 was condemned to return more than a million ducats to the kingdom, an immense fortune.
In 1923, the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera set two objectives: the reestablishment of social peace and the regeneration of public life, putting an end to the caciquil networks. The new civilian governors, all military, were tasked with investigating cases of corruption, initially admitting anonymous complaints, and to assist the governors, gubernatorial delegates (also military) were appointed in each judicial party "Judicial Party (Spain)"). More than 800 local corporations were investigated and more than 100 files were opened because irregularities were detected. However, in practice the measure of appointing government delegates was "ineffective" because among them "there were also cases of corruption" "and some even became authentic chiefs."[63].
During the Franco dictatorship, the Matesa case was used by the then Minister of Information and Tourism, Manuel Fraga Iribarne, to discredit the technocrats. As a result, 13 of the 18 ministers were replaced by Francisco Franco.
Already in democracy, the Filesa case (1997) seriously damaged the image of the fourth Government of Felipe González and led to the arrival of José María Aznar.[64].
To try to alleviate the causes of numerous scandals, in 2007 Organic Law 8/2007, of July 4, on the financing of political parties, was promulgated.[65] Subsequently, to try to cover the gaps detected, Organic Law 3/2015, of March 30, on control of the economic-financial activity of political parties, and Law 9/2015, of March 7, were promulgated. August, financing of political formations and foundations and entities linked or dependent on them.[66].
Corruption (Nóos case) was also behind the abdication of Juan Carlos I in favor of his son, Felipe VI of Spain, along with his extramarital relationship with Corinna Larsen,[67] his health problems and his defrauding the Treasury.[68].
The motion of censure against Mariano Rajoy in 2018 was motivated by the ruling of the National Court that ruled that the Popular Party (chaired by Mariano Rajoy) helped establish "a genuine and effective system of institutional corruption through the manipulation of central, regional and local public procurement."[69] This motion led to the arrival of Pedro Sánchez to the Presidency of the Government.
A few years later, in 2025, Pedro Sánchez himself is besieged by numerous cases of corruption[70] (Koldo case, also called Cerdán case or Ábalos case). In February 2025, Transparency International published the Corruption Perception Index 2024. Spain drops 10 places. «Without comprehensive and effective structural reforms, the country will continue to face substantial declines»[71] On August 1, 2025, Spain continues to fail to comply with 19 recommendations of the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), of which it is a part, although it has made progress on some of them.[72].
In Italy, the fight against corruption is especially difficult due to the strong presence of several powerful criminal organizations: the Sicilian mafia (Cosa Nostra), the Camorra and the Calabrian 'Ndrangheta. The immense Tangentopoli scandal (1992, also known as Clean Hands "Clean Hands (Italy)") completely disrupted Italian politics, leading to the retirement - and even the conviction - of numerous politicians, the extinction of several parties and the coming to power of Silvio Berlusconi, in turn also later convicted of corruption (2015).[73].
The basis of the Italian anti-corruption legislative system is the “Anti-Corruption” Law, no. 190 of 2012, also known as "Severino Law". On this basis rest 3 other fundamental pillars: the abolition of the authority for public contracts with the transfer of its powers to the National Anti-Corruption Authority, the reform of the regulations on administrative transparency and the new Public Procurement Code.[74].
Corruption has been an endemic problem in Ukraine since it became independent from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991.[75] It has constituted an obstacle to its incorporation into the European Union and to the war effort it is carrying out against the Russian invasion, since North American aid is questioned due to fears that it will be misused.[76] In 2025, Parliament, after massive protests, restored the independence of the organizations. anti-corruption, which had been undermined by previous provisions.[77].