Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-thh2z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T00:45:57.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Is the UNCAC an effective deterrent to grand corruption?

from Part III - Ill-gotten gains: the challenge of prosecution, enforcement and asset recovery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2013

Jeremy Horder
Affiliation:
King's College London
Peter Alldridge
Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London
Get access

Summary

Introduction

This chapter is about corruption on a grand scale, as encountered in a number of well-publicised cases. All predate the UK’s Bribery Act 2010 (‘the 2010 Act’), and concentrate on efforts to thwart the perpetrators or to recover the proceeds of the corruption which took place. Time will tell how effective the 2010 Act will be in helping to curb corruption on the scale practised in these examples; although bribery was certainly present in many of the cases, large-scale embezzlement, or theft of public funds, was also a recurrent feature. Consideration is given in the chapter to whether the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) can assist in bringing this ‘kleptocracy’ to justice. In reading this chapter it should be borne in mind that the World Bank, in the Preface to its Asset Recovery Handbook, published at the beginning of 2011 as part of its Stolen Assets Recovery (StAR) initiative, stated that an estimated US$20–40 billion is siphoned out of developing countries each year: to date only US$5 billion has been recovered, and probably half of that is accounted for by the Abacha case, referred to below.

The chapter will also touch on the growing evidence that governments in states where there is a history of grand corruption continue to actively collude in corrupt practices and to take steps which thwart the aims and objectives of UNCAC, despite having ratified the Convention and claiming to implement its provisions.

Type
Chapter
Information
Modern Bribery Law
Comparative Perspectives
, pp. 293 - 327
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×