Corruption In Iraq & World

Kenya Launders $1.2 Billion skimmed out of country

Kenya is corrupt. It is apparently so corrupt that a bank involved in laundering huge amounts of funds out of the country (and we assume, including US foreign aid dollars) was able to get a website shut down that posts "leaked" documents on the laundering operation.

They are www.wikileak.be (the new version - not the one shut down by a California court).

See an article here about the shut down of the website:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_stephen__080218_us_court_attacks_web.htm

And, below is a short article with links to a longer set of documents on the newer website:
vj

========================================
See this and more at:
http://wikileaks.be/wiki/A_Charter_House_of_horrors

Charter House Bank (CHB) wasn't the biggest bank in Kenya. In fact by the time it was placed under statutory management last year it was ranked 26th. But CHB was not a normal bank. At the same time as having most of its branches within Kenya's largest supermarket chain (Nakumatt) it moved tens of millions of dollars in single transactions around the world. It was not so much in the business of keeping people's assets as moving them.

Its first claim to notoriety was a botched anti-money laundering operation against an account holder called Crucial Properties, who in 2001 received 25 million US Dollars from Liechtenstein for the purposes of "property development and trading in Africa." The account holder also ran a minor eatery in Nairobi which financial detectives didn't think suggested the ability to attract tens of millions of legitimate dollars. The 25 million dollars vanished one day after the courts let through a stay order against the investigators. Thus began a suspicion that CHB was in the business of laundering the proceeds of illegal business, and in fact constituted a threat to national security. Just three years before, al-Qaeda terrorists had bombed the US Embassy in Nairobi, killing 214 people.

Today CHB stands accused of being at the centre of a complicated series of financial scams, tax evasion schemes and money laundering operations that saw billions of Kenyan shillings (hundreds of millions of US Dollars) expatriated from the country by unidentified persons. Close to 100 accounts have been investigated by Kenyan financial police, anti-corruption officials and the Central Bank itself. Questions have been asked in Parliament and by foreign diplomats, and at least two whistleblowers have fled the country to take up asylum in the USA. CHB was the subject of a special audit by the Government of Kenya published here for the first time. At stake is over 1.5 billion dollars worth of transactions, which dwarf most scandals in a country known for mega-corruption.

Investigating this fraud may have cost a former Governor of the Central Bank his job. Certainly, virtually all those hired to investigate CHB have either fled into exile or been moved off the case. So it doesn't surprise some, that the Kenyan Finance Ministry is accused of foot-dragging in a scandal which the Government's own secret audit claimed "threatens the stability of the Kenyan economy." For some strange reason, CHB appears to enjoy political protection at the highest levels in Kenya.

Tanzania Gets $700-million from Bush while rated "Very Weak" in Anti-corruption efforts

BBC World News today said that President Bush gave foreign aid of $700-million to Tanzania, but if you visit this link from www.globalintegrity.com you can see their 2006 report said that Tanzania was rated "very weak" in preventing corruption.

http://www.globalintegrity.org/reports/2006/tanzania/index.cfm

So why does the US keep giving foreign aid to corrupt countries?

Below is an AP report on the grant, plus I have attached a copy of the 82 page Global Integrity "Corruption Notebook" Report on Tanzania and a graphic from Global Integrity clearly illustrating corruption issues for the country.
vj

View this photo

Download tanzania_2006_global_integrity_rpt.pdf

===================================================

Here is an AP article on the "grant" from Bush to Tanzania:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jKsz4ko98jM7GN35kK5yGTzHWHQAD8URSTF80

Bush Touting U.S. Aid in Tanzania

By BEN FELLER – 9 hours ago - Feb 17, 2008

DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania (AP) — President Bush, targeting disease and poverty in travels across the African continent, touted a soft-power agenda Sunday in Tanzania where he received a hearty, red carpet welcome by a crowd waving tiny U.S. and Tanzanian flags.

Bush opened his second day in Africa in the seacoast city of Dar es Salaam, the capital of Tanzania, which represents the kind of place Bush is visiting on his six-day trip: a stable democracy that's grateful for U.S. health and economic aid.

Bush, who arrived Saturday night to the delight of thousands ringing the roadside, met Sunday with Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete. Bush came with help in hand — nearly $700 million aid to help Tanzania build up its infrastructure. Bush also was visiting a hospital in the city center, discussing his anti-AIDS initiative and visit families of victims of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing here.

Unlike in the United States, where his approval rating hovers near his record lows, Bush is treated here with reverence. Men and women wear clothing bearing his image.

Tanzania, where the economy is growing but many live in sickness and poverty, is the only country on Bush's tour to merit two days of Bush's time. Playing to audiences here and lawmakers back home, he is aiming to showcase U.S. compassion and the results it produces.

Kikwete's prominence is on the rise as the new head of the African Union, and his session with Bush is expected to cover violence and repression in troubled Kenya, Chad and Zimbabwe.

The two met in the president's historic residence, overlooking the Indian Ocean.

The shadow of Kenya, just to the north, loomed large. Both parties in that nation's disputed presidential election — one that led to bloodshed — are working on a power-sharing deal. Bush is sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Kenya on Monday to back the effort.

Tanzania, an agriculture-driven country of roughly 40 million people, is trying to broaden its ties to the U.S. across political, economic and military fronts. It is the latest country to reap benefits from the Millennium Challenge Account, one of the initiatives underpinning his trip to Africa. It provides U.S. aid to countries that govern justly, shun corruption, help their people and support economic freedoms.

The nearly $700 million compact, which Bush is signing Sunday, is the largest in the program's history. Much of it will underwrite improvements to the country's transportation.

Yet the timing is awkward, given all the emphasis on good governance.

Just this month, Kikwete dissolved his entire Cabinet over a corruption scandal involving a contract with a nonexistent firm supposedly based in the United States.

Tanzania is also one of the countries targeted by Bush's emergency AIDS relief effort, which has helped provide medicine and care to millions. More than two-thirds of all people infected with HIV live in sub-Saharan Africa. The region accounts for more than three quarters of all AIDS-related deaths in 2007.

He began his African agenda in Benin in West Africa. After his time in Tanzania, Bush plans to visit Rwanda, Ghana and Liberia.

UN's Sudan Mission Wastes Millions

When I was in Iraq, the "UN" name was mud because of all the fraud they let happen regarding the Oil for Food program.

The article below details UN Waste of millions in the Sudan. Earlier articles have discussed efforts by the current UN leadership to kill off the internal investigative office set up earlier by Paul Wolfowitz, former head of the UN. Never underestimated the UN's ability to waste money, when a huge percentage of UN income comes from the US.

In my opinion, a big problem with the UN is that it gives votes to tiny, 3rd world countries that are corrupt, and they don't think fraud, corruption and waste is a problem, so they don't want investigations of where UN funds go.

This article details many "irregularities" and bad procurement practices, and notice that all the UN leadership comments are defensive, and they don't say anything like "yes, that is wrong, and here is what we are doing to correct the weak systems...". Until you start seeing responses like that, don't believe that the UN is getting better.
vj

===================================================
Audit of U.N.'s Sudan Mission Finds Tens of Millions in Waste

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 10, 2008; A16

UNITED NATIONS -- The United Nations has wasted tens of millions of dollars in its peacekeeping operations in Sudan over the past three years, according to the findings of U.N. auditors examining the financial practices of the global body's overseas missions.

U.N. officers in Sudan have squandered millions by renting warehouses that were never used, booking blocks of hotel rooms that were never filled, and losing thousands of food rations to theft and spoilage, according to several internal audits by the U.N. Office for International Oversight Services. One U.N. purchasing agent has been accused of steering a $589,000 contract for airport runway lights to a company that helped his wife obtain a student visa, while two senior procurement officials from the United States and New Zealand have been charged by a U.N. panel with misconduct for not complying with rules designed to prevent corruption.

The U.N. procurement division "did not have the necessary capacity and expertise to handle the large magnitude of procurement actions" in Sudan, particularly during the early phases of the mission, according to a confidential October 2006 audit obtained by The Washington Post. Investigators also detected "a number of potential fraud indicators and cases of mismanagement and waste."

The internal United Nations audits provide a rare glimpse into the messy business of assembling a massive multinational expeditionary force in a war-torn nation. They also highlight the Bush administration's struggles to make progress on its top Africa initiative: ending a decades-long civil war between Sudan's Islamic government and southern rebels, and halting the mass killing of civilians in the country's southern region of Darfur.

U.N. peacekeeping officials maintain that the auditors' allegations are overblown, and that they neglect the difficulties of launching a major operation in a nation with few roads and a government hostile to foreigners. "This is seen as a witch hunt that is not warranted given the fluidity and complexity of that mission," said one U.N. official who served in Sudan, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the investigations.

A U.N. task force is examining the United Nations' handling of nearly $300 million in contracts for food, transportation and fuel for Sudan, including a $200 million contract with Eurest Support Services, a Cyprus-based subsidiary of the Compass Group, a British catering company. ESS also has been charged with rigging bids in Liberia, Congo, Ethiopia and Eritrea.

There is no excuse for having poor internal control mechanisms and for tolerating mismanagement," Inga-Britt Ahlenius, the undersecretary general of the oversight office, told reporters last month. "We are handling public money and considerable funds and should care about that as if it were our own money."

The Security Council established the U.N. mission in Sudan in March 2005, sending more than 10,000 peacekeepers to oversee a settlement ending a bloody, 22-year civil war that left more then 2 million dead in southern Sudan. The council has since authorized an African Union-United Nations mission to halt the killing of civilians in Darfur, a force that is expected to reach 26,000 troops by the end of 2008.

U.N. auditors have identified dozens of irregularities, including an "exorbitant" rate on a contract to supply gravel for peacekeeping barracks and $1.2 million in "unnecessary expenditures" for block bookings of hotel rooms that the United Nations was unable to fill, according to the audits.

U.N. officials also spent more than $9 million in unnecessary fees to a Canadian company, Skylink Aviation, by releasing it from its obligation to renew a nine-month contract to supply fuel for the mission, the auditors allege. Skylink then renegotiated a second nine-month contract at a much higher cost. "They clearly made it easier for us to negotiate," said Jan Ottens, a senior executive at Skylink. Ottens said the terms of the initial contract were unfair because the slow deployment of troops reduced the amount of fuel that was needed. "We were losing money big time."

U.N. peacekeeping officials acknowledge problems in Sudan. But they contend that the two procurement officials were perhaps in over their heads, but not corrupt. Understaffing, a shifting troop-deployment schedule, and Sudanese obstruction often upended U.N. plans and led to higher costs.

These officials cite a case in which the auditors accused the mission of wasting $9 million by hiring a local company to clear U.N. goods through customs, rather than relying on U.N. staff. Peacekeeping officials agree the costs are high but say that the government has prohibited the United Nations from doing the job, and that the U.N. secretary general and the Security Council have been unable to convince Khartoum to back down.

They also defended a contract for a New Zealand firm, Radiola Aerospace, to install solar-powered runway lights at the Kadugli airport, southwest of Khartoum, despite evidence that the bidding process was manipulated. Investigators found that the company improperly helped a U.N. procurement official draft the specifications of a contract that the company later won. It also sponsored a New Zealand visa application for the official's wife and pledged to cover any financial liabilities she might incur while in the country.

At the same time, the official pressed the United Nations to approve Radiola's contract after U.N. headquarters had ordered the contract terminated because the lights "failed to meet the safety specifications of the United Nations and the International Civil Aviation Organization," according to an October report by U.N. investigators.

Radiola acknowledged that it violated U.N. rules by sponsoring the visa, but the company said it fairly won the bid for the contract. "In hindsight it was inappropriate we should not have done it," said Brent Albiston, Radiola's managing director. "But absolutely no money passed hands."

Albiston said that his company informed the United Nations that solar power lights did not meet international standards, but that they made sense in a remote location where power supplies were unreliable, a position that senior U.N. peacekeeping officials backed. "The quality of the lights at Kadugli are better than they are at the international airport in Khartoum," Albiston said.

Tanzanian Prime Minister Resigns Due to Corruption Scandal

Here is another example of government procurement processes gone bad ("gone wild"?).

The Tanzanian Prime Minister and other government officials are accused of meddling in standard procurement processes to give a contract to a Texas company for backup electrical supply systems that cost the government $140,000 per day.

Lesson learned: Public officials can get canned if they try to influence standard procurement procedures.
vj

============================================
from
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/080207/afp/080207084633int.html

Thursday February 7, 4:52 PM
Tanzanian PM tenders resignation over corruption accusations

DAR ES-SALAAM (AFP) - Tanzania's Prime Minister Edward Lowassa told parliament Thursday he had tendered his resignation to the president after being implicated in a corruption scandal over an energy deal.

"Because I have been linked to this scandal, I have decided to write to the president asking to be relieved of my duties," the premier told lawmakers, during a session of the Dodoma-based parliament broadcast live on television.

The speaker adjourned the session and explained he was awaiting a decision by President Jakaya Kikwete on Lowassa's resignation letter.

The premier's decision came after a report was submitted to parliament over a deal signed between the government and the Texas-based firm Richmond for emergency power supply.

According to a probe into the contract, the prime minister as well as two other government ministers and several other officials allegedly meddled in the tender to favour the US company.

The emergency power supply deal aims at providing electricity to the east African nation in case of drought.

According to the report, the deal contravened laws and rules on procurement and costs the country 140,000 dollars a day.

Introducing the European Commission's Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF

Introducing the European Commission's ( aka the European Parliament) Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF - similar to SFO in the UK.

http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/jpo/en.html

Although they focus on non-government fraud, and not government corruption, they are a useful organization to know about.

In May, 2007, they organized a fair that included many organizations that educated the public about stopping fraud. (from the SFO news releases).

"OLAF, in cooperation with its national partners (investigation services, police, legal and administrative authorities, etc), does its best to counter criminals and fraudisters who organise their illicit activities at an international level. "

Below is from their overview page:

vj

========================================
THE FIGHT AGAINST FRAUD

A PRIORITY OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS

* 1. An independent European investigation service
* 2. Fight against fraud and cross-border crime
* 3. The independence of OLAF
* 4. Consultation and cooperation with Member States
* 5. Partnership with the national investigators
* 6. Internal investigations
* 7. Background on the OLAF investigators
* 8. OLAF and European Citizens

The Community budget is financed by taxpaying citizens' money. It is adopted, on a proposal from the Commission, by the budgetary authority (the European Parliament and the Council).

European policies, financed in this way, are intended for the realisation of projects of general interest. Evading the duties and levies which supply the Community budget, or using Community financing wrongfully, subsequently results in harm to the European taxpayer.

Therefore, The European Institutions have a duty to guarantee, with regard to the taxpayer, the best use of their money and in particular to fight as effectively as possible against fraud. For this reason, the protection of the financial interests of the Community has become one of the major priorities for the European Institutions. This covers activities concerning the detection and monitoring of fraud in the customs field, misappropriation of subsidies and tax evasion, insofar as the Community budget is affected by it, as well as the fight against corruption and any other illegal activity harmful to the financial interests of the Community.
In order to intensify this action, the Community Institutions established the European Anti-Fraud Office (known by its French acronym - OLAF) in 1999. They also provided for its investigative independence.

1. OLAF - AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION SERVICE WITHIN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

The Community Institutions and Member States attach great importance to the protection of the financial and economic interests of the Community, as well as to the fight against transnational organised crime, fraud and other illegal activities prejudicial to the Community budget.

Attacks on the European policies, carried out by criminals and fraudsters, harm not only the budget of the Union, but also its credibility. The responsibility for the Commission in this respect is closely linked with its mission of implementing the budget ( Article 274 of the EC treaty). This was confirmed by Article 280 of the EC treaty.

In order to strengthen the means of fraud prevention, the Commission established within itself the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) by EC, ECSC Decision 1999/352 of 28 April 1999. The Office was given responsibility for conducting administrative anti-fraud investigations and was granted special independent status.

The Office commenced its work on 1 June 1999, the day of entry into force of Regulation (EC) N° 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Council Regulation (Euratom) N° 1074/1999, of 25 of May 1999, concerning the investigations carried out by OLAF. The Office succeeded the "Task Force for the Co-ordination of fraud prevention" (UCLAF) which was part of the Secretariat-General of the Commission, created in 1988.

While it has an individual independent status for the investigative function, OLAF is also part of the European Commission, under the responsibility of Siim KALLAS, Vice Président, in charge of Administrative Affairs, Audit and Anti-Fraud.

2. A EUROPEAN INSTRUMENT FOR THE FIGHT AGAINST CROSS BORDER CRIME AND FRAUD

OLAF carries out all the powers of investigation conferred on the Commission by Community legislation and the agreements in force with third countries, with a view of reinforcing the fight against fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the European Community.

Over and above the protection of financial interests, the responsibility of the Office concerns all the activities connected with safeguarding Community interests against irregular behaviour likely to lead to administrative or penal proceedings.

In order to coordinate the action of the Member States in their fight against fraud detrimental to the interests of the Community, OLAF provides them with the support of the Commission, aimed at organising close and regular cooperation between the competent national authorities.
Additionally, the Office, as a Commission service, contributes to the planning and the development of prevention and anti-fraud methods.

3. THE INDEPENDENCE OF OLAF AND ITS DIRECTOR-GENERAL GUARANTEED AND VERIFIED BY A SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE AND A SPECIAL STATUS

The implementation of OLAF's investigative functions (internal and external investigations) is conducted by its Director-General. He is designated by the Commission for a five-year period (renewable once), following a favourable opinion from the supervisory committee and in co-operation with the European Parliament and the Council.

With the aim of guaranteeing the independence of OLAF in its investigative function, the legislator gave the obligation to the Director-General of the Office neither to seek nor take instructions from any government or any institution (including the Commission). If the Director-General of OLAF ascertains that the Commission has taken a measure that challenges his independence, he has the possibility of bringing a case against the Commission before the Court of Justice.

To consolidate this independence, the Office is subject to regular control of its investigative functions by a Supervisory Committee, made up of five outside persons independent of the Community Institutions, who are highly qualified in the areas of competence of the Office. At the request of the Director-General or by its own initiative, the Supervisory Committee will deliver opinions to the Director-General concerning the activities of the Office, without, however, interfering with the conduct of investigations in progress.

4. CONSULTATION AND COOPERATION WITHE THE MEMBERS STATES : the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention (COCOLAF)

The Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention (CoCoLAF) is the forum for the exchange of information on general issues regarding the protection of the Communities’ financial interests between the Commission and its main partners for the protection of financial interests. Debate and reflection on the Member States’ needs and OLAF’s particular added value are furthered in specific working groups.

In close cooperation with the Commission and the Member States, the Committee also issues guidelines for national authorities and reference documents on fraud and other irregularities. CoCoLAF is also in charge of furthering the close cooperation between the Member States and the Commission (OLAF), provided for in Article 280 of the EC Treaty.

CoCoLAF provides a forum in which the Commission can consult the Member States on the content of the annual report on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests and the fight against fraud, produced in cooperation with the Member States. The report gives an overview of Community and national action and initiatives, including case reporting and trends in fraud and other irregularities throughout the EU, conducted in the course of the year.

5. PARTNERSHIP WITH THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATORS AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL NATURE OF THE CRIME : THE ADDED VALUE OF OLAF IN THE CONDUCT OF EXTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS

OLAF, in cooperation with its national partners (investigation services, police, legal and administrative authorities, etc), does its best to counter criminals and fraudisters who organise their illicit activities at an international level. OLAF is to some extent the engine of the "Europe of legality" against the "international nature of criminality" harmful to Community interests.

Working to strengthen the fight against fraud, OLAF carries out the external investigative responsibility conferred on it by the regulation providing for "on the spot" checks and inspections carried out in the Member States for the protection of the financial interests of the European Communities against frauds and other irregularities (Regulation N° 2185/96). If cooperation agreements exist, OLAF can also use this authority in third countries.

Within the framework of its investigative function, the Office also carries out checks and inspections provided for inthe regulation for the protection of the financial interests of the European Communities (Regulation N° 2988/95) and in any other sectoral regulation.

In practice, fraud and other irregularities are almost always detected in close cooperation between with the relevant national investigation services. It should not be forgotten that the principal obligation in this area falls to the Member States; they collect their own traditional resources (i.e. the budget revenues of the EU) on behalf of the Community and manage almost 80% of the expenditure of the Community budget.

In sectors where particularly lucrative sources of illicit profit exist, task-groups specialising in specific products such as cigarettes, alcohol or olive oil, have shown that close cooperation between the Member States and effective coordination at Community level can be extremely useful in uncovering large scale smuggling and fraud. The same is true with regard to the efforts made at the Community and national levels to introduce preventive measures in these fields.

6. INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS: A GUARANTEE OF THE SMOOTH OPERATION OF THE EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS

Experience shows that no country or institution in the world is safe from cases of corruption or breaches of their responsibilities by their officials. Despite the total honesty and loyalty of the great majority of its officials, the European Commission wanted to be equipped with an investigation instrument in order to fight and protect itself.

To this end, OLAF can carry out administrative investigations inside the institutions (see EC Decisions 1999/394 and 1999/396) and the bodies and organs of the Community, in the event of fraud harmful to the budget of the EU. It is also responsible for detecting serious facts, linked with the performance of professional activities.

These investigations are carried out in compliance with the rules of the treaties (in particular the protocol on privileges and immunities) and with the staff regulations of officials of the European Communities. Additionally, they are carried out in full compliance with human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rules of confidentiality and data protection.

Insofar as legal provisions are respected, the Office has a whole series of powers (examples: access to information and the buildings of the Community Institutions, with the possibility to check accounts and to obtain extracts of any document).

In addition, the Office can request, from any person concerned, information that it judges useful for its investigations. In accordance with the arrangements laid down in Regulation N° 2185/96, it can carry out on the spot controls of the economic operators concerned, in order to have access to information concerning possible irregularities held by these operators.

7. THE INVESTIGATORS OF OLAF: A MULTI-DISCIPLINARY TEAM OF SPECIALISTS IN THE FIELD OF THE FIGHT AGAINST FRAUD

Currently, OLAF is comprised of about 400 personnel. The investigators of OLAF, like all the other officials and Community employees, work in the exclusive interest of the Communities. They have to discharge their functions and do their work while keeping in mind the interests of the Communities, without taking instructions from any government, authority, organisation or person independent of the institution.

To achieve these specific tasks, the majority of the personnel of OLAF have a solid professional experience gained in the areas of national investigations, police and judicial services, investigations concerning complex fraud cases, analysis and evaluation of information, or in support or development of policies in the area of the fight against fraud.

The OLAF team of investigators is multidisciplinary nature, which makes it possible to have an comprehensive and inter-sectoral approach (in the police, judicial, financial, customs, agricultural fields, etc). The fact that the majority of the investigators come from national investigation services is valuable in more than one way-at the level of expertiseand in maintaining close relations with the national investigators. This partnership is essential in the fight against fraudsters and criminals who harm Community interests.

8. OLAF AND THE EUROPEAN CITIZENS

OLAF is therefore neither a "secret service", nor a police force. It is rather the legal instrument for administrative investigation with which the European Union has been equipped by the Commission, to guarantee better protection of Community interests and compliance with the law against attacks from organised crime and fraudsters.

In the spirit of service to defend exclusively the interests of the European citizens and the supremacy of law, OLAF follows a policy of close cooperation with all the competent authorities and EU citizens.
The only limits to its policy of absolute transparency are established by the regulations in force, the laws on judicial secrecy, and the respect of individual rights.

Within this framework, OLAF also seeks the cooperation of the Institutions and all European officials, who have the obligation to transmit to the Office any information concerning possible cases of fraud or corruption or any other illegal activity of which they are aware. The Office appeals to any person with information on cases of fraud harmful to the Community budget to report this to OLAF.

To this end, a free phone provides the opportunity for contacting OLAF free of charge from all Member States, in order to give information of interest to the Office.

Postal address of OLAF:
The European Commission - European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)
Rue de la Loi, 200
B-1049 Brussels

Offices:
Rue Joseph II, 30
1000 Brussels

For any additional information, contact:
Mr. Alessandro Butticé
Tel.: + 32 2 296 54 25

UK's Serious Fraud Office - an introduction

Back in the 1980's, the UK (like the US) had lots of frauds and the public got upset. So, they established the SFO (Serious Fraud Office - not San Francisco Airport's code...) to investigate selected "Serious" or large frauds that exceed £1 million WITH an international dimension.

Here is small overview - visit their website at the link below to learn more:
However, unlike anti-corruption agencies in many countries, they don't seem to think part of their mission is to publicize past fraud cases and publish tips how to avoid fraud. Maybe next year...

PS: A difference between fraud and corruption is that fraud is committed in non-government operations, and corruption exists in government agencies. SFO appears to be mostly an investigative and prosecution arm for large business and individual frauds, not government corruption.
vj

http://www.sfo.gov.uk/about/about.asp

What kind of organisation is the SFO?

The Serious Fraud Office is an independent government department that investigates and prosecutes serious or complex fraud. It is part of the UK criminal justice system.

The Office is headed by the Director who is appointed by and accountable to the Attorney General. The Attorney General is appointed by the Prime Minister and is responsible to Parliament for:

* the Serious Fraud Office
* the Crown Prosecution Service
* the Treasury Solicitor's Department
* the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland
* the CPS Inspectorate
* the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office

Jurisdiction

England, Wales and Northern Ireland fall within the SFO's jurisdiction.

The SFO does not have jurisdiction over Scotland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.

Case Acceptance Criterion

The key criterion we use when deciding whether to accept a case is that the suspected fraud appears to be so serious or complex that its investigation should be carried out by those responsible for its prosecution.

The SFO could not - and does not - take on every referred case of suspected fraud. SFO resources must be focussed on major and complicated fraud.
Factors considered:

* does the value of the alleged fraud exceed £1 million?
* is there a significant international dimension?
* is the case likely to be of widespread public concern?
* does the case require highly specialised knowledge, e.g. of financial markets?
* is there a need to use the SFO's special powers, such as Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act?