Transcript Welcome! [www.nacf.org.za]

INTRODUCTION
There has been recognition that the setting up of law
enforcement authorities should be encouraged:

Recommendation 27 of FATF reads:


‘Recommendation 27
Countries should ensure that designated law enforcement
authorities have responsibility for money laundering and
terrorist financing investigations. Countries are encouraged
to support and develop, as far as possible, special
investigative techniques suitable for the investigation of
money laundering, such as controlled delivery, undercover
operations and other relevant techniques. Countries are
also encouraged to use other effective mechanisms such as
the use of permanent or temporary groups specialised in
asset investigation, and co-operative investigations with
appropriate competent authorities in other countries.’

The Independent Commission against Corruption is
currently the main investigatory body in matters of
corruption and money laundering in Mauritius.

The Commission was created by statutory enactment.
Prior to its creation, the investigation of corruption issues
was assigned to the now defunct Economic Crime Office
The areas of law dealt with by ICAC are enshrined in various
acts:
The Prevention of Corruption Act (POCA)
(ii) Financial Intelligence and Anti Money Laundering
(FIAMLA)
(iii) The Mutual Assistance in Criminal and Related Matters Act
(i)
Act
 The ICAC is administered and managed by a Board.
 The Boar id assisted in its operational activities by:
(i) the Corruption Investigation Division
(ii) the Corruption Prevention Division (CPED)
(iii) the Legal Division
(iv) the Administration and Finance Division
THREE PRONGED APPROACH
The ICAC has adopted a three pronged approach against corruption:
(i) Educating (CPED)
(ii) Investigating (Corruption Investigation Division)
(iii) Prosecuting (Legal Division)
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST
CORRUPTION
For the ICAC is expected to collaborate with other
agencies in the fight against corruption:
(i) The Financial Intelligence Unit
(ii) The Police
(iii) The Mauritius Revenue Authority
(iv) The Drug Assets Forfeiture Office
ADVANTAGES OF AN ANTI CORRUPTION AGENCY
As a separate institution, with a supportive legal
framework (the Prevention of Corruption Act), our anti
corruption agency is an independent and autonomous
agency. This guarantees no interference, political or
otherwise, and allows for complete and effective
enquiries.
A high degree of autonomy allows us to insulate the
institution from corruption and other forms of undue
influences.
ADVANTAGES OF AN ANTI CORRUPTION AGENCY
Another major advantage is the high degree of
specialisation and expertise that can be achieved.
Investigators with specific skills and financial
backgrounds are also given every opportunity to evolve
and gather more expertise by following training sessions
by foreign experts from foreign Institutions such as the
Serious Fraud Office, or the Office of Technical
Assistance.
This in turn enables quicker investigations, faster action
against corruption and officials who are committed to
their tasks, and not subject to competing priorities of
general law enforcement agencies.
Faster and more efficient action results in early
prosecutions and sager and early convictions. Ultimately,
an anti corruption agency like ICAC sends the strong
signal that the country as a whole takes anti corruption
efforts seriously.
Invariably, with a high degree of autonomy, faster results
and a higher rate of convictions, an anti corruption
agency like the ICAC can strive to achieve a deterrent
effect.
This deterrent effect is also achieved to the immense
impact education has on the population as a whole.
If the agency benefits from a high degree of autonomy, it
remains nevertheless accountable. In Mauritius, for
instance, both judicial and administrative accountability
allow for the greater clarity in the assessment of the
progress of ICAC. It also determine its successes and
failures.
The ICAC is thus accountable to the Parliamentary
Committee, established by virtue of Part 6 of the
Prevention of Corruption act 2002.
The ICAC accounts for its investigative decisions through
a separate mechanism, the Judiciary, as cases prosecuted
in Court are naturally subject to the Court’s Judgment and
Scrutiny
There are also hurdles to a successful anti corruption
agency.
A specialised anti corruption agency invariably entails
costs. Administrative costs are most important, and
adequate resources and a specific budget needs to be
allocated annually.
A specialised anti corruption agency may not enlist public
support as much as it wishes to. It may be subject to
constant criticism in a particularly corrupt-prone
environment in order to deter it from achieving its
mandate.
This may result in a certain isolation of the institution
and no support in its tasks in countries and areas where
corruption is serious and pervasive.
Finally, it may very well happen that the very institutions
and department asked to cooperate with the anti
corruption agency feel a certain rivalry or competition
and are unwilling to work together.
On occasions the specialised agency may even be
requested to enquire on these specific agencies and
departments, which creates tension between the
institutions and a certain animosity.
TO RECAP
 ADVANTAGES
 DISADVANTAGES
 Autonomy

 Independence
 Specialisation/Expertise
 Organisational






Development and Maturity
Faster Action
Effective
Insulation from Corruption
Deterrence
Clarity – Accountability
Public Support
Budget allocation
 High Administrative Costs
 Isolation
 Rivalry between law
enforcement agencies
Mauritius is currently exploring the possibility of setting
up, specialised courts to cope with the highly technical
nature of evidence that needs to be adduced at complex
fraud and money laundering trials.
The Major advantage of specialised courts would be a
more direct. Focused and results based approach in our
court system.
It would help to avoid the considerably lengthy delays that
occur in case processing in already overburdened
generalist Courts.
Such a targeted approach would allow a higher proportion
of conviction without considerable delay, and in turn
heighten public confidence in the Judicial System.
It is also hoped that with the advent of specialised Courts
other Judicial Innovations such as Electronic Presentation
of Evidence (EPE) may be considered.
Courts would be equipped with computer monitors to
facilitate the electronic display of documentary evidence,
with a more practical and improved justice delivery.
This concept had initially been run on a pilot basis on a
select number of courts in the UK.