The Anti-Corruption Agency has developed a new package of measures to combat bribery. Among them are the creation of a public register of corrupt officials, the introduction of criminal liability for promising/offering a bribe, an increase in the statute of limitations for corrupt administrative offenses, and the introduction of liability for bribing foreign officials.
On May 11, the relevant department announced its plans to tighten the fight against corruption.
“Within the framework of the Concept of Anti-Corruption Policy of Kazakhstan, it’s planned to introduce amendments and additions to legislative acts on combating corruption and to the Code of Administrative Offenses. These advisory documents will be posted on the Internet portal “Open regulatory legal acts” (RLA) for public discussion, as well as on the Agency’s Internet resource,” the message said.
On May 13, two documents describing the proposed additions and changes to legislative acts and the Code of Administrative Offenses on anti-corruption issues were posted on the RPA’s portal. Public discussion on the proposed changes will last until June 2.
Both documents contain a list of problems that, according to anti-corruption fighters, require legislative regulation.
For example, it’s said that there is no public register of corrupt officials and, accordingly, a clear mechanism for including and excluding persons from it.
“The introduction of a public register of corrupt officials into the system of preventive measures against corruption will be a highly effective and timely solution. This register will make it possible to visually evaluate the real results in eradicating corruption and preventing the re-employment of those punished for corruption in the relevant service. It will create an atmosphere of intolerance towards corruption in society – when condemnation becomes a public and shameful act,” anti-corruption activists cite their beliefs as a justification for introducing the register.
According to the authors of the proposed amendments, another important problem is that the current legislation doesn’t provide for an algorithm for the actions of civil servants in a conflict of interest. Accordingly, the disciplinary responsibility imposed on managers and civil servants is often disproportionate to the acquired advantage due to a conflict of interest.
Other topical issues are listed on 68 sheets. In particular, the lack of the following anti-corruption tools: the institution of financial investigation based on the “follow the money” principle; criminal punishment for promising and offering a bribe; criminal liability for “transfer of illegal rewards”; responsibility for failure to take measures to combat corruption; a unified national public system for assessing the level of corruption; regulation of the interaction of ethics commissioners with the authorized body for combating corruption; effective and efficient liability of legal entities for corruption offenses with proportional sanctions; the competence of the authorized body for combating corruption to draw up a protocol on an administrative offense; responsibility of employees of special state and law enforcement agencies for administrative corruption offenses; liability of legal entities for bribing a foreign official. Another problem is the short statute of limitations for corrupt administrative offenses.
According to the proposed amendments, corruption fighters consider it necessary to amend the Criminal, Criminal Procedure and Labor Codes, the Code of Administrative Offenses, as well as some laws: “On combating corruption”, “On public service”, “On personal data and their protection”, “On banks and banking activities”, “On operational-investigative activities”, “On public procurement”, etc.
The drafters of the amendments set their special hopes on the public register of corrupt officials as a tool for fighting corruption. In their opinion, civil servants (if such a register appears) will be afraid to get into it, since this will be fraught with political and reputational risks. In addition, inclusion in the register will imply a ban on work in government agencies and the quasi-public sector. But even in the private sector, the developers believe, corrupt officials from the register will have a hard time.
“Thanks to the register, private organizations can avoid the employment of a corrupt official in general, as well as in positions related to managerial, financial and economic activities. And the presence of officials of private organizations in the register will allow other counterparties to avoid mutual settlements with unfair organizations in which corrupt officials work,” they give their arguments.
But the question arises: Who, how and when to include in this register and when to exclude from it and on what grounds?
The Anti-Corruption Agency believes that to include a person in the register, a court sentence, that has entered into force to recognize him/her guilty of a corruption offense, or court decisions to terminate the criminal case on non-rehabilitating grounds will be sufficient.
The grounds for exclusion from the register may be an acquittal, annulment of a guilty verdict, or the expiration of a criminal record.
As for the data that will be noted in the register, anti-corruption experts suggest that these should be: full name, place of work and position at the time the corruption offense was committed, a detailed description of the corruption offense, the composition of the corruption offense, the court decision and the type of punishment.
“In general, thanks to such an effective tool of public censure as a public register, one should expect a decrease in the number of corruption crimes, administrative corruption offenses and disciplinary offenses, and, consequently, a decrease in the facts of embezzlement of budget funds,” the developers of the amendments are sure.
