The Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), which Kazakhstan joined in January 2020, released its first report assessing the anti-corruption system of the Central Asian republic.
“According to the results of the assessment, 27 recommendations were developed for our country aimed at improving the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures. They are universal in nature and are based on the Council of Europe standards set by anti-corruption conventions and other legal instruments. In general, GRECO positively assesses the measures taken by Kazakhstan, noting a comprehensive approach, commitment to systemic changes and openness,” the Anti-Corruption Agency of Kazakhstan said on this occasion.
But is it really so? ACCA scrupulously studied the 86-page GRECO’s report and concluded that the Anti-Corruption Agency of Kazakhstan exaggerated when it said that their anti-corruption measures were assessed positively.
At the beginning of the report, the members of the assessment group agree that Kazakhstan is indeed fighting corruption.
“The authorities confirmed that the fight against corruption is one of the main priorities of Kazakhstan’s state policy and plays a key role in the country’s strategy to ensure economic growth. Kazakhstan is a party to the UNCAC (United Nations Convention against Corruption) since 2008 and has been a member of the OECD Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (OECD/ACN) since 2004. In recent years, Kazakhstan’s score in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) has improved. In 2020, the country has risen by 19 positions (38 points out of 100). In 2021, it fell by one point (37 points out of 100); and currently it ranks 102nd out of 180 countries,” the organization’s experts say.
But at the same time, they write that 80% of young Kazakhstani respondents called corruption the most acute problem in the country.
“The anti-corruption measures taken by the authorities of Kazakhstan, while commendable, should lead to better results. The absence of a developed civil society with truly independent interest groups, as well as the limited focus of the media (especially the state ones) on finding and disseminating factual information about corruption in the country makes it difficult to obtain sufficient knowledge about its real scale – how systemic it is, what parts and levels of state and the private sector are affected, etc.,” say the members of the assessment group.
At the same time, the report emphasizes that Kazakhstan, despite all its statements about the rejection of corruption, hasn’t signed or ratified any of the anti-corruption conventions of the Council of Europe.
After analyzing the current situation in Kazakhstan, GRECO made a number of recommendations to the authorities of Kazakhstan so that their statements about the rejection of corruption don’t diverge and don’t contradict the cause.
For example, experts of the organization advise:
– to increase the independence of the judiciary; to provide adequate functional autonomy to the prosecution and law enforcement agencies responsible for combating corruption, and to protect these agencies from any undue influence, including from the highest political/executive authorities of the state;
– to establish a clear and transparent (independent of political aspects) procedure for appointing heads and deputy heads of law enforcement agencies, indicating their term of office and grounds for dismissal; to ensure that the procedure for registering applications from whistle-blowers of corruption to their employers in good faith is clear and understandable, and that they are protected from pressure;
– to provide the Anti-Corruption Agency and the Financial Monitoring Agency with access to the database of bank accounts of tax authorities for more efficient identification and tracking of criminal proceeds;
– to ensure the systematic application in practice of the existing legal provisions regarding jurisdiction in the investigation of corruption cases between different law enforcement agencies, which give priority to those who specialize in the fight against corruption;
– to strengthen the training and specialization of prosecutors and judges in corruption offences, financial investigations and their links to other crimes such as money laundering and organized crime.
Based on these recommendations, it can be assumed that Kazakhstan has serious problems in this regard, which the authorities are in no hurry to solve. Two and a half years, that have passed since Kazakhstan’s accession to GRECO, is more than enough time to eliminate the existing problems, but the result speaks for itself.
The members of the assessment group also note that Kazakhstan has a large list of individuals subjected to special procedures for their arrest/investigation/prosecution, including the President, MPs, members of the Constitutional Council, the Prosecutor General, judges, presidential candidates and Parliament.
“This system is very similar to the mechanisms that GRECO has encountered in many other jurisdictions, and in relation to these other jurisdictions, it was considered as a system of immunities,” GRECO experts note. “Immunity can be justified by the need to protect independence and enable individuals to carry out their work without fear of politically motivated persecution. However, it’s also important to ensure that immunity from investigation, judicial proceedings or prosecution of corruption is not a privilege that may go beyond what is proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.”
In its report, GRECO also expressed its concern over the fact that in Kazakhstan the President of the country is endowed with immunity, therefore, he can break the law without fear of responsibility.
“The legal provisions on specific procedures that limit the arrest/investigation/prosecution of certain officials, who enjoy de facto immunity from criminal prosecution, need to be carefully reviewed so that they don’t interfere with the effective prosecution of corruption,” the authors of the report believe.
The report is also very skeptical about the measures taken by Kazakhstan to combat money laundering. Based on the text, it can be assumed that in this direction Kazakhstan is more engaged in eyewash than in a real struggle.
“In the Basel Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Index Annual Report 2020, Kazakhstan ranked 73rd out of 141 countries in terms of the level of risk in the field of illegal money laundering and terrorist financing, which is 45 points higher than in 2019,” as you see, the numbers confirm the legitimacy of these conclusions.
And in other issues, according to GRECO’s appraisers, the situation in Kazakhstan is not as positive as anti-corruption experts of Kazakhstan present.
“Corruption in Kazakhstan is recognized as a serious problem, rooted in various sectors, institutions, state bodies and other public and private spheres. However, there are practically no reliable sources of information to establish the actual extent of corruption. The imperfection of the anti-corruption base, the lack of responsiveness in policy-making and state control over the media are among the few serious problems identified during the assessment. In addition, the President’s far-reaching powers, including appointments to the judiciary, prosecutors and law enforcement agencies, as well as approving the structural organization of key anti-corruption institutions, undermine their independence and risk making the anti-corruption system vulnerable to undue influence,” was summarized in the report.
