Skip to sidebar Skip to main

Q35.

Are there effective measures in place for personnel found to have taken part in forms of bribery and corruption, and is there evidence that these measures are being carried out?

35a. Sanctions

Score

SCORE: 100/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

35b. Enforcement

Score

SCORE: 75/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

Compare scores by country

Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.

Relevant comparisons

The Albanian Criminal Code provides for a wide range of punishable corruption acts such as active and passive corruption, abuse of office, favouritism, failure to comply with the declaration of assets, incomes and private interests, violation of equality in tendering processes, corruption involving foreign persons [1].
All the corruption offences, namely: offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or another person in charge of public or legal duty are punishable by law in Albania. Sanctions provided in the Criminal Code and the laws regulating the activity of the armed forces include incarceration, dismissal, and financial penalties. The Criminal Code was amended in 2017 to expand the range of culpable persons involved in corruption and make punishments more severe for a wide range of criminal corruption acts (up to three years imprisonment for violation of equality in tenders, up to three years imprisonment for official corruption, up to eight years imprisonment for soliciting or receipt of unlawful benefits) [2].
The Law on the Status of Armed Forces of the Republic of Albania provides for the equality of the military personnel in front of the law. It stipulates that military personnel have criminal, civil, administrative and disciplinary liability in accordance with the legislation in force. The law provides also that the military should not seek or receive any material benefit for the performance of duties, except for salaries and other benefits provided for by the law [3]. The Military Criminal Code provides for sanctions due to theft and abuse of military property and competences (abuse of competences is punishable with imprisonment for up to five years) [4].

No data is provided or reports given on the number of investigations and prosecutions involving defence and security personnel by the MoD.
The data provided in the Prosecutor General reports show a track record of prosecution and trials involving military personnel. The Military Criminal Code does not refer to corruption as a specific crime, so corruption is prosecuted under the abuse of power clause [1].
In 2015, there were 45 criminal proceedings involving military personnel, of which 11 were an abuse of power. In 2016, there were 19 criminal proceedings, of which one was an abuse of power and in 2017, out of 19 criminal proceedings, one was for the abuse of power [2, 3, 4]. The prosecutor reports do not provide disaggregated figures on criminal proceeding under the civilian Criminal Code. Apart from the figures on criminal proceedings produced by the prosecution, no data is provided or reports produced on administrative sanctions related to corruption by the MoD.
The minister of defence has publically taken credit for the initiation of investigations on corruption; this can be seen as evidence of political influence [5]. Moreover, one of the most prominent cases, during which the minister took credit, was the arrest and trial of a brigadier general in 2014 on charges of corruption, it became a hot political topic, and the opposition accused the minister of defence of personal involvement in influencing the prosecution [6]. The court found no abuses and ruled that the accused general was returned to his position and for the MoD to pay compensation [7]. The absence of military courts or military prosecution does not constitute an institutional omission regarding the investigation and prosecution of corruption. In terms of jurisdiction, there are no limitations for the court and prosecution system to prosecute military personnel.

Legal mechanisms to address bribery and corruption are in place under the Anti-corruption Law 06-01 (2006). In Section IV, several articles deal with corruption and bribery of public officials, which stipulate fines and penalties. For example, for corrupt public officials, the penalty includes imprisonment for a term of two to ten years and a fine of 200,000 to 1,000,000 DA. According to Art. 25, two of the four offences are codified. The first part of the article sanctions the act of offering or granting an advantage to a public official for him to perform or refrain from performing an act. Section two sanctions the act of a public official to soliciting or accepting an advantage for him to perform or refrain from performing an act related to the duties of the public official (1).

Although Law 06-01 (2006) does not explicitly refer to the defence institutions, the Statute of Military Personnel provides evidence that it does apply to the defence sector. According to Art. 69, military personnel are subject to the provisions of ordinary criminal law and the Code of Military Justice, and military members shall be liable to disciplinary, professional and/or statutory sanctions (2).

There is evidence that measures are taken against members of the armed forces found to have taken part in forms of bribery and corruption. However, it is unclear yet if they are being pursued. In October 2018, five military generals were detained for alleged wrongdoings. They were accused of “squandering” public funds and “mismanagement”. According to the Algerian TV station Ennahar, they are being sued for unlawful enrichment and breach of trust in front of a military court. According to TSA, several hundred other soldiers of all ranks have also been charged for similar acts (1), (2). No information on the investigation could be found which would allow assessment on how investigations are undertaken. According to Art. 41 of the Code of Military Justice, the procedures during the investigation are secret (3). The latest report is the generals have been released while awaiting their trials by order of the President at the beginning of November (4). Since their trials have not yet taken place, no assessment on their hearings can be made. Some analysts have tied the cases to the upcoming presidential elections in 2019 and possible power struggles (1), which feeds suspicions that the cases are political. No other examples of generals being prosecuted for bribery or corruption have been found since 2016. In the reporting on the five generals, newspaper articles generally refer to the case of General Beloucif who embezzled money from the Department of National Defence’s coffers in the 1990s (2), (5).

The criminal code currently in force considers bribery an offence for all parties engaged and sets out prison terms ranging between two and eight years for bribery (Articles 318-326) (1). According to the 1994 Military Law, corruption-related offences are considered civilian crimes, though penalties are aggravated by one third (Art. 49) (2), (3), (4).

There have been only a few publicly known prosecution cases of mid-level military officials for bribery and corruption in recent years. For instance, in a widely reported case in 2016, the military attaché of the Angolan Embassy in Russia was convicted to three years in prison for the charge of “abuse of trust”, for having misappropriated scholarship funds. Sachipengo Nunda, the former General Chief of Staff of the Angolan Armed Forces, is the only senior official who was indicted in recent years on corruption charges in March 2018, although the charges were later dropped by the Supreme Court (1), (2).

Since 2008, the Military has been judged by ordinary justice, eliminating what until then configured military procedures in times of peace (Military Justice Code). The Criminal Code of the Nation is the current regulation applicable to military personnel and civilian civil servants who make up the chain of command and are assimilated to military personnel, in relation to the crimes they commit as such (Art. 77 Penal Code). [1] The criminal code defines the offense of bribery of public officials both active (the one that offers money or promises) and passive (that receives money or promises it), for the purpose of an action or omission by them. In both cases the penalty is up to 6 years and perpetual special disqualification. In turn, the code typifies the crimes of influence peddling, illicit enrichment, embezzlement of public flows, and negotiations incompatible with the exercise of public functions. They also have sentences related to deprivation of liberty and disqualifications. [2]

There are advanced cases in justice on criminal proceedings in relation to bribery crimes and corruption of high-ranking public officials, both by civilians and the military, as is the case of former Army Chief Cesar Milani (2013-2015). [1] At the same time, there are many complaints that have not advanced in the judicial field and/or where there are complaints regarding influences in the proceedings. [2] [3] On this, there are both public and civil society complaints. [4] According to the latest management report of the Anti-Corruption Office of 2018, that body has submitted complaints to the judiciary regarding defence and security personnel: possible illicit enrichment by the Chief Commissioner of the Argentine Federal Police; alleged illicit enrichment in the Argentine Army; alleged request for bribes from civilian personnel in the field of the General Staff of the Air Force – Office of the Aeronautical Attaché at the Embassy of Argentina. [5] [6] [7]

Bribery offences are managed by the Criminal Code that is the universal tool to introduce sanctions and enforce the punishment wherever and whenever applicable. The offences within the defence sector are not distinguished in this regard and are also regulated by the same code. Article 311, 311.1, 311.2, 312, 312.1 and 313 on taking a bribe, giving a bribe and mediating bribe accordingly apply to any case of bribery. Taking bribe as a high official is punishable through paying three hundred or five hundred times of a minimum wage penalty or up to ten years of imprisonment, depending on the circumstances and seriousness of the offence [1]. The Law on Public Service prohibits accepting gifts deriving from performing professional activities or that otherwise would not be given. Clause 2 of Article 29 of the law provides that the term “gift” implies any proprietary advantage that would otherwise not be reasonably provided to a person holding a high state position. Clause 3 of the Article 29 states that if the gift exceeds 100,000 AMD in value, it is transferred to a charity by his/her initiative or consent by a supervisor or shall be deemed the property of the state agency and be allocated on the inventory list [2].

Cases of corruption, bribery, misconduct or any other type of related misbehaviour are carefully investigated in an attempt to eliminate those issues within the armed forces. A range of cases through media outlets have been publicized to make the public aware of situations and to be alert and whistleblow if anything comes to their attention [1, 2, 3, 4]. In this regard, both the former and current government officials are united in their public speeches, condemning corruption in the armed forces [5, 6]. Particular attention of the public was made to the scandalous cases of misconduct and appropriation by General Manvel Grigoryan (retired) who was a Member of Parliament and a person closely related to the armed forces. The National Security Service’s activities revealed a large scale appropriation of goods intended for the armed forces [7, 8]. For this particular purpose, a hotline at the MoD was established to facilitate whistleblowing by any individual that may otherwise not feel comfortable reporting on any possible offences related to the armed forces [9].

Bribery is strictly disallowed by the Criminal Code Act 1995 and Defence policy. The Criminal Code Act 1995 devotes Part 7.6 to bribery and related offences, making it illegal to offer or give a bribe to a Commonwealth public official and for a Commonwealth public official to accept or solicit a bribe [1, s. 141.1(3)(a)(i)], among other bribery- and corruption-related offences. Bribery is also a breach of defence policy and legislation. In Defence Instructions PERS 25-7: Gifts, Hospitality and Sponsorship, it is stated that bribery is “a breach of the Australian Public Service (APS) Code of Conduct contained in the Public Service Act 1999, and a breach of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (DFDA)” [2]. The Criminal Code Act 1995 says the potential penalty for bribery offences named above by an individual is up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a AU$10,000 fine [1, s. 141.1(5)]. Civilian personnel of defence can be terminated for breaches of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct [3], and Military Personnel can face military justice and dismissal for breaches of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 [4].

As the bribery and related offences that applies to Defence personnel falls under the Criminal Code Act 1995 [1] rather than the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, enforcement generally falls to civilian courts. The civilian criminal justice system is highly formalised in Australia [2]. For its 2019 Rule of Law Index, the World Justice Project gave Australia a score of 0.91 for “No improper government influence” in the criminal justice system and 0.68 for “Effective investigations”, both well above the regional ranking. Overall, Australia was ranked 12 of 126 countries for the quality of its criminal justice system [3]. There are no contemporary media reports that civilian courts have been credibly accused of undue political influence [4].

The Anti-Corruption Law (1) applies to all public administrations, as well as to the Ministry of Defence. According to the law, corruption shall mean illicit obtaining by an official of material and other values, privileges or advantages, by using for that purpose his or her position, or the status of the body he or she represents, or his or her official powers, or the opportunities deriving from those statuses or powers, as well as the bribery of an official by illicit offering, promising or giving him or her by individuals or legal persons of the said material and other values, privileges or advantages. (Article 1, Anti-corruption Law). However, it is difficult to say that the law has been successfully implemented in the defence sector (2).

In 2003, a change took place in the leadership of the Ministry of Defence and announced that the new leadership would fight corruption (1). However, the results of the anti-corruption activities have not been published. At the same time, the military prosecutor publishes statistics each year on the number of people from the defence sector detained and arrested due to corruption and other factors (2, 3). However, details of the cases are not made available to the public; it is highly probable that cases were only superficially investigated. According to the results, criminal cases were opened in 2016, and 153 people were brought to trial. In 2017, 123 criminal cases on corruption and bribery were completed, and 146 people were sent to relevant military courts (5). At the same time, the results of the investigations carried out by the Ministry of National Security are published in the press. There are also corrupt crimes (4). However, observations show that in most cases, many of those accused of corruption offences are unpunished.

According to the Bahraini Military Forces Law, personnel are forbidden from engaging in corrupt activities such as bribery (receiving bribes), and receiving gifts, or engaging in illegal business [1]. Soliciting payments is not included in the list of punishments. In 2010, the Military Penal Code was amended, and punishments for these crimes were added (sanctions) [2]. The penal code of embezzlement and corrupt activities can range from the death penalty to 3-6 months of imprisonment, according to Articles 106-130 [2].

According to interviewees, there is a clear failure to apply the law, and in many cases, reported allegations are superficially investigated with no outcome [1, 2]. These charges are covered due to links with senior officials or the closure of cases without a charge/outcome. No information about cases such as these from 2000 onwards was found during an extensive online search.

Section 42 of the Army Act of 1952 [1], Section 63 of the Navy Ordinance of 1961 [2], and Section 53 of the Air Force Act of 1953 [3] stipulate punishments of varying degrees, with a maximum of 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment or ‘less punishment’ for illegal gratification, theft or dishonest misappropriation, or for extortion and corruption in relation to the affairs of the State or of any service. There is no public record indicating that these measures have been carried out.

Corruption in the Army is dealt with by General Court Martial [1], with a maximum prison sentence of 5 years. Corruption in the Navy is dealt by Navy Tribunal or General Court Martial with varying degrees of punishment [2]. Corruption in the Air Force is tried and convicted by Court Martial [3] with short prison sentences. Instances of enforcement are not made public; there are no media reports indicating that undue political influence occurs in the process.

Punishable offences are listed in the code of conduct, accompanied by the applicable judicial reference (Articles 245-252 of the Belgian penal code and Article 8, §3 of 2, The Royal Decree of 2 October 1937) [1, 2]. In the same document, the consequences of committing such an offence is stated, once again with reference to the relevant laws (Penal Code and Code of Economic Law) [1, 3].

Criminal investigations in the military are performed by a special unit of the federal police (DJMM), which is entirely independent of the Belgian Defence [1]. Disciplining happens via the judicial system, which is independent of the political one, and according to the penal code [2, 3]. There is no evidence of political influence in investigation and disciplinary processes in matters of bribery and corruption in the defence and security sector since 2015 [4].

Bribery, which includes bribing and receiving bribes, as well as mediation in giving and receiving bribes, depending on the specific legal framework is defined by the criminal laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the entities of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska and Brcko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The three listed administrative units compose Bosnia and Herzegovina [1, 2, 3, 4].
These laws also designate the criminal liability of legal persons as a generally accepted legal standard for that the criminal offence that a natural person committed on behalf of, for the account and the benefit of a legal person, a responsible person and a legal person under certain conditions prescribed by the same law. In addition to this, the Law on Public Procurement of Bosnia and Herzegovina stipulates that the contracting authority, including certain public companies subject to the application of this law, shall refuse the bidder’s bid for participation in the procedure if the bidder or the former employee of the contracting authority has given or is willing to give a bribe to achieve impact on the action, decision or course of the public procurement process.
All the listed laws prescribe sanctions of imprisonment for the mentioned criminal offences. The Law on Service in the Armed Forces and the Civil Servant Law specify that if the person in military service or the civil servant has been sentenced to at least six months in prison their service or employment will be terminated [5, 6].
The listed laws and their provisions (except the Law on Service in the Armed Forces) apply to civilian personnel of the defence institutions.

Judicial proceedings against high ranking officials in the security institutions stop due to lack of evidence [1]. In a recent case, the minister of defence was freed from accusation for alleged payment of salaries to her adviser who did not come to work regularly. The minister, as a result of court proceedings, was finally released of charges but there remained questions regarding the system which allowed such malpractice to happen [2].

The national legal framework against corruption includes, principally, the Corruption and Economic Crime Act (as amended) (CECA), Proceeds and Instruments of Crime Act (as amended) (PICA), Financial Intelligence Act (FI Act), Public Service Act, Electoral Act, Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), Penal Code, Whistleblowing Act, Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MACMA), and related government regulations, orders, circulars and instructions.[1] This legislation equally applies to defence personnel that are found wanting on corruption [2]. The CECA Act is the principal legislation that defines (soliciting, offering, giving, receiving) bribery in Part IV of the CECA Act. Further, the sanctions in terms of the CECA Act are multiple from a fine to a jail committal or a combination of both depending on the merits of each case. There is no specific legislation enacted for BDF. The laws of general application, as highlighted above, equally apply to BDF personnel found to have taken part in forms of bribery and corruption. For example, it was reported by AllAfrica that the Former Botswana director-general of the Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS), Isaac Kgosi, had been arrested at the Sir Seretse Khama International Airport on his arrival from Dubai on charges relating to tax evasion and corruption [3]. He was arrested in terms of the Corruption and Economic Crime Act, which is the law of general application.

Effective measures are in place as provided for by the Corruption and Economic Crime Act. Whilst there have not been any reported cases of soldiers arrested on corruption or any such related cases – the legal framework is in place that deals with such criminal acts [1]. Measures that the government has put in place to fight corruption, including a number of relevant legal instruments such as the Proceeds and Instruments of Crime Act and Whistle Blowing Act as well as a specialized corruption court [1, 2]. Currently, Botswana is working on the Bill in Parliament on the Declaration of Assets and Liabilities, which will cover all top government officials, including the executive [2]. The security services are not excluded. This has been explained earlier in the arresting of the former Head of the DISS, Isaac Kgosi.

Law 8.1121/1990 states that public servants can respond criminally and administratively to corruption, with sanctions such as exoneration (Article 132). Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5 and VI of Section 7 (Crimes Against the Military Administration) of the Military Criminal Code are explicit in describing active and passive corruption [1]. It also mentions that any damage to the state or third parties related to acts of omission or deliberate decisions, whether a felonious crime or wrongful crime, is subject to being accountable. The Criminal Code contains sanctions for crimes against the public administration (Decree 2.848/1940 [2] and 3.689/1941 [3], together with the Federal General Comptroller’s (CGU) Manual of Disciplinary Processes [4]. Regarding military officials, there is specific regulation regarding corruption in military statues, the Military Criminal Law and in the Military Processual Criminal Code [5]. This means that offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value are included in the Brazilian legislation, and it entails sanctions such as exoneration from public service and inprisonment.

The Transparency Portal offers data on public servants’ expulsions [1]. According to this database, from 2016 to 2019, the Ministry of Defence exonerated three servants; The Army expelled seven servants, the Air Force, three; and the Navy, five servants. These numbers; however, are not evidence of a systematic approach to corruption and administrative improbity, especially considering that there are years with no actions taken. The assessor did not find evidence of undue influence in these cases.

The Penal Code criminalizes and punishes bribery and corruption. Articles 155, 156, 157 and 158 of the code criminalizes and punishes receiving, offering and giving a bribe or bribes, gifts, or collusion, trading in influence, and solicitation by everyone including military officials (1), (2), (3). Article 157 and 158 state the penalties if found guilty of committing any of this crime. The punishment is imprisonment from one to five years, a fine twice the value agreed on, or from 300,000 to 900,000 francs. If a person is any of the public officers mentioned in Articles 155 and 156 maximum punishment is applied. Military officers are mentioned in Articles 155 and 156, therefore their punishment is the same (1). Article 159 states, “in any case, the court seised may also order the prohibition of the exercise of civil rights and/or functions or public employment for a period not exceeding five years. The things or values ​​delivered or delivered are confiscated for the benefit of the public treasury” (1).

According to GAN 2016, “Corruption is pervasive in all sectors of the economy and government… Foreign donors have pushed the government to pass new anti-corruption legislation in 2015″ (1). Although corruption is criminalized under the Penal Code, however, weak enforcement of these laws, coupled with poor access to information, a culture of impunity, weak institutions, have made the fight against corruption all the more difficult…The police and gendarmerie are perceived to be among the most corrupt institutions in Burkina Faso. Investigations of corrupt practices and the abuse of the police are carried out by the gendarmerie, but results of these investigations are not always made public….. however, only between 1-15% of households report having paid a bribe to the police” (1)
According to the DoS (2017), “use of excessive force, corruption, a climate of impunity, and lack of training contributed to police ineffectiveness… The government announced investigations in progress, but as of September 20, none had led to prosecution.inadequate resources also impeded police effectiveness…NGOs reported pervasive corruption in… the gendarmerie, national police, municipal police. The local NGO Anticorruption National Network (REN-LAC) categorized the municipal police as the most corrupt government sector. They reported a lack of political will to fight corruption, stating the government rarely imposed sanctions against prominent government figures (2), (3).
According to BTI 2016, “Isolated cases of corruption are prosecuted, but often without consequence…Though the law provides criminal penalties for official corruption, the government did not implement it effectively. There are few reliable public sources of information about corruption, and the media are often left to publish rumors and accusations. Few government agencies provide customer-friendly services (for example on web sites), which seriously compromises citizens’ ability to obtain information about government operations, including the proposed national budget” (4).

There are several legal texts that criminalise corruption in Cameroon in conjunction with the country’s penal code (Law No. 67-LF-1 of 12 June 1967) [1]. Article 134 criminalises the giving and taking of bribes; the penal code effectively penalises offering and receiving bribes. Extortion and collusion with public employees is penalized by Article 137. Art. 142 and 160 treat intent of extortion, collusion or bribery as offences, while Art. 161 and 312 address issues relating to embezzlement (Art. 184) [1]. Other legal texts include Decree No. 95/048 of 1995 which outlines sanctions against corrupt magistrates and Decree No. 94/199 of 7 October 1994 which penalises administrative offences [1]. Additionally, ‘Loi No. 2017/012 du 12 juillet 2017 portant code de justice militaire’ is the military penal code and it addresses corruption in detail, especially embezzlement. Article 53 addresses embezzlement and the sanctions include life imprisonment and financial penalties (Article 53 of Loi No. 2017/012 du 12 juillet 2017 portant code de justice militaire) [3].

In the 2017 US State Department Report, the Delegate General for National Security, Ministry of Defence, and Ministry of Justice claimed members of security forces were sanctioned during the year for committing abuses, but there is no evidence as to whether these sanctions took place [2].

According to the same report, “The law provides criminal penalties for corruption by officials, although these were seldom enforced. The government did not always effectively address high-profile cases, and officials continued to engage in corrupt practices with impunity. The judiciary was not always free to independently investigate and prosecute corruption cases. Some officers convicted of corruption were relieved of their duties but continued to be paid due to weak oversight, accountability, and enforcement mechanisms for internal disciplining. Civilian authorities maintained some control over the police and gendarmerie, and the government had some mechanisms in place to investigate and punish abuse and corruption. The DGSN and gendarmerie investigated reports of abuse and forwarded cases to the courts. Lesser sanctions were handled internally. The DGSN, Ministry of Defence, and Ministry of Justice claimed members of security forces were sanctioned during the year for committing abuses, but few details were known about investigations or any subsequent accountability” [2].

In 2015, a former Minister of Defence claimed that senior military officers who had embezzled funds meant for soldiers commissioned to fight Boko Haram in the Northern part of the Cameroon would be tried for treason [1]. However, there is no evidence that this measure was taken. In fact, it is alleged that the former Minister was involved in a corruption scandal involving Robert Franchitti, Colonel Mboutou and Maxime Mbangue, who received huge amounts of money from the former in exchange for lucrative Cameroon military contracts [3].

The Code of Service Discipline [1] makes clear that the Criminal Code [2] which prohibits any of the elements of bribery or corruption discussed, applies equally to DND military and civilian personnel, who are also subject to additional penalties through the military justice system and the Criminal Code as applicable. Section 3 of The Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act states that, “Every person commits an offence who, in order to obtain or retain an advantage in the course of business, directly or indirectly gives, offers or agrees to give or offer a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind to a foreign public official or to any person for the benefit of a foreign public official (a) as consideration for an act or omission by the official in connection with the performance of the official’s duties or functions; or (b) to induce the official to use his or her position to influence any acts or decisions of the foreign state or public international organization for which the official performs duties or functions.” Offences under this Act are punishable by up to 14 years in prison. [3]

Most recently, the Chief Military Judge of Canada was tried for fraud, and the presiding judge was a friend of the defendant. [1] The case has not yet been decided. The past three years of reports of the Director of Military Prosecutions reveal no courts martial for bribery or corruption. [2] [3] [4] This suggests a lack of interest in investigating and prosecuting such behaviour. Additionally, the Auditor General of Canada’s Report on the Administration of Justice in the Canadian Armed Forces found that there were significant delays in resolving military justice cases (which contributed to 10 cases being dismissed or not proceeding to court martial) and that there were systemic weaknesses in the military justice process, for example, the Canadian Armed Forces had not defined time standards for every phase of the military justice system. Even when time standards were defined, unexplained delays still occurred. It was also found that human resource practices did not support the development of specialised expertise in litigation. In addition, commanding officers were found not to immediately inform Defence Counsel Services of the accused’s request for defence counsel. Further, prosecutors did not provide the accused with all relevant information for their defence as soon as was practical. It was also found that the processes used by the Military Police to inform military units, and by the Canadian Military Prosecution Service to inform the Military Police, were inefficient.” [5]

The prosecution of corruption offences in Chile is configured in the Criminal Code. It establishes six concepts related to administrative probity and corruption in the public sector: malversation, fiscal fraud, incompatible negotiation, influence peddling, misuse of privileged information, and bribery [1]. Concerning offences of bribery and corruption, the legislation distinguishes between passive and active bribery. Passive bribery or “cohecho” defines an offence committed by a public employee who requests or agrees to receive an improper economic benefit (“bribe”) to perform an act or exercise influence that infringes his/her duties (Penal Code, Arts. 248, 248bis, 249) [2]. Active bribery or “soborno” defines an offence committed by an individual who offers or consents to give a public employee an improper economic benefit so that he executes an undue act on his or her behalf (Penal Code, Art. 250). Sanctions include the penalty of minor imprisonment in its minimum degree, in addition to the suspension of public functions (temporal or absolute), and fines according to the benefit requested or received.

Bribery and corruption are prosecuted through a formal legal process. However, there are criticisms about the proportionality of the associated sanctions and the existence of attempts of undue influence through espionage and denial of information in certain cases [1, 2]. According to the Prosecutor’s Office, in 2016, bribery was the corruption-related crime with the highest number of accused, representing 63 per cent of the prosecuted corruption offences. Civil society organisations and NGOs claimed that the country had comparatively low penalties associated with bribery and corruption, both in terms of fees and the disabilities of public servants involved in corruption [3, 4]. In 2018, a new law modified the Penal Code [5], increasing penalties associated with bribery, typifying the crimes of corruption between private individuals, the unfair administration, and criminal liabilities of legal persons. It also typified bribery without having to demonstrate paybacks.

China’s Criminal Law and the CMC and Party regulations [1,2,3] clearly define what constitutes bribery and corruption in general and in the army. These include all forms of abuse of power, collusion, bribe giving and taking, undue influence for personal gain, bribery in promotions and procurement. Penalties inlcude dismissal, prosecution, and confiscation of assets. As explained in 35B, these penalites have been consistently applied in many cases over the last 5 years.

Anticorruption in China is heavily politicised as it has been routinely used to clear the ranks of officers unsympathetic to the CCP leadership. [1] Enforcement depends on the CCP-controlled Discipline Inspection Commission [2] and the role of the judiciary is weak and highly controlled by the Party. [3,4]

Law 1474 of 2011, the Anticorruption Statute, [1] modifies Article 444 of the Penal Code, [2] and recognizes “bribery” as the delivery or promise of money or other utility to a witness so that they are not truthful or not fully truthful in their testimony, carrying sanctions of imprisonment for six to twelve years and a fine of 100 to 1,000 pesos based on wage. This Law also recognizes “transnational bribery” as when a foreign public servant, for the benefit of themselves or a third party, is offered, directly or indirectly, any money, object of pecuniary value, or other utility in exchange for acts, omits, or delays related to an economic or commercial transaction; and is sanctioned with nine to fifteen years in prison and a fine of 100 to 200 current legal monthly minimum wages. [1] The Single Disciplinary Code of the public function, Law 734 of 2002, [3] stipulates a series of prohibitions of public servants including the receiving, directly or indirectly, gifts, entertainment, favours, or any another kind of benefit, that leads to coercion. This Code classifies disciplinary offenses as very serious, serious, and minor, with a variety of sanctions ranging from dismissal, suspension from office, a fine, or a written warning. Decree 1797 of 2000, [4] by which the disciplinary regime of the Armed Forces is issued, recognizes the existence of extremely serious offenses related to the receipt of gifts or bribes, benefits from illegal activities, and demand for money or gifts for official services. Article 61 of Law 836 of 2003 [5] outlines further sanctions for acts of bribery including (i) loss of general and special disabilities; and (ii) the loss of the right to attend social headquarters and military recreation sites when the absolute separation of the Armed Forces is imposed. Regarding sanctions, the Military Penal Code, Law 1407 of 2010, [6] recognizes two main penalties, imprisonment and a fine, in addition to accessory penalties such as the prohibition of the exercise of profession or office, the absolute removal from the public force, house arrest, and the ban of public rights and functions, among others. Finally, in Law 1765 of 2015, [7] which regulates the Military Criminal Justice, states that “crimes against the public administration” committed by the members of the Armed Forces must be judged under the provisions of the Military Penal Code and the penal code, in addition to its complementary regulations.

According to the Single Disciplinary Code, Law 734 of 2002, [1] the application of measures aimed at generating disciplinary action against public servants falls to the offices of internal disciplinary control of each entity. Such processes may, in second instance, be investigated by the Attorney General’s Office. The holder of disciplinary power forwards, initiates, or continues investigations carried out by the offices of disciplinary internal control. [2] Article 16 of the Disciplinary Code states that disciplinary sanction has the preventive and corrective function of the exercise of the civil service, based on transparency, objectivity, legality, honesty, loyalty, impartiality, etc., in such a way as to guarantee “the effectiveness and purposes of the Constitution.” As for the political influences that the sanctioning process may have, the internal control offices could have some kind of influence since even though the person in charge of this unit is autonomous in his duties [3] these units are formed through internal acts of the Head of the Agency and coordinated by the Director of that unit, so the possible emergence of undue political influence on decision-making around disciplinary processes should not be ruled out. With regard to criminal proceedings, corruption cases are investigated and put to trial by the Attorney General’s Office. That Office has an accusatory criminal proceeding divided into three phases: inquiry, in which the prosecutor and the judicial police obtain evidence and physical evidence of the crime that occurred, and the prosecution is made before a judge of guarantees; research phase, where a formulation hearing is held and research is open; and trial phase, where indictment, preparatory, oral trial, and judgment hearings are held before a judge of knowledge. [4] For Interviewee 6, [5] during this judicial process there could be attempts at undue political influence in the application of justice, evidenced by the denial of contexts referred to in cases of corruption. This means that for cases such as the systematic nature of the murders of social leaders, there is a denial by the responsibility by the Military and the Colombian government for the protection of human rights, while in cases of administrative corruption within the Military Forces there is a whole media movement that allows for the acceleration of the investigation and arrest processes of those involved. [6, 7]

Bribery (offrir des cadeaux aux fonctionnaires, pots-de-vin, extorsion) and corruption are clearly defined offences that apply to defence personnel. Sanctions include more than one year of jail time, significant financial penalties and dismissal from the public office from six months to three years or even a permanent dismissal. In accordance with Act No. 2013-875 of December 23, 2013, ratifying Order No. 660 of September 20, 2013, on the prevention and fight against corruption and similar offences (Ordonnance n” 2013-660 du 20 septembre 2013 relative à laprévention et à la lutte contre la corruption et lesinfractions assimilées), bribery and influence peddling are codified offences as per Articles 15, 16, 18 and 21 (1), (2).

As per Order No. 660, Article 1, the scope of application defining a “public official” would de jure cover personnel in the defence sector because it applies to “any person acting on behalf of the State and/or with State resources”. This includes any public or ministerial officer (tout officier public ou ministériel) such as the personnel working at the Ministry of Defence (1), (2). Order No. 660, Article 29, penalizes the active and passive bribery of a public official through payments, gifts or benefits, as well as the acceptance of a bribe by a public official to carry out (or not to carry out) action as a public official. The penalties include 5-10 years of prison and a fine of 5 to 10 million FCFA. If the public official is a member of the Judiciary, the penalties are 10 years of prison and fines of up to 30 million FCFA (1), (2). Additionally, Order No. 660, Article 63, establishes complementary penalties that apply to natural persons convicted of offences such as bribery. These include the person’s disqualification from holding public office for a period of six months to three years, as well as a permanent disqualification (interdiction définitive). The sanctions for bribery and corruption in Order No. 660, include incarceration time, significant financial fines and dismissal to hold public office from six months to three years.

There is an overwhelming lack of evidence that cases of bribery or corruption among defence personnel are investigated and prosecuted. No evidence in open sources reported of MoD officials sanctioned or disqualified from public office as a result of Order No. 660. Order No. 660 and Order No. 661, which established the High Authority for Good Governance (HABG), are criticized in Ivorian media as ineffective in terms of enforcement (mise en oeuvre). In an article in Libre Afrique, Safiatou Ouattara criticizes the lack of public disclosure in the provisions regarding the personal assets of senior public officials. The article is focused on asset disclosure and not on incidents of bribery among defence personnel, but the criticism of Order No. 660 is based on the lack of strategy and independence of the HABG (1).

In a January 2018 published in Fraternité Matin, President Alassane Ouattara was quoted during a trip to Addis Ababa to attend an African Union summit that Order No. 660 had been amended via Order No. 2018-25 (January 17, 2018) to alter the procedures for disclosure of assets by public officials. There was no mention of any other changes to Order No. 660 that would amend the provisions on sanctions for bribery and corruption among defence personnel (2). It seems likely that Order No. 660 has had very weak enforcement since it was promulgated in 2013. In 2016, a Ministry of Justice evaluation of Côte d’Ivoire by Gnenema Coulibaly stated that legislation such as Order No. 660 had been operational for 3 years and that Côte d’Ivoire’s rankings in the World Bank’s Doing Business Report had been boosted as a result. No mention was made of the Order’s de facto enforcement (3). There is a total lack of evidence in open sources that Order No. 660 is effective.

The Danish Penal Code also applies to employees (military and civilian) in the Danish defence sector. The penal code criminalises bribery and contains a chapter on crimes within public service [1]. The Military Penal Code criminalises different kinds of neglect of duty that may also relate to corruption [2]. The Public Administration Act (Forvaltningsloven), which outlaws corruption in the form of incapacity, also apply to defence [3]. There are specific administrative directives that concerns the Defence domain directly – these stipulate directions for the acceptance and presentations of gifts and donations, for privates (“menige”) performance of personal services, and for the acceptance and presentations of gifts, financial loans or other benetis between superiors and subordinates [4, 5, 6]. As the independent military prosecutor, The Ministry of Defence Military Prosecution Service (Forsvarets Auditørkorps) deals with all violations of the military and civil penal code, including instances of corruption [7]. Sanctions include dismissal, criminal prosecution and financial penalties. Examples of such santions are listed in the “Assessor Examples”.

Instances of bribery or corruption are investigated and disciplined through formal processes and according to provisions in the civil and military penal code. Evidence of enforcement appears as the cases of the Military Prosecution Service are listed in the annual reports [1] and cases are conducted at the Courts of Denmark [2].

Bribery and corruption are not mentioned explicitly in the Military Penal Code (1), (2), (3). Article 204 of the Constitution (4) states that the Military Court is an independent judicial body exclusively competent to adjudicate on all crimes pertaining to the armed forces, the officers and personnel thereof, and their equivalents, and on the crimes committed by the personnel of the GI while and by reason of performing their duties. This effectively means that the military has the right to prosecute its personnel, which limits the effectiveness of prosecution since independent and external measures and entities have little jurisdiction over members of the armed forces. Also, a new amendment to the military provisions law explicitly states that illicit gains crimes committed by officers are subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of military courts (5), (6). However, other national laws, mention bribery more explicitly, namely Articles 103 and 104 of the Egyptian Penal Code (7).

According to our sources, there is a complete failure to investigate and persecute personnel engaged in corruption activities, in spite of clear evidence (1), (2), (3). Since the prosecution of military personnel is the exclusive jurisdiction of military courts and prosecution (see 35A), their trials are secret and according to the Military Provisions Law, investigations and trials are considered “military secrets”, and the dissemination of its information is severely punished by law (4).

There are two pieces of legislation that define bribery in Estonia: The Anti-corruption Act defines bribery as an income derived from corrupt practices. [1] It is the proprietary or other benefits offered to the official or any third person due to his or her official duties or demanded by the official, and benefits received by violation of the obligations of the official. An official is obliged to refuse to accept this type of benefit or, if impossible, to deliver the benefit immediately to his or her agency or to the person or body who has the right to appoint him or her. If delivery of the benefit is impossible, the official shall pay the market value of the benefit instead. The delivered benefit or the value thereof in money shall be transferred into state ownership or returned, if so provided by law. Moreover, the Penal Code stipulates that bribery is a promise or acceptance of property or other advantages by an official or third party in exchange for using their official position. [2] Possible sanctions include a financial penalty or up to five years’ imprisonment. If the same incident happens more than once, the bribe is requested, or the incident is of a large scale, it can be punished by imprisonment of up to ten years. The court also has the right to impose extended confiscation of assets or property.
Furthermore, all these aspects are covered in the Public Service Code of Ethics that also applies to the employees of the Ministry of Defence. [3] The implementation of the Code is monitored by the internal audit department of the Ministry of Defence. When it comes to other defence institutions, the Defence Forces Code of Ethics does not explicitly name the topics addressed – the document is very general and mostly focuses on explaining the main values of the organisation. [4]

There have been a few cases of bribery in the defence sector in recent years. These have been investigated by different institutions. For example, a case from 2013 involved top officials from the defence sector. [1] It was investigated by the Estonian Internal Security Service. Another case was dealt with by the Prosecutor’s Office in regards to a doctor who was revealed to be accepting bribes from those who did not want to join the conscription. [2] There were no indications of any undue political influence.

The Criminal Code of Finland, Chpt 40,
Section 1: If a public official, for his or her actions while in service, for himself or herself or for another, (1) asks for a gift or other unlawful benefit or otherwise takes an initiative in order to receive such a benefit, (2) accepts a gift or other benefit which influences, which is intended to in-fluence or which is conducive to influencing him or her in said actions, or (3) agrees to the gift or other benefit referred to in paragraph (2) or to a promise or offer thereof, he or she shall be sentenced for acceptance of a bribe to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years. A public official shall be sentenced for acceptance of a bribe also if for his or her actions while in service he or she agrees to the giving of the gift or other benefit referred to in subsection (2) to another or to a promise or offer thereof. Sections 2 and 3 deal with aggravated acceptance of a bribe and bribery violation. For aggravated acceptance of a bribe, the sentence varies between minimum of four months and maximum of four years imprisonment and discharge. For bribery violation, the sentence varies between a fine and maximum of six months imprisonment. [1]

The Criminal Code of Finland, Chpt 40, Sections 7 and 8, state: (1) If a public official, in order to obtain benefit for himself or herself or for another or in order to cause detriment or loss to another (1) violates his or her official duty, based on the provisions or regulations to be followed in official functions, when participating in decision-making or in the preparation thereof or when using public authority in his or her other official functions, or (2) misuses his or her office in respect of a person who is under his or her command or immediate supervision, he or she shall be sentenced for abuse of public office to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years. (2) The public official may also be sentenced to dismissal if the offence indicates that he or she is manifestly unfit for his or her duties. If in the abuse of public office (1) considerable benefit is sought, or (2) an attempt is made to cause particularly considerable detriment or loss or (3) the offence is committed in a particularly methodical or unscrupulous manner and the abuse of public office is aggravated also when assessed as a whole, the public official shall be sentenced for aggravated abuse of public office to imprisonment for at least four months and at most four years and dismissal. [2]

The Criminal Code of Finland, chpt 40, sections 9 and 10: (1) If a public official, when acting in his or her office, intentionally violates his or her official duty based on the provisions or regulations to be followed in official functions, and the act, when assessed as a whole, taking into consideration its detrimental and harmful effect and the other circumstances connected with the act, is not petty, he or she shall be sentenced for violation of official duty to a fine or to imprisonment for at most one year. (2) The public official may also be sentenced to dismissal if he or she is guilty of the offence referred toin subsection 1 by continuously or essentially acting in violation of his or her official duties, and the offence indicates that he or she is manifestly unfit for his or her duties. [3]

According to the Act on Military Trial, Chpt 1, Section 2, the aforementioned sections fall under the Act on Military Discipline and Crime Prevention in the Defence Forces, when the suspected criminal act is against another soldier or the Defence Forces, otherwise the normal investigatory and judicial processes are followed [4]. Furthermore, the Criminal Code of Finland, Chpt 40, Section 13 on offences in military office states that “[t]he offences referred to in Chapter 45, where committed by public officials subject to military penal provisions, are also offences in public office”.

Chapter 45 then discusses, for example, service offence (section 1), aggravated service offence (section 2), petty service offence (section 3), and negligent service offence (section 4) as well as the relevant sanctioning. Depending on the offence, the punishment can vary from disciplinary punishment to imprisonment for at most four years. [5]

In addition, the Act on Military Discipline and Crime Prevention in the Defence Forces, the Act and the Decree on Defence Forces, the Act on Military Service, the Act on Women’s Voluntary Military Service, the Act on Voluntary Defence, the Act on Military Crisis Management, the Act on the Administration of the Border Guard, the Act on Military Trial, the Act on Pre-Trial Investigation, the Police Act, the Act of Coercive Measures, and so forth regulate the administration of military justice.

There have been cases of, for example, suspected nepotism in the intake of the Airforces flight school that led to pre-trial investigation and prosecution and misuse of financial resources in a military exercise that lead into three pre-trial investigations and two prosecutions and consequtively to two convictions and convicted nepotism in recruitment processes in the Navy. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] Decree on the Defence Forces, Chpt 1, Section 5: Legality of the actions of and within the Defence Forces, as well as the administration of military justice, is guided and supervised by the Assessor of the Defence Forces. [12]

If the suspected criminal act is against another soldier or the Defence Forces, pre-trial investigations are carried out as stated in the Act on Military Discipline and Crime Prevention in the Defence Forces section 5 and actions taken on the basis of the pre-trial investigations in section 6. [13] Furthermore, the Act on Pre-Trial Investigation is followed and the Police may support and collaborate in the investigation. [14, 15] If impartiality of the investigation or gravity of the crime so requires, pre-trial investigation shall be moved to the competence of the Police. This can otherwise be done because of the quality of the matter, and the Police may, of its own accord, start a parallel pre-trial investigation for a justified reason. [16] If the suspected criminal act is against a civilian person or organisation without involving the Defence Forces, the normal investatory and judicial processes are followed. No reports on political pressuring have been reported and there is a general trust towards the enforcement of legislation.

In France there is no military justice. Military personnel are subject to civil law, like any citizen. There is no legislation targeting corruption specifically in the defence sector.

Active and passive bribery by military personnel – considered by law to be persons “holding public authority” – are offenses incurring the same penalty: a prison sentence of up to 10 years and a fine of 150,000 Euros. Article 432-17 of the Penal Code [1] provides for additional penalties that may include the main penalty: they consist mainly of forfeiture of civil and civic rights, the prohibition of the exercise of a public office or profession and the confiscation of funds received in the past. The refusal of registration on the electoral lists is valid for a period of 5 years after the final decision (Article L.7 of the Electoral Code). [2]

The absence of measures specifically designed to tackle corruption and bribery within the defence sector, the broad use of the “secrecy of defence” label to classify all operational information, and the culture of secrecy as a whole in the French army are cause for concern.

However, since the 2016 law on anti-corruption and transparency (“Sapin 2”), [3] the creation of the French Anti-Corruption Agency (AFA) in 2018 [4] and the new “ethics chief” function for the “contrôleur general des armées” [General Comptroller of the Armies], [5] [6] some reorientation, the start of a shift in the culture of transparency and compliance is being displayed. [7] [7bis] [8]

Cases are investigated or prosecuted by the civil judicial system, like any case involving civilians, through formal processes that enjoy separation of powers, without undue political influence.
For instance, an influence-peddling and corruption case involving high-ranking officers of the Ministry of Defence and a subcontractor (ICS) is currently being prosecuted by the Parquet national financier (National Financial Prosecutor, PNF). [1]
In 2015, three people were indicted in the “Balard scandal” (concerning the construction of the new defence HQ in Paris): one military officer working at the Ministry of Defence, a manager of Bouygues construction company and a Franco-Tunisian serving as an middleman in the favouritism corruption scheme. [2]
However, the absence of measures specifically designed to tackle corruption and bribery within the defence sector, the broad use of the « secrecy of defence » label to classify all operational information, and the culture of secrecy as a whole in the French army are cause for concern. Companies which have been convicted of corruption have still been able to work as subcontractors for the French army for logistics support in the Sahel region, on the Barkhane operation. [3] [4]

Public officials are liable for bribery if they demand, accept or allow themselves to be promised a benefit in exchange for the performance of an official duty (Section 331 of the Criminal Code – StGB) [1]. Those who offer, promise or grant a benefit are equally liable (Section 333 of the Criminal Code). The qualified offences of granting and accepting bribes require a more specific agreement and an unlawful act/violation of further regulations (Sections 332 and 334 of the Criminal Code – StGB) [1]. Typically, bribery is punished by imprisonment (three months to five years, or up to ten years in severe cases). In less severe cases, participating parties might also be charged with a fine.

The Military Penal Code (WStG) makes reference to these provisions in Section 48 [2]. Furthermore, Section 19(1) of the Soldatengesetz describes sanctions for bribe-taking pursuant to the ‘Wehrdisziplinarordnung’ (Military Disciplinary Code) [3]. Section 71 of the Federal Civil Service Act (‘Bundesbeamtengesetz’) prohibits the acceptance of bribes and advantages and outlines the process for cases of non-compliance [4].

Sanctions for military personnel can take the form of disciplinary penalties, but in the most severe cases, offenders may be discharged from their military position.

The annual Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community (BMI) report on integrity and corruption prevention in the Federal Administration also outlines how military personnel suspected of corrupt practices are subject to investigation and how sanctions/legal measures are applicable [1].

If there is a legitimate suspicion of corrupt activity, Unit R III 1 (ES) of the Ministry of Defence must be informed so that it can initiate internal investigations and measures must be taken to prevent the concealment of any wrongdoing. If necessary, cases involve public prosecutors [2]. In the most severe cases, sanctions for bribe-taking might take the form of discharge from the military.

For more systemic problems, corruption can be addressed through ad-hoc parliamentary investigation committees (such as the current investigation into the process for hiring consultants in the Ministry of Defence), enshrined in Art. 44 of the German Basic Law [3]. These committees can be established with the approval of 25% of MPs. Such committees review relevant information and call high-level witnesses, therefore providing transparency and clarification, also because these activities are discussed extensively in the media. The processes of these committees are formalised and follow strict rules [4].

In case of actual or suspected bribery or corruption, the heads of units are required to initiate disciplinary measures and to launch an investigation into the case (see Section 17, Paragraph 1 of the ‘Bundesdisziplinargesetz’ – Federal Disciplinary Act – BDG) [5]. Cases of confirmed corruption/bribery could be punished by fines, pay cuts, demotions, dismissal from service or a decrease/omission of pensions, depending on the severity of the charges. Any criminal charge of bribery according automatically results in the loss of status as soldier/public official (see Section 48, Paragraph 1, No. 3 of the ‘Soldatengesetz’ and Section 41, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1, No. 2 of the ‘Bundesbeamtengesetz’) [6,7].

The Ghana Armed Forces Act, 1962 (Act 105) and the Armed Forces Regulation (AFR) give a wide range of clearly defined offences in law that apply to the defence sector. Indeed, under section 18 of the Armed Forces Act,1962, there are sanctions prescribed for offences that can be classified as corruption. The Criminal Offences Act of Ghana, 1960, (Act 29) also applies to military personnel (1). These offences cover offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other persons in charge of public or legal duty. Chapter 5 of the Criminal and other Offences Act of Ghana, 1960, (Act 29) regulates the offences related to corruption. For instance, Section 240 explains that there is corruption “if he directly or indirectly agrees or offers to permit his conduct as such officer, juror, or voter to be influenced by the gift, promise, or prospect of any valuable consideration to be received by him, or by any other person, from any person whomsoever” (2).

For the civil servants working on the MOD, a code of conduct issued by the Office of the Head of Civil Service is also in place (3). The Code ranks transparency among its “guiding principles” (“Civil Servants should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict access to information only when the wider public interest clearly demands that the information should not be released”).

Additionally, deployed units are subject to the Command Policy Guidelines, issued by the Commanding Officer, and Army Head Quarter’s Directives. Ghana has a military justice system, including a Court Martial (1). Law enforcement is performed by the Military Police, which is mandated with investigating military personnel and operations.

Cases of investigation and prosecution have been reported by the media. For instance, on May 2018 the Ghana Armed Forces’ Disciplinary Board sanctioned five military personnel members, for illegal mining activities with 90 days of detention and the release from the GAF (the activity is locally known as “galamsey”).

However, cases that are investigated are not always prosecuted. For instance, on May 16, 2018, a soldier was helped by his colleagues to escape from police custody after returning from a court in the Tamale region. To prevent the police from re-arresting him, military personnel violently attacked police officers present in the area (1). To investigate the incident, a special committee was set up by the Ministry of Interior (2).

Bribery and corruption are not defined offences in the Greek Military Penal Code [1]. However, Article 8 of Law 3978/2011 on Public Procurement of Works, Services and Supplies in the Sectors of Defence and Security states that “it is prohibited for the military and civilian personnel of the Ministry of National Defence who are engaged in any kind of employment relationship, to seek or accept, directly or indirectly, any material favour or gift when handling cases in the exercise of their responsibilities, even and if their act does not constitute a crime[…] for military personnel the usual or statutory disciplinary sanctions are imposed” [2]. Sanctions include various disciplinary actions (e.g. dishonourable discharge, criminal prosecution). Moreover, the general provisions of the Penal Code regarding bribery offences also cover military personnel. The new Penal Code contains significant changes regarding the definition and the sanctioning of bribery (active and passive) in articles 159, 159A, 235, 236, 237, 237A, 237B, 238, 263a and 263b [3]. Sanctions include imprisonment of at least three years and fines (Article 235).

Instances of bribery or corruption are superficially investigated and rarely disciplined, especially regarding military personnel. The Armed Forces, like other organisations, tend to protect their own people and avoid negative publicity. Also, most scandals have involved politicians, who are viewed as having more responsibility than military officers [1, 2].

According to Source 4 [1], there are very clear rules applying to the defence sector. Sanctions of bribery include criminal prosecution, demotion, incarceration, dismissal, as well as serious financial penalties. In interviewee 4’s previous position and in the current one he experienced that these measures were carried out [1]. Chapter XXVII of the Criminal Law [2] explicitly and clearly defines different aspects of bribery (including offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting bribes) and the related possible sanctions (criminal prosecution in most cases). It applies to the defence sector. The general rule is that public servants (and military personnel) are not allowed to accept gifts [3]. Gifts and donations offered to organisational elements of the military can be permitted only by the minister [4].

Though many cases are investigated, the prosecution is often stopped or does not even take place. Undue political influence takes place frequently, particularly through the Prosecutor General’s Office. A source pointed out that before 2010 the Military Prosecution Service operated under the MoD, thus was separated from the civilian prosecutor’s office. However, since 2010 Military Prosecution Service got subordinated to the Office of the Prosecutor General. Officially, this transformation was done by referring to the need to strengthen civilian control over the armed forces [1] and to improve anti-corruption efforts [2]. However, the opposite happened: the subordination of the Military Prosecution Service to the Office of the Prosecutor General opened the way for undue political influence. Though nominally independent the Prosecutor General Dr. Péter Polt was formerly a member and an MP candidate of the ruling party Fidesz. Moreover, Polt’s wife and daughter are employed by the strongly government-dominated Hungarian National Bank [3].

The Armed Forces have an Act which governs each branch. These are the Army Act, 1950, the Air Force Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957, the Border Security Force Act,1968 and the Coast Guard Act,1978 (1). Herein, the code of conduct is clearly defined. Offences are delineated in depth and include corruption [1]. The Indian Army Act, 1950, Chapter IV Section 53 states:

“53. Extortion and Corruption. – Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following
offences, that is to say :-
(a) commits extortion ; or
(b) without proper authority exacts from any person money, provisions or service ;
shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which
may extend to ten years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.” [2]

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, CHAPTER V, Section 25 states:

“Military, Naval and Air force or other law not to be affected. — (1) Nothing in this Act shall
affect the jurisdiction exercisable by, or the procedure applicable to, any court or other authority under
the Army Act, 1950, the Air Force Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957, the Border Security Force Act,
1968, the Coast Guard Act, 1978 and the National Security Guard Act, 1986.
(2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of any such law as is referred
to in sub-section (1), the Court of a Special Judge shall be deemed to be a court of ordinarily criminal
justice.” [3]

As alluded to in Q.7, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has approved the establishment of a new Vigilance Investigation Unit in the Army, entrusted with conducting independent investigations into corruption [4].

There is evidence to suggest that cases are being investigated through formal procedures. In 2017 after 27 years of investigation and trial, a former Army Colonel was convicted by a special CBI court for amassing disproportionate assets [1]. In a recent case, the CBI filed a case against two Army officers in 2018 for taking bribes from a civilian supplier in the procurement of ration for troops in Nagaland India, between 2012 and 2016 [2]. In 2018, the CBI booked 12 Army officials for corruption in recruitment of religious teachers in 2013 [3]. The area of concern seems not to be enforcement but pertains to the duration of prosecution, as the Indian judicial system is generally slow.

In 2018, 356 officers, including 52 colonels and 80 battalion commanders, filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking protection against First Information Reports (FIRs) and prosecution for actions carried out in the line of duty in areas coming under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, like in Jammu and Kashmir and Manipur [4]. The case relates to the Army believing it is being harassed, as there have been a number of CBI probes into ‘unlawful’ killings and ‘fake encounters’ by Army personnel. The Army vehemently denies that any killings are unlawful and they are repeatedly prosecuted for doing their bona fide duties. This petition suggests that legal measures are being enforced.

The MoD publishes annual reports with a section on the activities of vigilance units, detailing the number of complaints, sanctions and penalties imposed on those convicted, finalisations of disciplinary hearings, exonerations, recordable warnings and appeals [5][6].

The Ministry of Defence and the TNI already have regulations in place regarding gratification control systems [1,2]. The definition of gratification is very clear and measurable. Articles 1-3 of the regulation on gratification control within the Ministry of Defence and the TNI [1,2] explain that ‘gratification is a gift in the broadest sense, given in the form of money, goods, discounts, commissions, loans without interest, travel tickets, lodging facilities, tourist trips, free medical treatment or other facilities, received either domestically or abroad and given either by electronic or non-electronic means’.

Any gratuities received by Ministry of Defence and TNI personnel in the form of money, goods and/or services related to their position and/or contrary to their obligations or duties must be reported, including:
• acceptance of gratuities in official duties, except for a few that do not need to be reported, including:
-souvenirs in official activities;
-compensation received in connection with official activities, such as honorarium, transport, accommodation and other finances in accordance with regulations.
• acceptance of gratuities outside official duties, except for a few that do not need to be reported, including:
-gifts given due to family relationships, which are grandfather/grandmother, father/mother/in-laws, husband/wife, children/children-in-law, grandchildren, in-laws, uncle/aunt, brother/sister/siblings-in-law, cousin and niece;
-gifts in the form of money or goods that have a sale value in the context of a wedding, birth, aqiqah, baptism, circumcision, tooth cutting or other traditional/religious ceremonies;
-gifts relating to misfortune or disasters experienced by Ministry of Defence/State Administrator employees or the father/mother/in-laws/husband/wife/children of the Ministry of Defence/State Administrator employees;
-gifts for fellow Ministry of Defence or State Administrator employees in the context of farewells, pensions, promotions or birthdays that are not in cash;
-prizes won directly/without drawing, prizes from lucky draws, discounts/rebates, vouchers, point rewards, souvenirs or other prizes that are generally accepted;
-generally accepted dishes or other food and beverages;
-prizes for academic or non-academic achievements in championships, competitions or races, which the employee registered for at their own expense;
-gains or interest from generally accepted funds, investments or private share ownerships and
-compensation or income for non-official tasks that are not related to the duties and functions of the gratuity recipient.

The Ministry of Defence and TNI’s internal Gratification Control Unit (Unit Pengendalian Gratifikasi, UPG) reviews the gratification report and provides recommendations as to whether the report should be processed by the UPG or the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). Every Ministry of Defence and TNI employee who receives, gives and/or does not report gratuities to the UPG is subject to administrative sanctions. Meanwhile, reports submitted to the KPK are subject to investigative procedures at the KPK, with possible sanctions in the form of life imprisonment or imprisonment for a minimum of four years and a maximum of 20 years, and a fine of between 200,000,000.00 (two hundred million) and 1,000,000,000.00 (one billion) rupiahs [3]. Between 2016 and 2018, allegations of suspected corruption in defence procurement ended in imprisonment, both for civilians who were investigated by the KPK [4] and charged by the civil justice system, and for military personnel who were investigated by TNI Military Police Centre (Puspom) and charged by military courts [5].

Cases of bribery or corruption are investigated or disciplined through formal processes. One of these cases surfaced in public. The first sentence for corruption in the military was passed in 2016. The Second Military Court in Jakarta sentenced Brigadier General Teddy Hernayadi, a senior TNI officer, to life imprisonment for his involvement in corruption in the procurement of defence equipment from 2010 to 2014. The formal investigation of this case began when the Audit Board (BPK) found evidence indicating that state money was being misused in the Ministry of Defence in 2014. Based on the report, the Ministry of Defence Inspectorate General then formed an Examination Team with Specific Purposes [1]. In 2015, the investigation began and, that same year, the file was submitted to the Military Police. When the Brigadier General Teddy’s case surfaced, the Inspectorate General briefly stated his intention to develop the case by examining other witnesses [2]. The case, whose verdict is publicly accessible [3], is also cited as a reason to increase internal monitoring in the Ministry of Defence. Aside from the internal process that ends in military court, investigation processes are also conducted by the KPK, which has the authority to take over investigations or prosecutions of perpetrators of corruption that are being carried out by the police or the prosecutor’s office if there is evidence of obstacles to addressing corruption caused by interference from executive, judiciary or legislative bodies [4]. However, since the KPK has not been able to scrutinise the military sector [5], it has not been possible to optimally prevent political influence spreading in the investigation of corruption cases.

Bribery and corruption are defined as offences in law that apply to the defence sector. “Public official”, according to Article 3 of the Aggravating the Punishment for Perpetrators of Bribery, Embezzlement and Fraud Act that includes: “Any public employee or official, whether being judicial or administrative, councils, municipalities, revolutionary institutions, or generally speaking the three branches of Government as well as Armed Forces or public companies or public organizations affiliated with the Government and/or those assigned to public services, being it official or non-official (…)” [1].

Article 4 of the Aggravating Punishment Act criminalizes passive bribery in the form of acceptance, but not solicitation [1]. Articles 590 to 592 of the Islamic Penal Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IPC) criminalize active bribery in the form of giving, but there is no mention of a promise or offer [2]. Sanctions include imprisonment, pecuniary punishment, confiscation or seizure of property and deprivation of social rights [2]. Article 588 of the IPC specifies prison sentences of between 6 months to two years, or a or a fine of three to twelve million Rials [1]. The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) implementation review maintains that fines are adjusted at the rate of inflation every three years to maintain the proportionality of sanctions [2].

One case of a successful prosecution taking place in 2015 was found, so cases are not often prosecuted [1]. There are reports maintaining that the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, squashed a probe into corruption taking place within the police forces indicating undue influence [2]. There are further reports that the judge was bought out in an attempt to secure a prosecution against a former officer, but that judge was subsequently replaced [3].

Laws that explicitly condemn acts or engagements in bribery fall under the rubric of Iraq’s Civil Penal Code. More specifically, Iraq’s newest Military Penal Code, Nº 19 (2007) (1) and the Military Criminal procedural Law Nº 22 (2016) (2), criminalises acts of theft, fraud and cases in which military equipment is procured illegitimately. A military affairs expert described in an interview with Transparency (3) the offence of high-level bribery as the most challenging crime that faces Baghdad. However, the Military Penal Code briefly mentions disciplinary penalties which are not always publicly disclosed. Article 8 of Iraq’s Criminal Procedures Law adds that if an officer that suspects that a crime has been perpetrated under his command can order an investigation. However, there is no respective legislation, the source concludes, outlawing the facilitation or transaction of bribes within Iraq’s security and defence institutions. He can then “appoint an officer to carry out the investigation” or thirdly, form an investigative board. Once the investigation has concluded, the evidence is forwarded to the relevant court which will refer the case to an independent military court. While the legal framework exists, under the Criminal Procedures Law for military actors, it offers a superficial treatment and definition of corruption (4), which has resulted in patchy enforcement.

Iraq’s antiquated anti-bribery laws (1), (2) are widely critiqued within media and policy circles for their selective application and enforcement. Iraq’s leading anti-corruption watchdog is more effective at issuing arrest warrants against corrupt civil servants but have been less effective in holding defence personnel to account for engagement in rife bribery. More recently, Iraq’s Supreme Anti-Corruption Council was in the press for having ordered the dismissal of 1,000 civil servants on charges of public integrity crimes (3). No evidence suggests that defence officials were affected or held to account. An Iraqi lawyer interviewed for the assessment (4) states that “the existence of overlapping mandates and legal codes creates gaps which those guilty of misconduct and pervasive crimes of corruption, slip through.”

There are a range of defined offences in law that clearly apply to the defence sector (1). These offences cover offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty. Possible sanctions include criminal prosecution, incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties (1). The law also refers to the confiscation of the bribes and the proceeds of bribery. Article 39 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance 1969 (CPO) gives the court discretion to forfeit an object if it belongs to a person convicted of an offence or used to facilitate the commission of an offence (2). There are sentences on corruption. They refer to the control of exports (law, section 291a) or to the protection of providing whistleblower (third, law for defending empoyees of 1997 and exposure of corruption) (3).

In Israel there were several cases in recent years that showed how the legal forces in the country are handling with corruption and bribery (1). They are investigated or prosecuted through formal processes, as the following example reveal (2) (3) (4). Furthermore, the enforcement of anti-corruption and bribery offences is clearly on the rise. Recent high-profile investigations into both foreign corruption and bribery allegations and allegations against high-ranking Israeli officials have received extensive media coverage and have involved extensive investigative and prosecutorial efforts. In December 2016, the Tel Aviv Magistrate Court rendered the first conviction on the account of bribery of a foreign public official pursuant to Sections 291A, 293 and 294 of the Penal Law (1977) in Tel-Aviv District (Fiscal and Financial) v NIP Global Ltd (TP 57177-11-16). The court convicted NIP Global on the basis of a plea agreement. The corporation was required to pay a NIS2,250,000 fine (ca. $630,000) and a NIS2,250,000 confiscation. Further, various high-profile Israeli public officials have been investigated for bribery and corruption-related charges, including: Former prime minister Ehud Olmert, who was found guilty of receiving bribes in December 2015 and served a prison sentence; Former deputy minister Faina Kirschenbaum, against whom an indictment on account of corruption and receiving bribes was filed in August 2017; Serving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is at the centre of criminal investigations pertaining to bribery and corruption scandals in which he was allegedly involved (“Submarine Scandal”); and an investigation into bribery and corruption related to defence procurement from a foreign corporation (5). However, recent media investigations have revealed how political pressure is forcing a drawdown of some anticorruption efforts, especially when they concern large-scale invetsigations into bribery and corruption cases, raising questions around enforcement (6).

The Code of Conduct for the personnel of the Ministry of Defence has been updated in 2018, in order to better create a connection with the provisions of the Three-year plan on the prevention of corruption. According to art.2 it applies to both the civil and military personnel. Artt.3, 4, 5, 6 and 14 of the Code of Conduct indicate what a personnel of the Ministry of Defence could and could not accept or do from a colleague or third person/entity in the performance of its duty [1]. Section IV of the Code of conduct deals with responsibilities resulting from the violation of the Code. This section recalls provisions of art.16 of Presidential Decree 16 April 2013, n. 62 [2]. The violation of the Code of Conduct (art23) is subject to civil, penal and/or administrative liability as delineated in Legislative decree 165/2001 and constitutes an offence in law [3]. According to the Penal Code (from art 314) offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty, can be punished with prosecution, a fine, and imprisonment according to the gravity of the violation [4].

Should a case of bribery or corruption occur, both the Code of Conduct and the Three-Year plan provide with indications of the processes to implement. According to art.23 of the Code of Conduct the manager or chief of office has to directly start a proceeding to assess or pre-empt violations of the code [1]. Should there be delays, sanctions will apply [2]. The 2019 report of the Anticorruption Supervisor reports cases of violations of the provisions included in the Code of Conduct (sections 11 and 12)[3]. Nonetheless, there is no sufficient information to assess the effectiveness of the system. Regarding the possibility of political interference in cases of corruption occurred in the military system, there is no media report on the matter. It is nonetheless relevant to note that, when serious cases of corruption occurred among the armed forces and became public, there is a general condemnation, also by politicians, of the act of corruption [4].

Two core pieces of Japanese anti-corruption legislation are Chapter XXV “Crimes of Corruption” of the Penal Code [1] and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. [2] The Penal Code covers bribery of Japanese public officials. It does not define the term ‘bribe,’ but ‘bribe’ has been interpreted by the courts as anything that “fulfills a man’s need, greed or desire”. [3] Giving, offering or promising to give a bribe are offenses, with a penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment, or a fine of up to Y2.5 million. A Japanese public official convicted of accepting, soliciting or promising to accept a bribe can get a penalty of up five years’ incarceration. Only natural persons can be held liable for these corruption-related actions under this Code. [3] The Unfair Competition Prevention Act covers bribery of foreign public officials. The act prohibits giving, offering or promising money or other benefits to induce them to exercise their official duties, or use their influence so that the briber achieves a gain in international commercial dealings. Those who commit offenses under this Act can receive a penalty of up to five years in prison, a fine of up to Y5 million, or both. [3]

The Inspector General’s Office of Legal Compliance (IGO) conducts an annual inspection of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Self-Defence Force (SDF). “SDF morals” is one of the items inspected, but inspection for corruption is not mentioned under this item in the IGO’s annual reports for 2015, 2016, 2017 or 2018. [1] High-level cases of corruption in Japan are dealt with by the Public Prosecutor (see Q10A). Corruption cases are usually first investigated by the police, and the public prosecutors thereafter conduct supplementary investigation. However, Special Investigation Departments at some District Prosecutor’s Offices investigate major corruption cases and complicated economic cases themselves. The Tokyo District Prosecutor’s Office is generally considered to have the most competent such department. [2] Information on the Special Investigative Departments on the relevant websites is sparse, but the Ministry of Justice has a brief presentation of the unit [3] and the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor’s Office has posted an organisational chart that shows that the Department exists. [4] Sources have not been found on how many cases the Special Investigation Department investigates each year. However, as for categories related to corruption, the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor’s Office in 2019 received 3,223 cases of fraud for consideration, out of 14,813 nationally, and 1,958 cases of embezzlement / breach of trust out of 8,387 nationally. Cases in these two categories comprised respectively 9% and 6% of all cases received by the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor’s Office that year. [5] The investigation by the Public Prosecutor will often move through the phases collecting and analysing clues, searching, seizing and interrogating suspects and then deciding whether to indict. Investigation and prosecution follow due process and are formally independent of political influence. Iwashita writes that, “Public prosecutors’ positions are secured by law. No arbitrary dismissal, suspension, or reduction of salary can be made. In regard to the investigation and disposition of individual cases, the Minister of Justice can control only the Prosecutor General, not each prosecutor, directly. For example, the Minister cannot directly interfere with prosecutors in charge of individual investigations and prosecutions.” [6] Nevertheless, the Japanese press sometimes reports possible attempts by the executive to influence the public prosecutor in questionable ways. For example, “[t]he Cabinet of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in January [2020] changed the interpretation of the National Public Service Law to extend [chief of Tokyo High Public Prosecutor’s Office] Kurokawa’s retirement beyond his 63rd birthday in February. It was believed that move was designed to allow Kurokawa to take over as prosecutor-general.” There is a “wide perception that [Kurokawa] was a close ally” of the Abe administration. [7] However, no recent defence-related cases where the executive attempted to exert undue influence on the public prosecutor were identified.

In terms of sanctions, Jordan has several sources of legislation and regulations related to anti-bribery and corruption and is considered overall legally compliant to the UNCAC [1]. Anti-bribery and corruption laws include: (1) the Civil Service Regulation No. 82/2013, (2) the bribery-related provisions of the Jordanian Penal Code N.16/1960, (3) the Economic Crimes Law No. 11/1993, (4) the Anti-Corruption Commission Law No. 62/2006, and (5) the Higher Procurement Commission Regulation No. 50/1994 [2]. According to Articles 170-173 of the Jordanian Penal Code, bribery is defined as requesting or accepting, directly or indirectly, any gift, promise, or other benefit in return for an act done by virtue of the employee’s position, and the law also covers offers of bribes. The Penal Code stipulates penalties for both accepted and rejected bribes. For accepted bribes the penalty is 3 to 20 years of imprisonment. Legislation around corruption and anti-bribery applies to all governmental sectors, including defence. There have been few internal corruption cases that were sanctioned in the last five years. Usually such cases are done internally without public and media attention [3,4].

There are many examples of cases being investigated and prosecuted through formal processes and without undue political influence, however, there is no evidence of this ever having taken place within the defence sector. There is evidence of prosecution and formal processes taking place in small cases, such as that of a policeman accepting a bribe of 30 Jordanian Dinars [1]. There is also evidence of prosecuting a journalist for defamation as he accused public officials affiliated to the armed forces of corruption [2], suspected corruption in this case was not investigated. The cases listed on the official webpage of the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission do not include anything related to the defence sector [3]. This could be explained by the fact that in 2016, the Jordanian Armed Forces prohibited publishing news or information about the force, except for official statements by the media spokesperson for the armed forces [4]. Official statements around corruption almost always include commendations for the role of the armed forces in maintaining stability in the country [5]. Despite the fact that Jordan has legislation in place to counter bribery and corruption, it is impossible to assess the level of enforcement, especially since issues related to corruption within the armed forces are rarely covered or reported in the media, and researchers cannot identify whether legislation is being enforced or handled in secret within the armed forces [6,7].

The Kenya Defence Forces Act No. 25 of 2012 provides guidelines on the conduct of military personnel, including on cases of corruption. Section 124 of the Act addresses corruption and economic crimes. This section states that any person who engages in corrupt activities shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Penal Code, the Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Act, and any other relevant laws. [1]

Part 2 of of this section states that the offence under subsection 1 is triable in the civil courts. Nevetheless, The Bribery Act 2016 extensively defines what constitutes bribery acts, as well as the penalties. These laws apply to all statutory bodies and state officers, including Defence and security sector as well as state officials at all levels within these institutions. [2] Other relevant laws include the Public Officer Ethics Act. No. 4 of 2003 which also under Part III on General Code of Conduct and Ethics for public officer notes in section 11 about prohibiting public officers from enriching themselves and others in office through, for example: soliciting and accepting gifts, conflicts of interest, practicing nepotism, among others. More importantly, the act also requires under section 26 that all public officers declare their income, assets and liabilities of themselves and their spouse and dependent children under 18 years of age every two years. [3]

Cases of corruption involving the Defence sector range from solicitation and receiving of bribes during recruitment exercises, operations as well as the procurement of goods and services. [1] KDF,for instance, has on several occassions promised stern action against officers that engage in bribery and corruption during recruitment. [2] While there are cases that have been prosecuted, some of them have not been investigated or prosecuted. For example, in matters relating to KDF actions, in aiding the activities of the Al Shabaab terrosist group in Somalia, there have not been records or evidence of any sanctions on the KDF officers involved. [3]

Furthermore, despite the law for instance on wealth declaration having existed for a long time, it was only in 2018 that the President ordered instructions that all government officials undergo lifestyle audit. [4] This inability of institutions to respond to corruption is not unique to the Defence Sector. Indeed, the Auditor-General, whose office mandate is to promote accountability and transparency in the public sector has noted in the past that despite numerous incidences of corruption that involve the stealing of billion of shillings by public officers, institutions such as parliament and the anti-corruption commission tasked to respond are ineffective, ignore reform recommmendations, and constantly under the influence of vested interests. [5]

No specific law in Kosovo how offences in the field of bribery or corruption should be addressed in the defence sector. Nonetheless, the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kosovo has a dedicated chapter which outlines official corruption and criminal offences against official duty [1]. There are a number of articles determining offences on “Abusing official position or authority”, “The abuse and the fraud in public procurement”, “Conflict of interest”, “Misappropriation in office”, “Fraud in office”, “Unauthorised use of property”, “Accepting bribes”, “Offering bribes”, “Offering bribes to foreign public officials” and other offences which fo against official duty. Sanctions involve criminal prosecution or investigation, incarceration, and financial penalties [1].

In addition to the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic and Kosovo, MoD has drafted the Disciplinary Code of the KSF no. 15/2019, which defines and classifies disciplinary violations which do not constitute a criminal offense. Regarding the commission of a criminal offense, Article 14 paragraph 1 of this Code stipulates that “Information that a member of the KSF is suspected of having committed a criminal offense, is forwarded to the member’s superior, the Military Police and the Kosovo Police” of criminal investigations against a member of the KSF, the Military Police will cooperate with the Kosovo Police and other law enforcement agencies.

Some of Kosovo’s high profile politicians, including the acting Prime Minister [1], the former Speaker for the Kosovo Assembly [2], the Chief State Prosecutor [3], hugely criticised the prosecutor who investigated the case known as “Veterans” for the registration process of the 1999 war veterans of the Kosovo Liberation Army. The case involved the acting Minister of Defence and the former Deputy Minister of Defence as well as other public figures, including former Members of the Kosovo Assembly [4]. In his resignation letter, he mentioned that he had come under pressure and was threatened directly by the Chief State Prosecutor during this case [5]. Investigations surrounding this case are ongoing, and in June 2019, the Basic Court in Prishtina charged the Minister of Defence, the former Deputy Minister of Defence, along with other figures [4].

Bribery and corruption are not defined in the laws that apply to the military and police but there are wider legal mechanisms cover them, for instance, from giving away information and from using state assets for personal gain, according article 14 of the military law (1) and 15 of the police law (2). ِArticle 57 of the law of the military’s judiciary could sentence an officer to anything from seven years to life in prison for attempting to embezzle state funds or use them in any way for personal gain. Officers could be sentenced to death if convicted with divulging military secrets to enemies of the state, according to article 43, which does not address the possibility of officers divulging secrets to ordinary citizens for personal gain, for example.

These laws apply even to the civilian officials in these institutions when it comes to these matters, according to article 1 of both the police law and the military law. This lack of clarity over the procedures is compounded by the fact that article no. 5 of Law no. 1 of 1993 for public funds, which also tackles these issues, says that only public prosecutors have the right to investigate these crimes (3).

These institutions investigate very few issues and auditors from the SAB, ACA and CSC interviewed said that no one has been prosecuted (1, 2 and 3). The investigations that do take place do so only after the issue has garnered public or parliamentary attention. Auditors say there is no desire to see if others in the organszation were involved with the accused in his enterprise.

Both the public, the media and the Parliament also discussed concerns over the Interior Ministry buying gifts and holding elaborate ceremonies using public funds in February 2018, according to Al Qabas, the news outlet (4), and prosecutors are now investigating the matter. The ACA is also investigating the matter and its officials have named Adel Hashash, the former spokesman for the Interior Ministry, as a main suspect and a key witness (1).

Latvia has fulfilled all obligations regarding the criminalisation of various forms of bribery under the OECD Anti-bribery Convention, and the legislation applies to the defence sector. The Latvian Criminal Code criminalises active and passive bribery and abuse of influence (Chapter XXIV), prescribing sanctions of imprisonment of up to five years (or up to 11 years in aggravated cases where involvement of high-level officials or groups is ascertained), fines, community service and prohibition from some forms of employment. The Ministry of Defence’s Audit and Inspection’s General Inspectorate and the Military Police are considered the primary source of knowledge of any such breaches. Theses instituions oversee that the Criminal Code of Latvia is enforced. [1] The Ministry of Defence approved the Anti-corruption measures plan, which includes the task of informing the State Secretary immediately if the Ministry of Defence personnel has their direct duties in potential conflicts of interest or other corrupt offences. Currently, the Saeima has submitted the Law on Whistleblowing, after which the Ministry of Defence will create it’s own anti-corruption prevention scheme, thus improving the system of protection of officials who inform about possible violations.

There is a, established coordination mechanism within the MOD analysing corruption risks. Every year, on the basis of the adopted Anti-corruption plan, potential personnel risks are evaluated and recommendations proposed, which are integrated into the amended Anti-corruption Action plan. There has not been a single bribery or corruption case in MOD or miltary in recent years. [1] The Anti-Corruption Plan, however, is not publicly available.

Bribery and corruption are defined as offences by the Code of Military Justice, although it does not give details on giving/offering and soliciting briberies (1). Sanctions are applied and might include a reduction in rank, fines, or/an improvement (1). Art. 351 of Lebanon’s Penal Code, lays down bribery as an offence, including receiving, promising, or soliciting bribery (2).

This sub-indicator has not been assigned a score due to insufficient information or evidence.

Information about investigations and prosecutions in the LAF are not publicized (1), therefore it is hard to identify the level of enforcement. However, sources indicated the LAF’s strict enforcement of rules for violations (2), (3).

The Lithuanian Criminal Code (articles 225-229) criminalises bribery, abuse of office and negligence during the performance of official duties. Offering, giving, receiving and soliciting bribes are addressed in the Code. This Code is applicable to all individuals, organisations, government officers, including defence sector organisations, personnel, etc. As for the severity of offences, Criminal Code articles foresee sanctions such as fines, arrest, restriction of liberty, prohibition on certain types employment, and custodial sentence up to eight years [1]. In 2017 the Ministry of Defence launched its new anti-corruption program [2]. Codes of conduct for military and civilian personnel cover issues such as possible conflicts of interest, acceptance of gifts and hospitality. Sanctions for misconduct include official reprimand, demotion, or assignments to additional tasks [3].

Сases of corruption and bribery are investigated by the specialised anti-corruption body, Special Investigation Service, which is independent from the executive branch of the Government. The agency investigates about 100 cases of corruption on average annually and no political or under pressure is reported (known). A recent case was of a company which offered a bribe of EUR 90,000 to a high level official in the Lithuanian Army in exchange of a contract. The official was found guilty by court. The initial information about the planned bribery was provided to the Special Investigation Service by the Ministry itself [1, 2,3]. Investigations are carried out according to national and international laws. Also, there is no evidence about political or any other type of influence in the process.

The Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act and the Penal Code outlaw bribery and corruption for all government ministries, including in the defence sector. The prohibition of bribery and corruption is also highlighted in the Armed Forces Act 1972. [3] Section 16 of the MACC Act states that “any person who by himself, or by or in conjunction with any other person –
(a) corruptly solicits or receives or agrees to receive for himself or for any other person; or
(b) corruptly gives, promises or offers to any person whether for the benefit of that person or of another person, any gratification as an inducement to or reward for, or otherwise account of –
(c) any person doing or forgoing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction, actual or propose or likely to take place; or
(d) Any officer of a public body doing or forgoing to do anything in respect of any matter of transaction, actual or propose or likely to take place, in which the public body is concerned,
commits an offence”. [1] The MACC Act further highlights that “the act of soliciting, giving, accepting or receiving gratification, directly or indirectly, to/from a person in authority either in the form of money, services or valuable goods as an inducement or reward to do or not to do an act in relation to the person’s principal affairs; as undertaking the act of corruption.
In fact, the act of bribery (Section 16 and 17(a)), fraud (Section 18), abuse of power (Section 23) & monet laundering are all acts of corruption.” [2]

The Penal Code outlines, under Chapter IX, Section 161 to Section 165, a wide range of corruption-related offences public servants can be held accountable for:
S161. Public servant taking a gratification, other than legal remuneration, in respect of an official act
S162. Taking a gratification in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence a public servant
S163. Taking a gratification, for the exercise of personal influence with a public servant
S164. Punishment for abetment by a public servant of the offences above defined
S165. Public servant obtaining any valuable thing, without consideration, from a person concerned in any proceeding or business transacted by such public servant. [3]
Subsequently, Chapter XI covers false evidence and offences against public justice, Chapter XVII underlines offences relating to property, including extortion, criminal breach of trust, and cheating, while Chapter XVIII covers offences relating to documents and to currency notes and bank notes.

Part V of the Armed Forces Act 1972 [4] highlights service offences and punishments for armed forces officials.

For more serious bribery, the penalty is imprisonment of up to 20 years and a fine of no less than five times the sum/value of the gratification where it is capable of being valued or is of a pecuniary nature, or MYR10,000, whichever is higher.

There is also a general penalty of a fine of up to MYR10,000 or imprisonment of up to two years, or both.

The MACC has demonstrated effective enforcement in combating corruption. In January 2019, two navy officers were arrested for falsifying claims on the supply of curtains to the tune of RM60,000. [1] [2] [3] Another navy officer was arrested as a suspect for involvement in falsifying claims on the rental of three buses during a training session in October 2017. [4] Those prosecuted for corruption are listed in a public name and shame list on the MACC website. [5] The fight against corruption also extends to higher ups, reflecting the new government’s commitment to combat corruption on an even greater scale. To name a few, six high-ranking individuals have since been arrested for numerous corruption charges. [6] Before the establishment of the new government however, large corruptions cases were hindered by political influences such as in the 1MDB investigations. [7] [8] It is important to note that such efforts have only been stepped up under the new government after the 2015 elections.

The Penal Code specifically outlaws corruption and acts of bribery for all public servants, including military personnel. Article 121 states that “Anyone that, in either the performance or the obtaining of an act that benefits or favours, uses violence or threats, promises, offers, gifts or presents, or acts tending to corruption will be subject of the measures included in article 130, ‘five to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of twice the value of the approved promises or things received or requested, without such a fine being less than 100,000 francs”.¹ In 2014, Malian MPs voted in a law against illicit enrichment.² This new law updates a previous one, adopted in 1982. In the new law elected representatives are specifically cited and subject to prosecution in cases of ‘illicit enrichment’. However, MPs amended the text to prevent individuals in charge of the state budget from being prosecuted (in other words MPs are not subject to this law because they vote for the state budget).

Investigations relating to corruption in the state administration, including the armed forces, frequently take place, but they rarely result in prosecutions. For instance, in 2011, a colonel was arrested for allegedly embezzling approximately EUR 457,000 of military funds.¹ Meanwhile, in 2016, the DGSE arrested four senior members of the armed forces for allegedly embezzling CFA 700 million of military allowances.² As of March 2018, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the individuals in these cases were charged, dismissed or prosecuted.
In 2014, defence contracts signed under former Defence Minister Soumeylou Boubeye Maïga (Sep 2013 – May 2014) were found to be irregular – according to Malian media, one contract, with a Chinese supplier, involved supplies invoiced at CFA 600 million but budgeted at CFA 3 billion.⁵ ⁶ As a result, the Ministry of Defence cancelled 10 defence contracts (in which several private companies agreed to provide the Malian state with military equipment). Maïga was subsequently put into police custody in Paris, where he was questioned in relation to an ongoing investigation into the French businessman Michel Tomi, who was implicated in the dodgy arms deal.⁷ In 2016, IBK appointed Maïga as General secretary of the President’s Office, after he escaped any legal inquiries in Mali.⁷
Moreover, in 2017, it was revealed that four gendarmes had allegedly been skimming off CFA 5,000 each month from payments made to gendarmes from the institution’s housing cooperative.⁸ This scam continued from 2004 until 2014, allowing the four gendarmes to amass an estimated fortune of CFA 2.3 billion.⁸ According to sources within the gendarmerie, several internal inquiries had found substantial proof of wrongdoing. But the sources alleged that a senior official, Brigadier Salifou Koné, was blocking the case from being investigated by the ministry of defence because of his links to the accused.⁸ As of June 2018, none of the accused have been brought to trial.

The judicial system in Mali is unable to efficiently deliver prosecutions as a result of internal corruption. For example, in December 2013, judicial representatives threatened to hold an indefinite strike due to state interference in arrest warrants against judges accused of corruption.³ The same month, four judges and a court clerk were arrested on suspicion of corruption. This incident also indicates that those suspected of corruption can be arrested, however, as with the Maiga case there is no evidence of them having been charged, tried or fined.⁴ A US State Department report also noted that “corruption and limited resources affected the fairness of trials. Bribery and influence peddling were widespread in the courts (…) There were problems enforcing court orders. Sometimes judges were absent from their assigned areas for months at a time”.⁴

The LGRA indicates that the public servant who demands, accepts, obtains, or intends to obtain, by himself or through third parties, due to his functions, any benefit not included in his remuneration as a public servant, will be considered as partaking in bribery. [1] But giving or offering valuables does not qualify as bribery.

According to the corresponding laws, it sanctions public servants who commit acts of corruption with penalties ranging from reprimand to disqualification. The Penal Code indicates that those public servants who commit acts of corruption will be subject to the penalty of dismissal and disqualification from carrying out public employment, office, or commission, as well as from participating in acquisitions, leases, services or public works, service concessions, exploitation and use of assets owned by the Federation for a term of one to twenty years. [2]

There is no official information that allows us to know the cases that have been tried and have been sentenced for bribery and corruption. However, there are journalistic reports that evidence some of these cases, although these have not been many in recent years. [1] [2] [3]

The Criminal Code of Montenegro criminalises offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty. [1] Possible sanctions include criminal prosecution and up to 12 years of imprisonment. [1] Employees in defence who are found guilty and sentenced to longer than 6 months imprisonment will be dismissed. [2]

According to the MoD, the Law on Prevention of Corruption regulates a procedure for determining violations of the provisions of the law relating to the prevention of conflicts of interest in the exercise of public office, restrictions on the exercise of public office, gifts, sponsorships and donations, and reports on the income and property of public officials. For bribery or corruption, a civil servant is subject to disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees. Disciplinary proceedings for serious breach of official duty against a civil servant or state employees is led by the Disciplinary Board. In the disciplinary proceedings, a hearing must be held to which a civil servant or state employee is entitled to defence. Supervision of the implementation of disciplinary measures in the Ministry of Defence is performed by the Inspectorate General, according to provisions of the Defence Law. [3][4][5]

Concrete results are still lacking in the fight against corruption. [1] Sanctions are inconsistently applied in the event of bribery, and most frequently administrative corruption is punished more harshly than grand corruption. [2] Some reported cases of corruption were not investigated. [3]

No reference to corruption was found in the either the Regulations on General Discipline of the Armed Forces or the Military Justice Code (1)(2).

In the case of Mustapha Adib, the officer accused of illegally trafficking army fuel for his own benefit was initially sentenced to 18 months in prison but did not serve his term and was reintegrated into his functions. Observers, and Mustapha Adib himself, argued that the closeness between the general in charge of the region in which he was serving (general Bennani) and the King prevented justice from being done, and explained the treatment of Mustapha Adib (1)(2).

The Myanmar military is outside the jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Law. According to U Aung Kyi, Chairperson of the ACC, the Constitution grants the military the power to handle its affairs internally, including anti-corruption measures [1]. According to Brigadier General Zaw Min Tun, corruption risk is not neglected and offenders have been punished through the military’s internal mechanism [2]. The Military Misconduct Law and Defence Service Act are used to regulate the behaviour of military personnel [3].

The public are not able to access details about the military’s level of enforcement because the Tatmadaw rarely releases information about its anti-corruption status. According to Brigadier General Zaw Min Tun, although there have been prosecutions, the Tatmadaw did not release information about them [1]. The only case known to the public is of Major General Nyi Nyi Swe and Brigadier General Maung Maung Zan, who were reportedly transferred to the auxiliary force for alleged involvement in bribery in Hpakant Township [1,2].

Under the Dutch Criminal Code (DCC), it is unlawful to engage a public official in active bribery, that is, offering or giving a gift, service or promise with intent to influence or as a reward for previous acts (Section 177, DCC). Passive bribery (receiving or soliciting a gift, service or promise) is also an unlawful act (Section 363, DCC). Section 84 stipulates that ‘public officials’ include ‘those who belong to the armed services’ (Section 84, DCC). The punishment for active or passive bribery of a public official for individuals is a fine of up to 82,000 euros or six years’ imprisonment, or both [1]. Individuals may also be dismissed from their professional role (Article 177 (1)). If an individual commits passive bribery in their capacity as minister, secretary of state, commissioner of the King, deputy, mayor, alderman or member of a general representative body, the punishments are stricter, with up to eight years’ imprisonment or fines of up to 820,000 euros (Article 363(1)). For legal entities, the maximum fine figure amounts to 820,000 euros and, for especially serious cases, a fine of up to 10% of the previous year’s annual turnover can be enforced [2]. Sanctions for all forms of bribery may include criminal prosecution, imprisonment, dismissal and considerable financial penalties.

Local police forces can investigate bribery and corruption of public officials, but when allegations involve high-ranking public officials, the National Police Internal Investigations Department, an independent body that specifically investigates alleged cases of criminal conduct within the government, steps in [1]. Prosecutions are generally led or aided by the National Public Prosecutor on Corruption, who specialises in instances of alleged bribery [2]. The Public Prosecutor’s Office for Financial, Economic and Environmental Offences may also handle very complex cases in cooperation with the Tax Authority’s Fiscal Intelligence and Investigation Service [3]. It is at the discretion of the prosecutor whether to bring alleged offenders to court, but even if the prosecutor drops the case, the injured party may appeal this decision to the Court of Appeals [3].

This process was enforced in 2017 when a corruption and bribery scandal erupted within the defence force. The primary defence official involved was a former defence fleet manager accused of obtaining private discounts and accepting gifts, such as winter car tyres, fuel cards and a dozen leisure trips, from car manufacturers Renault Nederland, Peugeot Nederland and Volkswagen importer Pon in exchange for awarding defence fleet contracts [4]. The National Investigation Service spent five years investigating the case, which culminated in a 12-month prison sentence for the convicted defence official [4]. As part of the same case, a defence officer was fired and criminally tried for allegedly asking for a discount when purchasing a private car (the discount amounted to 236 euros on a 35,000-euro vehicle) [5].

However, there is some evidence to suggest that not all bribery allegations are treated equally. For example, allegations arose in relation to the then Minister of Defence, who reportedly received a gift from Pon valued at 250 euros, was not fired, called to witness or examined as a suspect by the Public Prosecution Service [5]. In addition, the criminal trial revealed that the Minister of Defence, upon recieving a letter from an anonymous whilsteblower, sought to handle the corruption case internally – without the intervention of Parliament or the Ministry of Justice [6]. Only once the bribery allegations were leaked to the media did a criminal report ensue [6].

Part 6 of the Crimes Act 1961 specifically legislates against crimes affecting the administration of law and justice, which includes any person in the service of the Sovereign or employed by a public body or authority. Corruption and bribery penalties are clearly stipulated and persons are liable for imprisonment if they accept, obtains, agree, or offer to accept or attempts to obtain, any bribe for themselves or any other person in respect of any act done or omitted, or to be done or omitted [1]. The Armed Force Discipline Act 1971 states that anyone subject to the act could be liable to imprisonment, who “corruptly accepts or obtains, agrees, or offers to accept, or attempts to obtain any bribe for himself or any other person in respect of any act done or omitted, or to be done or omitted, by him in his official capacity” [2]. Bribery committed with the intention to influence is also stipulated with a prison sentence not exceeding three years [3].

Instances of Bribery are investigated and disciplined. In January 2020, the Serious Fraud Office charged a former NZDF Administrator (a civilian) for allegedly stealing non-public funds while employed by the NZDF [1]. The defendant pleaded guilty in May 2020 [2]. That the trial occurred under difficult lockdown conditions is evidence of a concerted desire to prosecute those guilty of corruption, and on 24 June 2020, the perpetrator was sentenced to 12 months home detention and 250 hours of community work for stealing approximately $225,000 from non-public funds managed by the NZDF for the wellbeing of members of the NZ Army over a period of seven years [3]. While the conviction is a healthy sign of the NZDF’s commitment to anti-corruption, the relatively light sentencing compared with the penalties that could have been awarded under Sections 104 and 105 of the Crimes Act 1961 is a concern, albeit one that is outside the control of the NZDF and MoD [4].

The 2003 Military Penal Code (1) addresses corruption in Article 228 which states that officers found guilty of corruption, theft or general crime can be dismissed, demoted or imprisoned. The code provides for a judiciary military police that reports to the Ministry of Defence (Article 46). They are responsible for finding and following up on all infringements of the law (Article 47) at all levels of the armed forces (Article 48).
Chapter III, Section 7 of the Public Penal Code (applicable to all civil servants) also states that: “corruption and Influence Peddling will be punished with imprisonment of two to ten years and a fine of Fr 50,000-1,000,000. The law extends to persons soliciting or accepting offers, promises, gifts or presents, including being invested in an elective office, an administrative, judicial, military public official, or agent or employee of the government (Art. 130)”. The code goes on to say that, “[a]ny person who has requested or approved bids or promises, solicited or accepted gifts or presents, to obtain or attempt to receive decorations, medals, honours or awards, squares, functions or jobs or favours granted by any public authority, markets, companies or other benefits arising from treaties with the public authority or, generally favourable decision of such authority or administration, and will and abused a real or supposed influence shall be punished with imprisonment of one to five years and a fine of 50000-1000000 francs (Art. 132)”.
Therefore, both the Military Penal Code and the Public Penal Code provide legislative measures that cover various practices that could be associated with corruption, namely, offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting bribes.

There is very little recent public information regarding cases of security and defence personnel being involved in cases of corruption. Investigations regarding police or military officers are rare. However, they are taking place. For example, in 2014, a dozen of police officers from the passport service of the National Police had been arrested and detained at the Niamey civil prison for passport fraud, in which false passports were given to none Nigerien nationals. The director of Direction de Surveillance du Territoire (DST) (Territorial Surveillance Directorate) and his deputy were arrested. 

The recent probe into defence procurement between 2007-2015 indicates that the Buhari administration is serious about fighting corruption in the military. However, there are failures to conclude trials and convict any individuals found to have violated procurement laws for their benefit. The lengthy nature of the legal proceedings is undermining the perception of the credibility of the process as none of the trials have concluded and no sanctions have been handed down. Bribery and corruption offences apply to the military and constitute offences under military law. The definition under the criminal code includes any public official “Section 98” (1). The criminal code defines official corruption to mean acts where a public official invites bribes, etc., on account of his actions either by corruptly asking for, or receiving, or obtaining any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person, it could also be that he corruptly agrees or attempts to receive or obtain any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person, on account of anything already done or omitted or any favour or disfavour shown to any person, by himself in the discharge of his official duties (1). Such official is guilty of a felony of official corruption and liable to imprisonment of seven years. Section 98(A) also stipulates that any person who corruptly gives or procures any property or benefit of any kind to or for a public official or to any other person or corruptly promises to do so is also guilty of the felony of official corruption and is liable to imprisonment for seven years. This law also applies in a situation when such a person is seeking to procure a government license or contract from the public official.

A panel found that over USD 15 billion was stolen from the state coffers under the guise of fraudulent arms procurement deals during the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan (1). The panel launched investigations into 15 retired and serving military officers, as well as 22 companies and aides of suspects (1). A member of the panel, Rear Admiral Daniel Ikoli, died under suspicious circumstances in April 2017, prompting the other members of the panel to seek special protection (1). A recent example of the committee probing defence procurement between 2007-2015 suggests that cases are investigated and prosecuted. Many senior service chiefs from the previous administration are currently facing investigation and trial following the report into military procurement, which uncovered significant cases of large scale corruption in the military procurement process.

But the pattern of anti-corruption enforcement within the military is inconsistent and does not represent a significant deterrent against defence sector corruption (2017 TI report Weaponising Transparency) (2), (3).

The Law on Civil Servants [1] and the Criminal Code [2] are responsible for regulating and disciplining criminal activity in cases of bribery and corruption, including incidents relating to employees in the defence sector. Disciplinary sanctions for “ the illegal disposal of material and financial means,” “taking gifts” or “private financial enterprise” range from 30% salary reductions to dismissal from work. Similarly, criminal sanctions for corrupt activities such as “embezzlement”, “bribery”, “fraud” or “giving and taking gifts” range from 6 months up to 10 years imprisonment. In parallel to these two laws, the Law on Service in the Army also regulates and disciplines military and civilian staff [3].

There is no evidence of minor bribery or corruption cases in the Ministry of Defence and Army [1]. For instance, following media rumours in 2012 that “soldiers paid 2,000 euros were to be deployed in the mission in Afghanistan,” the Ministry of Defence encouraged all professional soldiers to report if this had been the case. To facilitate the registration of possible criminal and corruption cases, a free hotline for reporting corruption was established. However, despite these efforts, no reports were submitted and, consequently, no investigation took place [2]. High-level corruption cases, on the other hand, have been investigated and prosecuted. Three major cases revealed high-level corruption. Two of them were investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted and sentenced (see Q9 & 20). That said, the case involving the former Minister of Defence was significantly delayed and is still not concluded [3]. Due to the length of the procedure (now eleven years), suspicions of undue influence have been raised [4].

The Norwegian Penal Code criminalises offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting bribes. It distinguishes between acts of “corruption” and “aggravated corruption”, which can be distinguished from other crimes of corruption by being carried out by or toward a public official, beside the size of the economic gain, and whether false accounting information has been prepared [1]. The Penal Code §388 proscribes a punishment of up to 10 years imprisonment for aggravated corruption. The Penal Code applies to all types of employment, office or assignment for public and private employers and principals; it therefore also applies to the defence sector. The Defence Acquisition Regulation (§2-13) states explicitly that defence sector employees who commit corruption are subject to §387, §388 and §389 of the Penal Code, which specify punishments for corruption, aggravated corruption and trading in influence [2]. The Military Disciplinary Act regulates the Armed Forces’ use of military disciplinary measures and punishments. It provides for punishment through either fines or a prison term for various kinds of misconduct, though it does not mention corruption explicitly [3]. In addition, Section 10.19 of the State Personnel Handbook 2020 provides guidelines for dealing with corruption by civil servants [4]. It mentions dismissal and other disciplinary sanctions for corruption and specifies that the issue should be dealt with independently of criminal prosecution. For details on the disciplinary sanctions and procedures, the State Personnel Handbook refers to the Civil Servants Act [5].

According to Section 55 of the Criminal Procedure Act, prosecution authorities shall act objectively in all of their actions, including the investigation phase, when a decision to prosecute is made and a case is tried [1]. The law is aimed at forestalling undue political influence. In October 2018, a former commander of the Royal Norwegian Navy was convicted of aggravated corruption and embezzlement in his capacity as a public officer in the Procurement Division of the Armed Forces’ Logistics Organisation [2]. The case was investigated by the Norwegian National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime (ØKOKRIM), a unit responsible for investigating and prosecuting economic crime, including issues in the defence sector. The former commander was paid bribes to help secure the sale of 7 decommissioned naval vessels to CAS-Global Ltd., a UK based company. He was also convicted of contravention of the Export Control Act for misleading the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the end user of the vessels was CAS-Global Ltd., despite it being a Nigerian company. The former commander was sentenced to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

Bribery is defined in Omani law and based on our sources, this law is applied to the defence sector when there are no official articles/ policies mentioned in the penal code of the military (1). Therefore, prosecution procedures for defence and security personnel are possible. Bribery is defined as, “any person who accepted a bribe for himself or for another person, be it in cash or a present or a promise or any other benefit for performing a lawful act of his duties, or for forbearing to do it or delaying its execution” according to the Omani Penal Code, Royal Decree 7/74 (2). The law targets public officials, they risk up to ten years imprisonment, a fine equivalent at least to the size of bribe and suspension of duties, the penalty extends to the bribery and mediator (2). Although legislation details bribery, no evidence suggests it includes or applies to the defence sector. Given that the defence sector is exempt from the parliamentary discussion, the tender board, and eGovernment open data requests it is difficult to ascertain if the penal code is applied to the military or security services (3), (4), (5). Military courts deal with malpractice in the defence and security sectors, “the jurisdiction of military courts is limited to military offences by members of the armed forces and security” suggestive that military courts overseen by armed forces officers deal with all crimes perpetrated by defence personnel (6).

There is no evidence of the prosecution of military personnel involved in bribery or corruption available to the public. However, there are very few cases where military personnel were prosecuted for misuse of power and authority. These cases are not for the high-rank officer but low and medium rank that do not catch public attention. However, such cases were superficially persecuted and they returned to their work after a few months (1). There are no media reports detailing corruption in the defence or security sectors, though corruption within the country is reported to have gone down between 2015 and 2016 by 7.5% (2), (3). In the absence of information regarding corruption in the defence sector, it is difficult to tell whether there is a failure to prosecute due to the lack of information available, or whether the lack of evidence suggests that if such prosecutions happen they happen in secret and are not declared to the public. There is no evidence of the prosecution of military personnel involved in bribery or corruption. No information was found on institutional websites such as the Ministry of Defence or the eGovernment open data portal Omanuna (4), (5).

The Military Employment Law prohibits illegal practices. However, it does not mention “Bribery and corruption”. Chapter 7, Art. 88, 89, 90, 91,92, and 93 states that military and security personnel are forbidden to be part of illegal actions that may harm the reputation of the military or security apparatuses (1). They are not defined as offences in the statute that applies to the military sector. However, illegal actions can lead to possible sanctions, including criminal prosecution, incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties.

There are many instances of corruption found within the national forces, as well as the PA in general, such as recruitment and promotions, but there is a failure to investigate the majority of incidents (1), (2). According to senior officials, recruitment of personnel, especially new soldiers is politically driven and some times recruitment is part of political bargains with tribes, families and so on. Even though there are claims about corruption within the armed forces, there is no tangible evidence as a result of investigations. According to the SAAB, for instance, there are thousands of security force vehicles that are used for personal services and by retired employees, which according to a Palestinian journalist (1) is part of a bribe and is used to cement loyalty from these individuals.

In addition to the 1987 Philippine Constitution [1], several laws have clearly defined offences committed by public officials including requesting or receiving gifts, soliciting and divulging information. These are the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) [2], Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713) [3], and the Revised Penal Code Title VII – Crimes Committed by Public Officers [4]. Public officers including military personnel are defined as elected and appointed officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether they are in a career or non-career service. The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) is responsible for investigating and prosecuting government officials accused of crimes, especially graft and corruption. The OMB includes the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, which handles administrative cases files against members of the armed forces [5]. If found guilty in either administrative proceedings and/or criminal prosecution, penalties such as imprisonment, reprimand, fine, transfer, demotion, suspension or dismissal from service are imposed [2, 3, 4, 5].

The independence of the Ombudsman has been questioned many times because of how his previous decisions have appeared to align with the wishes of the Executive. The current Ombudsman, Samuel Martires, created controversy for being part of the court division that upheld the plea bargain agreement of former military comptroller Major General Carlos Garcia [1]. This allowed Garcia to plead guilty to lesser bailable offenses of indirect bribery and facilitating money laundering instead of to plunder. Upon his appointment, Ombudsman Martires implemented the dismissal of a deputy commissioner for his supposed partiality in investigating President Duterte’s alleged ill-gotten wealth [2]. Meanwhile, Duterte created the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) mandated to investigate administrative cases involving graft and corruption against all presidential appointees [3]. The PACC has been criticised by some lawmakers as redundant with the function of the Office of the Ombudsman [4]. Based on a PACC report, the President dismissed 20 military officials due to alleged anomalous transactions at a medical centre that is under the control of the Armed Forces [5].

For personnel who are found to have taken part in corruption, there are administrative and criminal justice measures such as the immediate suspension from post or duty, criminal prosecution, and freezing of illegal assets. Additionally, military personnel involved in corruption are to be demoted in rank or dishonourably discharged [1]. The Polish Criminal Code (Articles. 228-230a related to corruption) establishes sanctions comprising fines and imprisonment of up to ten years. The definition of ‘public official’ regulated in the Criminal Code includes the military personnel as well [2]. Offences cover offering, giving, promising, receiving, soliciting and accepting promises of undue financial and personal benefits in exchange of action or no-action in implementation of public duty.

According to the Ministry of National Defence data, the number of detainees and convicted soldiers for corruption in 2010-2015 was systematically decreasing (2010 – 62 convicts, 2015 – 15) [1]. On the other hand, an increase in the activity of the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau and Military Police in the investigation of corruption offences has been noticeable in recent years [2, 3].
In 2015/2016/2017 The Military Police started 27/32/49 new and continued 19/29/27 criminal investigations in corruption cases against military and civilian personnel. 5/5/14 indictments were filed with the court [4, 5, 6], a growing trend may be observed.
In 2016/2017 Central Anti-Corruption Bureau started 4/5 criminal investigations in corruption cases in the defence and security sector [7, 8]. The report does not provide sector-specific data on how many indictments were filed with the court.
Official statistics on convictions in corruption cases do not provide sector-specific data. Some convictions have been reported by the media [9]. A study of military courts judgments for the years 2010-2015 indicates that 66% (208 out of 297) of defendants in corruption cases were convicted. However, only two (1%) of them were sentenced with a prison sentence, the others got suspended prison sentences or non-prison sentences likes fines [10]. The number of prison sentences in case of corruption convictions was 9% in 2016-2017 [6].
In some high profile cases, such as corruption charges against an assistant of a former defence minister, the media has speculated that his arrest was only possible after his political protector was dismissed. There is no evidence of the involvement of the former minister in the corrupt activities of his assistant [11].

Existing legislation sanctions the offering, giving, receiving or soliciting [1] of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of public or legal duty. This applies to both military [2] and civil personnel [3]. Sanctions may be both disciplinary and penal [1, 4]: these include prosecution, incarceration, dismissal and potential financial penalties.

Recent years have shown an increase in investigations over instances of bribery and corruption. The Tancos theft case, which involves allegations of a politically motivated coverup [1], which were said by a Parliamentary inquiry to be unproven [2], is currently under trial and involves the former minister of defence [3]. A case of procurement-related corruption in the Portuguese Air Force resulted in the accusation of 30 military officers [4], indicating that formal processes are used for investigation and discipline. The official inquiry into Tancos suggests that undue influence may be ineffective at derailing due process. Overall, instances of bribery are rare but do exist [5, 6].

There is a law within the defence sector that defines offences related to corruption and bribery. It is very similar to Law no. 11(2004) [1], which clearly defines bribery as a punishable crime. The military law is enforced by the military police unit. Besides that, sanctions include imprisonment, and being fired from jobs. [2,3]

There are minimal instances where individuals have been prosecuted for corruption offences. The cases that were prosecuted, were minor and, therefore, the offending soldiers and officers did not face harsh punishment. [1,2]

The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation clearly defines offences and possible sanctions that apply to the defence sector [1]. Article 160, Clause 3 ‘On Misappropriation or Embezzlement While Exercising Vested Powers’: this offence is punishable by a fine of up to 500,000 rubles, three years in prison or five years’ disqualification. Article 174, Clause 3b ‘On Money-Laundering While Exercising Vested Powers’: this offence is punishable by a fine of up to 500,000 rubles, two years in prison or three years’ disqualification. Article 204 ‘On Corrupt Payment’: this offence is punishable by a fine of up to five million rubles, 12 years in prison or six years’ disqualification. Articles 290 ‘On Receiving a Bribe’, 291 ‘On Giving a Bribe’, 291_1 ‘On Mediation in Bribery’ and 291_2 ‘On Petty Bribery’: these offences are punishable by a fine of up to five million rubles, 15 years in prison or 15 years’ disqualification. Article 304 ‘On Provocation of Bribery, Corrupt Payment’: this offence is punishable by a fine of up to 200,000 rubles, five years in prison or three years’ disqualification.

There are a lot of criminal investigations and prosecutions over corruption cases in the MoD [1,2]. However, investigative journalists regularly report about many more potentially corrupt cases involving MoD officials but the MoD disparage these reports [3] and the federal investigative agencies either ignore or fail to process these reports in due time [4]. The most recent cases – involving grand corruption among the inner circle of Minister Shoigu – are summarised by the anti-corruption media platform Pasmi [5]. There is an ongoing investigation of several top supply management officials [5]. According to the journalists, all investigation findings point to the involvement of the Deputy Minister Timur Ivanov and further, the Minister himself. There is little chance of an investigation of the latter top officials. According to Interviewee 2, during the last few years, there has been an order from the top to punish anyone, regardless of their position, for bribery or corruption-related crimes. That has resulted in the practice of judges being afraid to even commute a sentence in corruption cases because the FSB or other monitoring agencies might suspect the judges of being bribed. This could also be considered to be undue political influence [6].

According to our sources, there are clear and defined laws against bribery, the giving or receiving money in exchange of services, within the government, foreign agencies and foreign nationals within KSA. The penalties can be as severe as ten years in prison; and fines for companies. However, the law is not updated and it lacks jurisdiction mechanisms (1). Saudi Arabia anti-bribery legislation has been in place since 1992, in the form of the Regulations for Combating Bribery (Royal Decree No. M/36); these criminalize bribery offences involving public officials. Penalties vary according to the regulations and the specific offence committed, though those found to have committed bribery face up to ten years imprisonment and a fine of up to SAR 1 million (2). Saudi Arabia also has separate regulations for its civil servants and military officers, which prohibit them from misusing their positions or using influence, including bribery; there are punitive measures for doing so including possible disciplinary action or termination (3).

According to our sources, corruption cases are superficially investigated and measures are not taken against corrupt officials even in the face of clear evidence (1). Other sources argue that the crown prince’s latest measures against corruption are politically motivated against opposition figures in the kingdom, and were not investigated seriously (2). As outlined above (Q34), there have been several recent and high-profile arrests of military personnel and high-ranking officials on corruption-related charges. However, these arrests appear to be carried out in a somewhat arbitrary and ad hoc manner, with few details released about the specific charges; or the prosecution and investigation process. The charges against Miteb bin Abdullah, for example, were dropped after he agreed to pay a USD 1 billion settlement. This settlement included Miteb “admitting corruption involving known cases,” according to a Saudi official, although no details were provided relating to these cases (3). More recently in July 2018, three defence ministry officials were arrested on charges of receiving a USD 267,000 bribe as well as abuse of power (4). However, neither the names of these officials neither further details regarding the cases against them were provided by official sources; it is unclear whether any of the aforementioned cases receive due process.

Criminal Code recognises different types of offences against official duty, including abuse of office, bribery, embezzlement and influence peddling, as criminal offences. Sanctions vary from six months to 12 years of imprisonment and financial penalties, depending on the gravity of the offence [1]. Moreover, The Law on the Serbian Armed Forces sets out sanctions for several breaches of discipline such as the abuse of office, taking an additional job non-compliant with the law, receiving gifts or services against the conditions set by the law etc. The disciplinary sanctions envisaged for these breaches vary from warnings and salary cuts to dismissal from work. [2] Civilian staff in the MoD are subject to the provisions of the Law on Civil Servants, which recognises different corrupt practices and sanctions in its conduct [3].

Between 2016 and 2017, two disciplinary procedures for breaches of discipline foreseen by the Law on SAF were conducted. In one case a disciplinary measure warning was imposed, whereas the other resulted in imposing a disciplinary sanction – 20% salary cut for six months [1]. The MoD failed to provide information to the BCSP about the quantity and type of criminal complaints against MoD and SAF representatives for corrupt practices in the preceding period, claiming that it does not possess such information [1]. It can be concluded that there is no central register, which would consolidate the information on offences of official duty or that the MoD avoids providing such data. In media reports, there is no evidence of the enforcement of the sanctions envisaged by the law. Most of the MoD announcements and media reports conclude with actions aimed at exposing corruptive practices and fail to provide information on the prosecution and enforcement of sanctions. Finally, the controversial “aunt from Canada” case, involving the incumbent defence minister and the unknown origin of a large amount of money used to buy real estate, has demonstrated the reluctance to tackle and prosecute high profile corruption cases [2, 3].

Bribery, corruption, and other forms of misconduct involving Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) personnel can be charged under various sections within the MINDEF General Orders, Singapore Armed Forces Act, the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Penal Code, which explicitly covers the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty [1, 2]. Convictions can result in dishonourable discharges and public prosecutions, which has been widely covered by media [3]. Besides military justice, charges can lead to criminal prosecution in civilian courts with outcomes including fines and incarceration, or both [4].

There are clearly defined formal processes in which cases are investigated or prosecuted [1, 2]. There is no evidence to suggest that political influence has been attempted or successfully applied to derail these processes.

The Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act of 2004 [1] is the civilian stepping point for legal measures relating to corruption prevention and prosecution. Chapter 2 of the act prohibits the receiving, soliciting, offering, and giving of any gratification for the purpose of influnece as an offence of corruption. Any person convicted for an offence of corruption can be imprisoned or fined.[1]

However, the newly-unveiled Directorate Anti-Corruption and Anti-Fraud (DACAF) is designed to work in tandem with Defence Legal Services and the South African Defence Force (SANDF) Military Police to investigate allegations of corruption and misconduct, and ultimately prosecute them through the military justice system [2]. T

As mentioned in Q.34B, the Directorate Anti-Corruption and Anti-Fraud serve as a major enforcement body of the Department of Defence. There have been several notable cases where allegations of corruption have been investigated and even prosecuted successfully, including senior staff. There is no evidence of political interference in this process at all.

South Korean laws, including the Criminal Act and the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act (the ISG Act), clearly define bribery and corruption offences. These laws apply to defence and security personnel. [1] [2] The ISG Act specifies the type and price cap of gifts that officials are not allowed to receive or offer. Those receiving free meals that cost more than 30,000 Korean won or gifts priced over 50,000 won may be punished with fines. Congratulatory or condolence money for weddings or funerals cannot exceed 100,000 won. Officials found guilty of wrong-doing can be punished with a prison sentence of up to 3 years or a fine of up to 30 million Korean won (2). In addition, those who accept a bribe in connection with their duties can be punished by imprisonment for up to 5 years or can be suspended from their qualifications for up to 10 years according to Article 129 and 130 of the Criminal Act. [1]

The Military Court and Military Prosecutor’ Offices are responsible for prosecuting and ruling on bribery and corruption charges against defence personnel and soldiers. The Military Court deals with only for criminal cases. [1]
The High Court for Armed Forces discloses the trial results of bribery-related crimes on its internet site. [3] Some relevant statistics are included in the Defense Statistics Yearbook, the Defense Legal White Paper and Defense Legal Statistics. [4]

Further some cases have been revealed through media coverage.
In July 2017, the joint investigation team with a focus on bribery and corruption within defence procurement was launched under the current government. Through the investigation, 69 defence personnel were prosecuted, and 15 of them were arrested for bribery and corrupt behaviour, as of 2018. [2]

The terms “bribery” and “soliciting” do not appear in the main document that governs the activities of the army, the SPLA Act 2009. Section 73 (Nepotism and Corrupt Practices) of the Act clearly spells out a range of corrupt actions and corresponding penalties. [1] Section 73.1 (g), which applies to any Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) personnel, is the article in the Act that comes closest to tackling bribery. Nevertheless, the terms “bribery” or “soliciting bribes” do not appear in the Act, although the wording in it suggests that bribery and solicitation of bribes are covered by Section 73.1 (g). For example, it is stated that anyone in the army who engages in “corrupt” activities would be liable for punishment. The corresponding penalty is not less than fourteen years in jail. [1]

Authorities have in the past indicted senior military officers for corrupt practices and publicly announced the formation of investigative committees to examine claims of malfeasance. [1] However, the outcome of the investigations often remains unknown. No effort is made to brief the public, and the persons accused of the malfeasance continue to serve in the army, and have even been promoted. One case involves the current Chief of Fefence forces, Gen. Joseph Juma Okot, who in 2015 was accused, together with others, of embezzling the salaries of Division Six based in Lakes State. [1] Gen. Okot also featured in other corruption accusations in the media involving abuse of office to advance the interests of a business linked to him. [2] In May 2020, Gen. Okot was promoted to lieutenant general and appointed Chief of Defence Forces.

On bribery and corruption, the Penal Code applies. Article 286 of the Spanish Penal Code, on crimes of corruption in business, states that possible sanctions include criminal prosecution/incarceration, considerable financial penalties, and the special disqualification for the exercise of industry or commerce (Art. 286) [1]. Article 262 of the Penal Code sanctions the distortion of competition in public tenders with a prison sentence of one to three years and a fine of 12 to 24 months, as well as special disqualification from bidding in judicial auctions between three and five years (Art 262) [1]. For other offences and faults, the sanctioning regime applies, but none of the mentioned issues (“offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence…”) is typified among the 93 listed faults (soft, severe, and very severe) in the Organic Law 8/2014 of the Disciplinary Regime of the Armed Forces. The words “corrupción”, “soborno”/”sobornar” (bribe), and “dádiva”/”regalo” (gift) are not used in the 39 pages of the law [2].

Royal Decree 5/2015, of the Basic Statute of the Public Worker, which applies to all public workers, refers to the need to refuse gifts in Art. 54.6, but these practices are not expressly typified as offences subject to sanction [3]. Offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting gifts or other benefits, and conflict of interests are expressly addressed in the very recent instruction 23/2020 of the secretary of defence, on the Ethical Code and Code of Conduct of personnel related to purchasing, which affects to both military and civilian staff in the purchasing areas of the Ministry of Defence [4]. However, this is an ethical code, not law, and there is no reference in the code regarding sanctions.

The number of cases publicly known about corruption are limited. However, the relevance and wider implications of the cases known may be an indicator that these are not the only examples of corruption within the armed forces. For instance, in 2019 the former head of the Purchasing Strategies Area in the Contracting Modernisation Programme of the Ministry of Defence and another high rank assigned to the Directorate of Economic Affairs of the Army, both lieutenant colonels (OF-4), were convicted to two years imprisonment asa a result of being accused of providing privileged information to contractors in exchange for the payment of cash consideration, gifts, invitations to meals or shows, or the hiring of their respective descendants. Three entrepreneurs were also convicted and prohibited from contracting with the Public Administration [1]. In another example, the heads of contracting units and comptrolling bodies were convicted for dividing the amount of the awards and resorting to the negotiated tender without advertising in exchange for an “exorbitant profit” for the entrepreneur, which he distributed 50% with the soldiers. When open competition was unavoidable, the military manipulated the technical specifications to overvalue aspects that were previously known to the businessman [2]. Interestingly, in all these cases, the convictions were not enough to expel any of them from the armed forces. In a final example, the court recognised that the case was initiated by a complaint from the employer and that without his testimony it would not have been possible to prove beyond irregularities in the hiring [3]. However, in another case, the detention of two OF-4 officials accused of corruption in contracts resulted as a consequence of an audit internal to the Ministry of Defence [4]. Ultimately, these cases are anecdotical in the media, and the frequency and relevance of cases of corruption and the application of sanctions are mostly unknown.

According to Global Integrity, Sudan’s Criminal Act of 1991 [1] criminalises active and passive bribery (Art. 88), extortion (Art. 176) and ‘criminal breach of trust’ (Art. 177), which includes embezzlement and other means of using public property for personal enrichment by a public servant. These regulations are not specific to the defence sector, but presumably apply at least to civilians if not to service members. However, Global Integrity noted that ‘there is no independent body mandated to receive and investigate cases of alleged public sector corruption’ [2].

A Freedom House 2020 report reads: ‘members of the al-Bashir government who engaged in bribery during his rule have escaped scrutiny in 2019, with some maintaining positions in the transitional government. These include senior security officials who sold the services of their troops to foreign powers for use in the ongoing civil war in Yemen… President al-Bashir’s government was considered opaque before its overthrow, running large off-budget accounts and reserving up to 80 percent of the formal budget to security institutions’ [1]. Bashir had established Sudan’s first anti-corruption agency in 2012, but as Global Integrity documents, ‘its head was removed one year later for not finding any evidence of corruption, and the agency has not been operational since then. Thus, officials suspected of corruption are not investigated’ [2]. In July 2018, just under a year before his ouster, former President Bashir launched an anti-corruption campaign that the Middle East Monitor reported would ‘pursue bank accounts of officials, businessmen and managers abroad’; its targets included Major General Abdul Ghaffar Al-Sharif for ‘breach of trust, bribery, unlawful and suspicious enrichment, money laundering and financing terrorism, besides other national security charges’ [3]. However, this campaign was largely superficial and politically motivated and had no substantial effect whatsoever on the massive and/or everyday corruption that still pervades the defence sector.

Staff of the Swedish Armed Forces who are suspected of serious misconduct may be reported to the Armed Forces Personnel Administration (FPAN) [1]. This is currently working well and is regulated by the government’s formal ordinance with instructions to the Armed Forces (SAF) [2] and an internal SAF regulation [3]. Legislation on bribery for individuals is found in the Swedish Penal Code [4], but it covers only bribe ‘taking’ and bribe ‘giving’.

The State Disciplinary Board (SA) handles instances of bribery or corruption involving civil servants in senior positions such as directors, judges, prosecutors, and professors, and the SA annual reports state clearly how many cases have been dealt with during the year [1]. Only other government agencies can report to SA, while individuals have to report potential instances of bribery or corruption to the Chancellor of Justice (JK) [2]. Where employees have committed criminal acts that fall under the Swedish Penal Code, the crime must be reported to the Police.

The code of conduct for federal personnel, which also applies to the military, summarizes the rules for government employees. It discusses gifts and invitations as well as illegal behaviour or transgression of rules [1]. Title 19 Article 322 of the Swiss Criminal Code is about bribery. It explicitly includes members of the armed forces. It foresees penalties for active and passive bribery of Swiss government with financial penalties or imprisonment of up to five years [2]. The military penal code contains corruption specific rules on active and passive bribery as well as on unfaithful business management (Section 9) [3]. The Federal Personnel Act (BPG) prohibits federal employees from accepting gifts within the framework of the duties (Article 21.3 BPG) [4]. The ordinance clarifies a threshold of “social common” gifts that are allowed and some situations where a total prohibition applies (in the case of procurement procedures) (Article 93 BPV) [5]. Article 22a of the BPG clarifies the obligation of federal employees to bring breaches of rules or misconduct to the attention of the relevant authorities (superiors, criminal prosecution or Swiss Federal Audit Office) (Article 22a BPG). In case they do so in good faith they are protected from negative professional consequences for doing so (Article 22a. 5 BPG) [4].

The Federal Office of Police’s (Fedpol) Federal Criminal Police division (Bundeskriminalamt) conducts criminal investigations for the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland acting as judicial police [1]. The Office of the Attorney General is guaranteed by law. It organizes itself and is also financially independent (Article 16 of the Strafbehördenorganisationsgesetz (StBOG) [2]. The federal structure with policing as a cantonal duty has only a few exceptions on the federal level [3], it also provides an additional layer of protection from undue political influence.

Legal offences concerning the defence integrity and anti-corruption of the military are orchestrated in the 1) Criminal Code, 2) Armed Forces Punishment Act, 3) Civil Service Discipline Act, 4) Anti-Corruption Act, 5) Act on Property-Declaration by Public Servants, and 6) the Act on Recusal of Public Servants Due to Conflicts of Interest. The latter relates to the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value with the intention of influencing the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Offences of corruption or bribery will be subjected to sanctions of criminal prosecution, incarceration, dismissal, or considerable financial penalties in accordance with these laws.

Offences of corruption or bribery will be subject to the sanctions of the MND’s internal executive scrutinies, external legal investigations by the Investigation Bureau or the Agency Against Corruption, and independent legal prosecutions and trials [1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

Identical measures for integrity, ethics, bribery, and anti-corruption are applied to public civil servants and military officers. Investigations and prosecutions are carried out through the same legal frameworks and law-enforcement mechanisms, which are not in the chain-of-command of the military to exclude undue political influence [8, 9]. Cases of corruption and bribery, including those related to the Ministry of National Defence and Taiwan’s armed forces, are summarised and disclosed by the Ministry of Justice to the public on a monthly basis [10].

There are a range of clearly defined offences that clearly apply to the defence sector for those proved or alleged to be engaged in acts of bribery. Possible sanctions include criminal prosecution, incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties. This is evidenced by chapter 192 of National Defence Act in Part 11 Service Offences and punishment:Responsibility or Offences Section C.52 Offences in Relations to Property [1] which states that any person who corruptly, by himself or in conjunction with any other person- (a) solicits, accepts or obtains, or attempts to obtain, from any person for himself or any other person, any advantage as an inducement to, or reward for, or otherwise on account of, any agent, whether or not such agent is the same person as such first mentioned person and whether the agent has or has no authority to do, or forbearing to do, or having done or forborne to do, anything in relation to his principal’s affairs or business; or (b) gives, promises or offers any advantage to any person, whether for the benefit of that person or of another person, as an inducement to, or reward for, or otherwise on account of, any agent whether or not such agent is the person to whom such advantage is given, promised or offered and whether the agent has or has no authority to do, doing, or forbearing to do, or having done or forborne to do, anything in relation to his principal’s affairs or business, commits an offence of corruption. [2] [3]

Petty offences are regularly pursued across the public service, including against serving police and army. However, the military’s influence on state administration and political leadership is profound. [1] The history of military involvement in rent seeking in Tanzania suggests this is used to derail investigations, if they are ever initiated. [2]

Under the Constitution of 2017, the Organic Act on Counter Corruption (OACC) remains in effect [1]. The Organic Law on Counter Corruption (1999) criminalises corrupt practices involving public officials, as stated in Section 4 [2]. That is to say, active and passive bribery of military personnel is included in the legislation. Moreover, according to the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act 2017, Section 6, all state agencies, including the Ministry of Defence, must comply with the instructions and regulations under this Act in order to prevent corruption [3]. More recently, a new anti-corruption law has come into effect in Thailand, called the Act Supplementing the Constitution Relating to the Prevention and Suppression of Corruption B.E. 2561 (2018). According to Section 83 of the Act, bribe-giving to or by legal entities is criminalised [4]. However, bribery and/or corruption are not defined offences, except for the following mechanism: receiving bribes. Moreover, punishment for bribery by corporations also remains the same under the new law. A legal entity can be punished with a fine of an amount at least equal to the benefit received from the act of corruption, but not more than twice the amount; this should be considered a weak fine [5,6].

Even though the junta government rose to power by promoting its anti-corruption crusade against the administration of then-Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, the generals themselves have been accused of budget irregularities [1]. Ever since the 2014 coup, military officers have made up almost 20% of all board memberships. In 2017, 43 of 57 state-owned enterprises involved military officers as board members. The top-ranking military officers and their spouses own assets far in excess of what their salaries could earn, as illustrated in their own statements to the NACC [2]. Enforcement therefore varies. For example, the OACC may criminalise corrupt practices involving public officials, unless it is for the acceptance of benefits ‘on an ethical basis’, according to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) Supplemental Rules [3]. Officials are allowed to receive gifts worth more than 3,000 baht as long as they file a report with the state’s official supervisor. This procedure was implemented to facilitate cultural gift-giving, but it actually causes a lot of confusion about what may be acceptable [4]. Furthermore, the weakness of the NACC in investigating suspicious military wealth is also reflected in the bias of Thailand’s other independent institutions, such as the Election Commission and the courts [5]. One example is General Prawit’s Rolex scandal, which ended with the NACC approving bribery if it is in the form of a loan, an excuse demonstrating the junta government’s protection of its brothers-in-arms [6].

There are a range of clearly defined offences in the Penal Code that directly apply to the defence sector. These offences cover offering and giving (1) (the attempt is also punished (2) receiving (3), or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty (4).
Possible sanctions include severe prison sentences (up to 10 years imprisonment) and considerable financial sanctions (une amende double de la valeur des cadeaux reçus ou des promesses agréées, sans qu’elle puisse être inférieure à dix mille dinars) (5). Law n° 67-20, dated 31 May 1967, on the General Status of the Military allows for the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against any military officer who commits ‘offences against honour’, such as bribery, theft, or violence, when on service or outside of it (6). In the case of a military officer being convicted of a criminal offence (like bribery), he would be dismissed from his post (7). Although these disciplinary measures are general, they are applicable in cases of corruption.

According to our sources, there are very strict procedures and commitments to investigating corruption cases, but there is sometimes political influence in attempts to affect the procedures and derail the prosecution processes (1,2). Evidence shows that cases are prosecuted through formal processes. The National Anti-corruption Authority (INLUCC) report for the year 2017 shows that 7 cases of corruption have been transmitted to justice by the Ministry of Defence: 2 cases related to the General Directorate for Conscription, 1 case related to corruption in procurement at the National Center for Cartography and Remote Sensing, suspicions of corruption of military personnel related smuggling, etc. Furthermore, one case related to the Ministry of Defence has been transmitted to justice by the National Anti-corruption Authority (3).

As explained, there is no specific anti-corruption and anti-bribery law written for the security bureaucracy. Both military personnel and civilians working within the sector are obliged to follow the Turkish Criminal Code as government employees, meaning that the articles of the Criminal Code on bribery apply to all military and civilian personnel. As demonstrated by its articles, the Turkish Criminal Code is pretty good in terms of deterring government employees.

The main corruption and bribery offences under the Criminal Code 5237 [1] are as follows:

Bribery – pursuant to Article 252, anyone who directly or indirectly provides a benefit to a public official (or a person designated by a public official) so that the public official realises or does not realise an action regarding his or her official duty, will be punished with 4 to 12 years’ imprisonment. The term ‘public official’ is defined in Article 6(1c) of the Turkish Criminal Code (CC) as ‘any person who is elected, appointed or chosen in any other way to carry out public duty,”
Article 252 of the Criminal Code criminalises direct and indirect domestic bribery, foreign bribery and private-to-private bribery. Although leniency is possible for real persons involved in domestic bribery, this does not apply to the bribery of foreign public officials. Before 2003, bribing foreign public officials was not a crime under Turkish law. In 2003, the previous Criminal Code was amended so that offering, promising or providing benefits to foreign public officials was also considered bribery. The provision regulating bribery in the Criminal Code was amended in July 2012 to broaden the scope of the amendment. Under the revised provision, bribery is committed if:
a benefit is provided, offered or promised directly or through intermediaries; or
the respective individuals request or accept such a benefit directly or through intermediaries.

Bribery and trading in influence (Articles 15, 16, 18 and 21 of the Convention)
Turkey has criminalised the active and passive bribery of public officials in Article 252(1-8) of the CC. The giving of an undue advantage, directly or indirectly, to a public official for his or her benefit or the benefit of another person or entity is addressed in Article 252(1). The acceptance of a bribe by a public official is covered in Article 252(2). The offering of an undue advantage to a public official where he/she does not accept the advantage, or the requesting of a bribe by a public official where the bribe was not fulfilled, is criminalised in Article 252(4) of the CC. In these cases, the applicable penalty is reduced by half. The promise of an undue advantage as defined by the Convention, i.e. where an agreement has been reached between the bribe giver and the bribe taker, is viewed as a completed offence and would result in the application of the full applicable penalty. Notably, any third person who obtains any undue advantage as a result of bribery of the principal offender is also punished (Article 254(6) of the CC).

The bribery of foreign public officials and officials of public international organisations is criminalised in Article 252(9) of the CC. It stipulates that the generic provisions of Article 252 on domestic bribery shall also apply to the bribery of foreign officials. However, the wording of Article 252(9) also explicitly contains most of the elements of the offences, as required by Article 16 of the Convention, including ‘offering’, ‘undue advantage’, etc., except the element ‘for another person or entity’; while in the provisions of Article 252 CC relating to domestic bribery (Article 252(1-8) of the CC), these elements are dispersed in different paragraphs. The investigation and prosecution of foreign public officials and officials of public international organisations who request or receive undue advantages may be conducted if they are present in Turkey (Article 252(10) of the CC). It is also worth noting that, as explained by the Turkish authorities, the reduced punishment, which is applicable to cases where the offering or solicitation of bribes was not accepted (Article 252(4) of the CC), would not apply to cases of bribery of foreign public officials. The Turkish authorities also explained that the offering and solicitation of bribery of foreign public officials are viewed as completed offences, although that is not clear from reading the language of Article 252(9) of the CC.

Article 252 of the CC also partially criminalises bribery in the private sector. The subjects of the offence do not include all the private sector entities (Article 252(8) of the CC).

Trading in influence is criminalised in Article 255 of the CC. The main elements of the offence, as required by Article 18 of the Convention, are contained in Article 255(1) of the CC. The offering or solicitation of an undue advantage is criminalised in Article 255(3) of the CC; however, the applicable penalty is reduced by half in these cases. Additionally, the penalties applicable to passive trading in influence are higher than those applicable to active trading in influence. Notably, mediators in trading in influence and third parties accepting the undue advantage in the course of trading in influence are punished as accomplices (Article 255(4), (5) of the CC).

There is no anti-corruption law or regulation that specifically regulates the defence/security sector. Military personnel and civilians working in the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) are obliged to observe the same anti-corruption framework that other government officials are obliged to [1]. There is no doubt in the field of anti-corruption that the most important institutional structures are the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Directorate of Trafficking and Organised Crime, with the National Police (in urban settlements) and the Gendarmerie Command (in rural areas), directly attached to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, serving as the main law enforcement bodies. The prosecution agency and law enforcement are the most fundamental structural elements of the criminal justice system. Some state institutions, such as the Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK), the Ethics Board of Public Servants and the Information Acquisition Evaluation Board, should also be considered areas of indirect organisation against bribery.

Interviewee 6 suggested that allegations and cases of bribery are taken very seriously within the military because, in traditional terms, it is considered morally corrupt to accept a bribe within the military at the tactical level (battalion) and operational level (corps) [2]. But he noted that, when those allegations of bribery are at the level of the force command, General Staff, Ministry of Defence, SSB or TSKGV, it means that things get politicised. Then, according to him, it is not so easy for an internal inspector/auditor or a prosecutor to proceed in taking those allegations and evidence to court [2].

The legal framework criminalising bribery is quite strong, but there is a gap between the legal rules and implementation. This point is has been mentioned by scholars [3]. However, it should be noted that there are implications of undue influence in enforcement, particularly within the Turkish Armed Forces, despite the fact that this is not made publicly available.

Open-source research confirms these remarks because, in the past two years, there have not been any reports, news pieces or content discussing a case or investigation relating to bribery within the military.

According to Section 29 of the UPDF Act (2005) the Inspectorate of Defence forces has the powers to; a) ensure accountability and transparency within defence forces ;b) to combat graft and generally ensure professionalism and modernisation of the defence forces. Accordingly, the issues described under sub indicator 4 can be interpreted as graft. Graft means any form of corruption like self profitong, bribery, nepotism etc are are stipulated in the UPDF Act (2005). Further more Section 178 of the UPDF Act (2005)[2] talks about the conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the UPDF, while Part X under Section 221 of the UPDF Act (2005)[3] outline the various scale of punishemnt that awaits any offender including death. While these laws may not be followed in practice especially in dealing with the senior officials, they are in place.

There are strong measures in place when dealing with corruption and other related crimes. Sometimes a military general court-martial gives appropriate sentences to those who have been found guilty [1]. On 16 August 2016, it was reported in the media [2] that nine Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) soldiers serving under the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) were sentenced to prison for misconduct. The soldiers were found guilty of pursuing personal interests and endangering the operational efficiency of the UPDF, contrary to Section 124 of the UPDF Act [3]. However, some of the causes of corruption are affected by undue political influence, especially when the case involves those who are considered politically connected [4].

There is a range of clearly defined offences in law which apply to defence sector personnel. For instance: appropriation, misappropriation or seizure of property by abuse of official position (Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), abduction, appropriation, extortion of firearms, ammunition, explosives or radioactive materials or their taking possession of them by fraud or abuse of office (Article 262 of the CCU), the abduction, appropriation, extortion by a serviceman of weapons, ammunition, explosives or other combat material, means of transport, military and special equipment or other military property, as well as their taking possession of them by fraud or abuse of office (Article 410 of the CCU), abuse of power or official position (Article 364 of the CCU), illegal enrichment (Article 368-2 of the CCU) and other [1]. Penalties for corruption are also provided by the Code on Administrative Offences of Ukraine (Articles 172-5, 172-7 and other) [2]. These offences cover offering, giving, receiving and soliciting of bribes. The Criminal Code of Ukraine stipulates prosecution, incarceration, dismissal and considerable financial penalties as sanctions for offences.

There are several public authorities in Ukraine responsible for the investigation and prosecution of offences, including corruption. SAPO prosecutes high-level corruption (including defence and security top-level officials) following NABU investigations. All other cases are currently prosecuted by the General Prosecutor’s Office (Military Prosecutor’s Office) following investigations conducted by either the SSU or the National Police depending on particular violations.
NABU can be seen as one of the effective authorities tasked to combat corruption; it is also one of the first public institutions to investigate high-level corruption cases with active MoD officials involved [1, 2, 3]. There are reasons to doubt SAPO’s independence since its Head was recently suspected of certain illegalities [4].
At the same time, the MoD website reported on cases when the chief of defence initiated an official investigation of an officer who was allegedly involved in bribery [5], deprived two corrupt officers of military ranks [6] and dismissed a commander of the military unit from the AFU [7]. The MoD Anti-corruption Unit provides information that shows 83 corruption criminal offences cases (in regards to the MOD and AFU personnel) were included to the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations in 2016 [8].

There is a range of clearly defined offences in law that apply to the defence sector concerning bribery and corruption, and for this reason. Research has revealed that Federal Laws No. 6 and 7 of 2004, which specifically apply to the armed forces, clearly define bribery and prohibits corruption within the defence sector (1). Article 47 of this law prohibits an officer from accepting gifts of any sort whatsoever, whether directly or indirectly. There is also evidence that appropriate sanctions are in place through the Federal Penal Code, which imposes penalties on individuals and companies violating domestic bribery laws (1). These sanctions include criminal prosecution, incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties. This demonstrates that there are effective measures in place for personnel found to have taken part in forms of bribery and corruption. In reality, bribery and financial corruption are strictly forbidden and anyone engaged in such acts (non-nationals) would be deported or imprisoned (2), (3).

In cases of corruption by noncitizens, they would be prosecuted and then deported and prohibited from employment in the UAE. However, there is no evidence that citizens have ever been prosecuted before on charges of corruption because of political influence (tribes and connections) (1), (2).

The Bribery Act 2010 [1] criminalises bribery and sets clearly defined offences in law that apply to the defence sector. These offences cover the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty [1].

The penalties for committing a crime under the Act are a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment, along with an unlimited fine, and the potential for the confiscation of property. The Bribery Act is considered among the strictest legislation internationally on bribery [2]. Armed Forces personnel and Civilians Subject to Service Discipline are subject to the Armed Forces Act 2006 in which several offences akin to theft and fraud are applicable both in criminal and administrative terms [3]. The Fraud Act is also applicable in this context [4].

The Ministry of Defence Police investigate corruption involving the Ministry’s employees (including members of the UK’s armed forces) or contracts [1]. Instances of bribery or corruption are investigated and disciplined through formal processes, and outcomes of investigations are made public [2]. Armed Forces personnel suspected of related offences are also ordinarily investigated by the respective single service police [3]. If charged, personnel can be dealt with administratively or through summary hearings and Court Martials [4]. There is no indication of any potential undue political influence in the process of investigating corruption cases.

Bribery is criminalised under Title 18 of the US Code [1], which applies to all public officials (including employees of any department, agency or branch of the government). The code criminalises demanding, seeking, receiving, accepting and agreeing to anything of value (see part b) and the sanction for these crimes is imprisonment for up to 15 years, and/or a fine equivalent to or no greater than three times the monetary equivalent of the bribe, and/or disqualification from their office [1].

Bribery (asking, accepting, receiving, promising, offering or giving) is also criminalised under Title 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice [2], which is punished under the discretion of court-martial.

There do not seem to be any statistics published on the number of corruption or bribery cases investigated by the DCIS, however, the annual DoD ‘Top Management Challenges’ report includes a breakdown of criminal investigations. Between FY 2015 and FY 2019, the DCIS closed 304 cases related to public corruption, which included criminal offences relating to bribery, conflicts of interest and embezzlement [1]. The DoD OIG website publishes details on charges and convictions of DoD personnel as a result of DCIS criminal investigations, while a search of the term ‘bribery’ in the archive for 2020 brings up 11 results of charges against DoD personnel [2]. There is no evidence of undue influence in DCIS investigations in the media. Furthermore, the Office of Government Ethics issues an annual survey of prosecutions involving the conflict of interest statute, which includes those against defence personnel [3]. The 2019 report includes two cases involving defence personnel, one of whom was uncovered as part of the investigation relating to the ‘Fat Leonard’ case [4].The ‘Semiannual Report to the Congress’ by the DoD OIG includes a section on ‘DCIS Investigations of Cases Involving Senior Government Employees’, which fulfils a requirement to report investigations of senior government employees (GS-15 or O-6) where the allegations were not previously disclosed to the public [5,6].

The legal instruments establishing the offences and misdemeanors for which National Bolivarian Armed Forces (FANB) officers can be punished do not specifically define corruption and bribery. However, they do outline offences against the military administration that could be associated with corruption malpractices.

The crimes established in the Organic Code of Military Justice (COJM) include embezzlement of funds, the use of property in the sector for the personal profit, fraud in the administration of property, and theft, among others [1]. These definitions are limited to covering behaviors such as bribery, influence-peddling, and conflicts of interest. In the case of bribes, for instance, the Military Discipline Law (LDM) includes the request or receipt of compensation in exchange for acts of service as a serious offence, much as the COJM indicates that receiving compensation in exchange for a service is an aggravating circumstance within the offences it defines – but does not establish it as an offence in itself [2].

The penalties for committing such offences within the military can range from two to eight years’ imprisonment, as well as expulsion from the armed forces [1, 2].

The Prosecutor’s Office of Investigations has made announcements against FANB members for participation in cases of corruption [1], much as there is clear evidence of officers’ involvement in organised crime activities and of irregularities in the management of private military companies [2]. Nonetheless, there is no evidence to suggest that judicial proceedings have been initiated by either the military or the ordinary courts.

According to civil society organisations, high levels of impunity and the deterioration of justice (due to its politicisation) prevent judicial proceedings from being initiated even in the face of evidence and denouncements [3]. The involvement of defence officials in illegal economies has been especially denounced by different organisations. One example involves the specific case of impunity for troops involved in the collection of bribes and extorted money for the sale and smuggling of food controlled by military companies or public companies led by the military [4]. This lack of justice primarily relates to political control over the judicial branch, where judicial proceedings are used as tools of persecution and punishment for those military personnel or civilians who express disagreement with the regime [5,6,7,8].

The Defence Act does not specifically mention crimes that can be clearly classified as corruption – the list of crimes in the Defence Act does not include graft. The crimes outlined in the statute mostly speak to issues of theft and receiving of stolen goods [1]. That, therefore, leaves issues of corruption and bribery or solicitation of a bribe to be dealt with through the Criminal Codification and Reform Act which is a law that outlines all general crimes against the State and applies to almost every Zimbabwean bar the immunity particularly to the president [2]. The Criminal Codification and Reform Act defines bribery and corruption as covering offences such as offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty; concealing from a principal a personal interest in a transaction; concealing a transaction from a principal; criminal abuse of duty as a public officer. Possible sanctions under the Defence Act include criminal prosecution/ incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties [2].

Instances of bribery, corruption or theft are investigated and disciplined both within the military court-martial system and the general court system. There have been several reported cases of corruption involving military and intelligence service members who were arrested and arraigned before the courts in the general criminal justice system [1, 2]. What can be problematic in the enforcement is the influence of the Zimbabwean military’s high-ranking officers of the State in Zimbabwe, where the interests of the military are involved, it can be difficult to prosecute [2, 3, 4].

Country Sort by Country 35a. Sanctions Sort By Subindicator 35b. Enforcement Sort By Subindicator
Albania 100 / 100 50 / 100
Algeria 100 / 100 50 / 100
Angola 100 / 100 75 / 100
Argentina 100 / 100 50 / 100
Armenia 100 / 100 100 / 100
Australia 100 / 100 100 / 100
Azerbaijan 50 / 100 25 / 100
Bahrain 50 / 100 25 / 100
Bangladesh 100 / 100 75 / 100
Belgium 100 / 100 100 / 100
Bosnia and Herzegovina 100 / 100 25 / 100
Botswana 100 / 100 100 / 100
Brazil 100 / 100 75 / 100
Burkina Faso 100 / 100 25 / 100
Cameroon 100 / 100 0 / 100
Canada 100 / 100 50 / 100
Chile 100 / 100 75 / 100
China 100 / 100 50 / 100
Colombia 100 / 100 75 / 100
Cote d'Ivoire 100 / 100 0 / 100
Denmark 100 / 100 100 / 100
Egypt 25 / 100 0 / 100
Estonia 100 / 100 100 / 100
Finland 100 / 100 100 / 100
France 75 / 100 75 / 100
Germany 100 / 100 100 / 100
Ghana 75 / 100 50 / 100
Greece 100 / 100 25 / 100
Hungary 100 / 100 50 / 100
India 75 / 100 75 / 100
Indonesia 100 / 100 50 / 100
Iran 75 / 100 50 / 100
Iraq 25 / 100 0 / 100
Israel 100 / 100 75 / 100
Italy 100 / 100 75 / 100
Japan 100 / 100 100 / 100
Jordan 100 / 100 25 / 100
Kenya 100 / 100 50 / 100
Kosovo 25 / 100 75 / 100
Kuwait 25 / 100 0 / 100
Latvia 100 / 100 75 / 100
Lebanon 50 / 100 NEI
Lithuania 100 / 100 100 / 100
Malaysia 100 / 100 75 / 100
Mali 100 / 100 0 / 100
Mexico 75 / 100 25 / 100
Montenegro 100 / 100 25 / 100
Morocco 0 / 100 25 / 100
Myanmar 0 / 100 25 / 100
Netherlands 100 / 100 75 / 100
New Zealand 100 / 100 100 / 100
Niger 100 / 100 0 / 100
Nigeria 100 / 100 25 / 100
North Macedonia 100 / 100 75 / 100
Norway 100 / 100 100 / 100
Oman 25 / 100 25 / 100
Palestine 100 / 100 50 / 100
Philippines 100 / 100 50 / 100
Poland 100 / 100 75 / 100
Portugal 100 / 100 100 / 100
Qatar 25 / 100 25 / 100
Russia 100 / 100 75 / 100
Saudi Arabia 100 / 100 25 / 100
Serbia 75 / 100 50 / 100
Singapore 100 / 100 100 / 100
South Africa 100 / 100 100 / 100
South Korea 100 / 100 100 / 100
South Sudan 50 / 100 25 / 100
Spain 75 / 100 50 / 100
Sudan 25 / 100 0 / 100
Sweden 75 / 100 100 / 100
Switzerland 100 / 100 100 / 100
Taiwan 100 / 100 75 / 100
Tanzania 100 / 100 75 / 100
Thailand 50 / 100 0 / 100
Tunisia 100 / 100 75 / 100
Turkey 100 / 100 50 / 100
Uganda 100 / 100 50 / 100
Ukraine 100 / 100 75 / 100
United Arab Emirates 50 / 100 25 / 100
United Kingdom 100 / 100 100 / 100
United States 100 / 100 100 / 100
Venezuela 75 / 100 0 / 100
Zimbabwe 100 / 100 75 / 100

With thanks for support from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have contributed to the Government Defence Integrity Index.

Transparency International Defence & Security is a global programme of Transparency International based within Transparency International UK.

Privacy Policy

UK Charity Number 1112842

All rights reserved Transparency International Defence & Security 2022