Skip to sidebar Skip to main

Q44.

is there a policy of refusing bribes to gain preferred postings? Are there appropriate procedures in place to deal with such bribery, and are they applied?

44a. Policy

Score

SCORE: 50/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

44b. Sanctions

Score

SCORE: 100/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

44c. Enforcement

Score

SCORE: 50/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

Compare scores by country

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

Relevant comparisons

A review of the policy documents of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the armed forces shows that there are no documents that set out distinct policies or rules against bribery specific to the promotion and appointment. The policy document on the recruitment of professional soldiers but it doesn’t include any reference to bribing or overall integrity in the recruitment and promotion [1]. Similarly, the document on the standard policies and procedures for the appointment of personnel in the armed forces doesn’t provide for any such clause [2].
However, the Penal Code refers to sanctions for passive and active corruption, that may include bribery to posting [3], and similarly, the law on the discipline in the armed forces refers to the acceptance of gifts as ‘minor infraction’ [4].

Sanctions on bribery, in general, are provided in the Criminal Code, the Military Criminal Code. According to the Criminal Code, the reception of any kind of improper benefit (bribes, offering gifts or facilitation payments) is illegal and punishable with penalties that range from six months to three years of prison [1]. According to the Military Criminal Code abuse of power is punishable with sentences of up to five years of imprisonment [2]. The Law on Discipline in the Armed Forces provides for administrative and disciplinary sanctions [3].

There are no reports published by the MoD on the activity of anti-corruption and integrity bodies, so the number of administrative sanctions for wrongdoing concerning appointments is not publically known. The data published by the prosecution office is aggregated and does not provide information on the specific violation of the investigated military personnel [1]. Allegations on bribery for posting in military missions abroad have been frequent as the demand for enrolment in such missions has been high due to the relatively high allocations and per diems [1]. The minister of defence has spoken publically about high ranking officers who received bribes from the soldiers but these allegations have not resulted in either a formal investigation or any prosecutions [2, 3].

No evidence could be found that such a policy is in place. The Statute of Military Personnel does not mention such a regulation. The law only provides some general rules for the recruitment and promotions process (1). The only regulation that could be found was in the anti-corruption law, which generally prohibits bribery (2).

In light of there being no regulations or rules found, no sanctions specific to bribes to gain preferred postings could be found in the Statute of Military Personnel (1) or the Military Justice Code (2). Art. 33 of the Anti-Corruption Law generally says that abuses in office are punishable by imprisonment between two to ten years and a fine of 200,000 to 1,000,000 DA (3). It is not specifically linked to bribes in the military.

This sub-indicator has been scored Not Applicable because no evidence in reports or articles could be found that sanctions are applied when bribes are made to gain preferred postings. Also, the General Statute of the Military Personnel (1) and the Justice of the Military does not provide any information (2) This score is also supported by the fact that there are also no formal regulations or sanctions.

Corruption is punishable by imprisonment in the Criminal Code (Art. 318-323) (1) and other legislation such as the 2014 Anti-Money Laundering Law. In the 1994 Military Law, corruption-related offences are considered common crimes (Art. 49) (2), while penalties are increased by one third. However, there is no specific reference in the legislation about bribery being used to gain preferred postings (1), (2).

The Criminal Code (2018) 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 increased by one third (Art. 49) (2).

There have been occasional media reports on convictions for bribery (mostly of police agents). However, President Dos Santos has periodically issued broad amnesties that also cover corruption-related offences, the last in 2016, which indicates undue political influence (2), (3), (4), (5).

According to a media report from 2013, the military veteran group Fórum Independente dos Desmobilizados de Guerra (FIDEGA) claimed that officials of the armed forces regularly requested illegal payments of $500 to list them as beneficiaries of social pensions, while the list included government officials (1).

There is legislation and a general policy regarding bribery in public office. There is a common discipline code for all the Armed Forces and the respective regulations for each Force, where some situations related to bribery and conflict of interest are included and where minor, serious, and very serious offenses are listed. There the strictly disciplinary issue is codified, with autonomy from the criminal issue. The latter belongs to the jurisdiction of ordinary justice and is governed by the National Criminal Code, where the crimes of corruption, bribery, and other crimes against public administration are classified. These cover offering, giving, receiving, or requesting any object of value to influence the actions of an official or of any person in charge of a public or legal duty. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] In practice, the implementation usually demonstrates that there is a delay in cases as a result of other various crimes linked to corruption, and there is a low conviction rate. According to a study carried out by three organisations, the Civil Association for Equality and Justice (ACIJ), the Center for Investigation and Prevention of Economic Criminality (CIPCE), and the Office for the Coordination and Monitoring of Crimes against Public Administration (OCDAP), the causes of corruption last an average of 11 years and many prescribe throughout the process. [7] [8]

The acceptance of bribes by a public official in order to obtain preferred posting and/or any other benefit constitutes a crime in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI concerning Bribery and Trafficking of Influences of the National Criminal Code. [1] It constitutes a disciplinary offense in accordance with the provisions of the Armed Forces Discipline Code. [2] [3]

The types of sanctions under the code of discipline of the Armed Forces depend on the seriousness of the offense, but are susceptible to criminal charges under the Criminal Code. Violation of the discipline code of the Armed Forces, especially those considered serious and very serious, follow a written procedure whereby an audit officer intervenes, the offender is summoned to answer for his actions, and a decision is made by the superior in command. [4] [5]

In the case of serious disciplinary offense and crime, the code establishes that the authority who is aware of the incident must formalise a criminal complaint before the corresponding judicial instance with prior knowledge of the Ministry of Defence. [6] In this case, the person in question would face criminal charges under the jurisdication of a criminal court, including incarceration or fines. [7]

The applicable regulations regarding bribery, both civil and military, are governed by Chapter VI concerning Bribery and Trafficking of Influences of the National Criminal Code and constitute a disciplinary offense in accordance with the provisions of the Discipline Code of the Armed Forces. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] The disciplinary processes are internal, so it is not possible to know the cases or their regularity. Complaints by military officers in the ordinary courts is not common, at least based on media reports. According to an interviewee, [7] the corresponding disciplinary actions are contemplated if these practices are proven in justice. Still they are not common. As stated above, the delay in the trials and the few convictions related to acts of corruption in the public administration in general show problems with the application of the regulations. Likewise, another obstacle in complying with regulations is that a change in judicial cases is indicated according to the government in office. [8] It bears mentioning that within the security forces (police), which in Argentina fall outside the jurisdiction of defence, acts of corruption are more frequent have fewer convictions. [9] [10]

Bribery is a criminal offence in Armenia and is regulated by the Criminal Code. Articles 311, 312, 313 address receiving, giving and mediating bribe accordingly. There are no separate policies or legislation for conscription related bribery offences, the sphere is regulated through the Criminal Code, and all the clauses addressing bribery equally refer to the offences that occur while trying to get preferred postings [1].

Article 311 of the Criminal Code addresses accepting bribery. Clause 1 of Article 311 anticipates paying penalties of 300-500 times of minimum wage or imprisonment for up to five years with the impossibility of holding some state positions within three years of the case of bribery for favourable treatment within the official’s scope of responsibilities. Clause 2 of Article 311 anticipates a punishment of imprisonment for up to seven years for accepting bribes for illicit activity [1].

Once a case of bribery occurs, the provisions of the Criminal Code come into play. In particular, there was a case when a deputy military commissar, a lieutenant colonel requested a bribe of 3000 USD to shift a military serviceman’s location closer to his hometown. He was charged through Clause 4 of Article 311 of the Criminal Code [1, 2]. The military police of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) are consistently taking operative measures to reveal cases of bribery and fraud [3, 4].

Bribery is strictly disallowed by the Criminal Code Act 1995 and defence policy, and though this is not explicitly applied to bribery in pursuit of a preferred posting, this is clearly disallowed in the context of the general prohibition of bribery. The Criminal Code Act 1995 devotes Part 7.6 to bribery and related offences, making it illegal to offer or give [1, 141.1(1)(a)(i)] a bribe to a Commonwealth public official and for a Commonwealth public official to accept [1, 141.1(3)(a)(ii)] or solicit a bribe, among other bribery- and corruption-related offences [1, 141.1(3)(a)(i)]. 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” [2]. However, there is no explicit legislation or policy on bribery to gain preferred postings [3].

The Criminal Code Act 1995 says the potential penalty for bribery offences named in Q44A by an individual is up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a AU$10,000 fine [1]. Civilian personnel of the Department of Defence can be terminated for breaches of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct [2], and Military Personnel can face military justice and dismissal for breaches of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 [3].

The only recent case of bribery in defence reported in the media was the accepting of bribes by Australian Navy Commander Alexander Gillett, who was implicated in the Fat Leonard bribery scandal that has resulted in wide-ranging investigations, court cases, and sanctions in the United States [1]. Gillett was forced to resign from the Australian Navy after his security clearance was revoked during investigations of the Fat Leonard case [2]. Extenuating circumstances and extensive cooperation with investigators led the court to allow Gillett to avoid jail time, though he was facing up to 5 years in prison [3]. Given the lack of other publicised cases, it is unclear how well-enforced the bribery sanction regime is in defence.

Giving and receiving a bribe in Azerbaijan are considered a crime by law, cases with the bribery continue in the country’s conscription system. There are no special rules or policies against bribery for soliciting postings.
Experts believe that in general, the fight against corruption today is not taken seriously. Young citizens bribe to avoid military service. The goals are:
In order to be fully ineligible to military service (for certain real and non-specific diseases);
To delay the military service (to abolish service due to certain bribes during each call season);
To serve in the appropriate military unit (to avoid serving in military units located far or on the front line) (1, 2, 3).
One way to limit corruption in regards to gaining preferred postings is strengthening the role and increasing the transparency of the State Service for Mobilization and Conscription. From 2012, the “Statute on State Service for Mobilization and Conscription” was the main document (4) regulating the process, but in 2017, presidential changes to this law strengthened the role of the State Service for Mobilization and Conscription. The electronic appointment system and random posting is a way to limit bribery. In 2017, subparagraph 5.6.12 was added in the law: “enlists people for active military service and hires to work in the Service, appoints military servicemen to and dismisses them from a post, with the exclusion of officers, sends to reserve or dismisses them from active military service”. The State Service for Mobilization and Conscription will not only enlist people for active military service and employment but will also be mandated to relieve a person from their post. There are limited mechanisms and policies on fighting bribery, but this was a small improvement.

There are not concrete sanctions for “soliciting preferred postings through bribery”. However, in various laws and the Criminal Code, corruption is considered a criminal offence, and it also applies to the military. However, there are no specific penalties for the bribing to gain preferred postings.
According to Article 311 of the Criminal Code (1), receiving a bribe is called “passive bribery”. Bribery acts committed by an official for illegal actions (inaction) shall be punished by imprisonment for the term from five up to ten years, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for up to three years. According to Article 312, giving a bribe is considered “active bribery”. Bribery or repeated bribery by an official for illegal actions (inaction) shall be punished by a fine ranging from two thousand to four thousand manats, or by deprivation of liberty for the term from four to eight years.

When the State Service for Mobilization and Conscription was created in 2012, several staff members were arrested for corruption (1). In February 2015, Turan Information Agency, a Baku-based independent news agency, reports that a deputy chief doctor of the Sabirabad Central District hospital, who is also the head of the military-medical commission tasked with conscription, was arrested for corruption, charges included allegedly taking bribes for deeming men unfit for military service. Further corroborating information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this response (2).
Sanctions are rarely applied to officials who engage in bribery, and no proper sanctions are imposed. When the current minister of defence was appointed, it was observed that some officials were held liable under criminal law, but the public was not informed about the results of the criminal proceedings and the sanctions imposed against them (3). Generally, not only in the military but also in other state institutions, officials who engage in corruption are not punished appropriately. For instance, it was revealed that last minister of the former Ministry of National Security engaged in large scale corruption. However, he was not arrested (4). Currently, there are no reports of people in the defence sector being arrested on charges of corruption. A US State Department report stated, “[t]here was widespread belief that a bribe could obtain a waiver of the military service obligation, which is universal for men between the ages of 18 and 35. Citizens also reported military personnel could buy assignments to easier military duties for a smaller bribe” (5).

According to the Personnel Military Law (Article 45-G), bribery and gifts to provide services or give advantages are considered a crime; however, no sanctions are defined in the law [1]. This legislation does not specifically refer to gaining posts, but it mentions generally taking advantage of official posts. In the Military Penal Code, there is an explicit reference to embezzlement and theft, however, it does not define the sanctions for these crimes beyond a general threat of ‘imprisonment’ [2].

There are sanctions for bribery, including imprisonment, but these are not clearly defined in the law. As no case of bribery has been made public, there is no possibility of knowing what the sanctions would be [1, 2, 3, 4].

As explained in 44A and 44B, although there is a vague threat of imprisonment, this sanction is not clearly outlined in either the Military Penal Code or other legislation [1, 2, 3]. As such, this indicator has been marked ‘Not Applicable’.

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’ imprisonment for illegal gratification, theft or dishonest misappropriation, or for extortion and corruption. The word ‘bribery’ is not directly used in these Acts, which instead refer to ‘illegal gratification’. This term covers the above clause, which also indirectly implies bribery and relates to ‘any affairs of the State or of any service’.

Corruption in the Air Force is tried and convicted by Court Martial [1] with short prison sentences. Corruption in the Navy is dealt by Navy Tribunal or General Court Martial with varying degrees of punishment [2], while corruption in the Army is dealt with by General Court Martial [3], with a maximum prison sentence of 5 years.

There is therefore Not Enough Information to score this indicator. There are no public records indicating that the relevant sections of the above-mentioned laws are duly applied or that the punishments outlined are imposed, since the proceedings of the Martial Court are strictly confidential [1].

Rules on active and passive bribery are stipulated by articles 242-252 of the Belgian penal code and article 8 of the Royal Decree of 2 October 1937 [1, 2]. They are generally applicable, and thus also include issues on soliciting preferred postings.

Sanctions on bribery are stipulated in articles 242-252 of the Belgian penal code and include prosecution, incarceration, dismissal and financial penalties [1]. Fines can go up to years in prison or thousands of euros, depending on the crime.

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’. There is no evidence that sanctions would not be applied when bribery occurs [1]. No cases on bribery for soliciting preferred postings could be found [2, 3].

The criminal codes criminalize several forms of corruption; including passive and active bribery and the bribery of foreign officials. Bribery, including bribing and receiving bribes, as well as mediation in giving and receiving bribes, depending on the specific legal framework is defined by the criminal law of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of the entities of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska and Brcko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina [1, 2, 3,4]. The laws do not specifically mention bribery to gain preferred postings/positions but give a wider definition which encompasses it. Sanctions are always applied following the applicable laws when someone is found to be guilty by the competent courts. Provisions of the criminal codes apply to all members of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina (AFBiH) [5]. Article 30 of the Law on Service in AFBiH stipulates that persons serving in the AFBiH shall be held criminally liable for criminal offences under the criminal codes [5].

Sanctions including criminal prosecution/ incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties are prescribed by the criminal laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the entities of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska and Brcko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina [1, 2, 3, 4].
All the laws list sanctions and prison sentences for described criminal offences. The Law on Service in the Armed Forces and the Civil Servant Law specify that if someone in military service or the civil service has been sentenced to at least six months in prison, their service or employment will be terminated [5, 6].

In 2018, authorised officers of the AFBiH’s Military Police reported eight cases to the BiH Prosecutor’s Office, because elements of criminal offences were found in those cases [1]. The examples of prosecution of persons for violations of the provisions of the Criminal Code and the regularities of the punishments applied in those cases are given in the links below [2, 3].
The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s “Trial Monitoring of Corruption Cases in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Second Assessment” mentions 189 ongoing corruption cases. The same report analyzed the conviction rate of 111 finished cases in 2017-2018, where data shows that there was 33% conviction rate in the three high corruption cases (two convictions of imprisonment which were converted into fine), as well as 74% and 61% conviction rate for medium and low corruption cases [4].

Bribery is dealt with in terms of the Corruption and Economic Crime Act (CECA) [1]. There is no policy and/or strict rules relating to bribery for soliciting preferred postings that specifically applies to the military. The general rules as provided for in CECA apply in such instances [2]. Section 24 of CECA provides that a public officer is guilty of corruption in respect of the dutiesof his office if he directly or indirectly agrees or offers to permit his conduct as a public officer 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. Section 26 of CECA provides that. if, after a person has done any act as a public officer, he accepts, or agrees or offers to accept for himself or for any other person, any valuable consideration on account of such act, he shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, to have been guilty of corruption in respect of that act before the doing thereof [1].

The Sanctions as provided for in CECA apply as soliciting bribes for preferred postings is classified as corruption [1,2]. In terms of section 36 of the CECA, any person who is guilty of corruption or cheating the revenue under this Part shall, upon conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine not exceeding P500.000, or to both.

In terms of the law, CECA provides appropriate enforcement mechanisms [1,2]. In practice, there are no reported cases that directly implicate the BDF, except that which involves the former Director of Intelliegence Services (DISS), Isaac Kgosi. He was arrested and charged with corruption whilst he was still the head of DISS. At the time of research, his case is still before the Courts in Botswana. As such, this indicator cannot be scored and is marked ‘Not Enough Information’.

Despite not having specific policy or rules about bribes for preferred postings [1], it is unlikely that they would occur due to the implication of the ethical code of the military. Favouring a preferred person due to previous work with this person may happen, normally when superior officers take a command post and invite specific people to his/her team. This practice is not illegal and does not involve bribery [2]. The legislation covers “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”.

The Military Criminal Code [1] is explicit about sanctions on cases of bribery. Once prosecuted and incarcerated, the military will also respond to other associated crimes, for example, for dishonouring the force, the person will inevitably be discharged and lose their rank. In some cases, he or she will also lose their rights to a pension (see 43B for examples).

It is not clear if these sanctions are applied in the realm of Military Justice since ‘active’ transparency on the Military Court’s website does not offer this data [1]. Interviewees who chose to remain anonymous stated that when bribery is found, it is often formally dealt with, although it is difficult to measure if it actually happens in all cases. There are cases of unreported bribery offers that were later found by the intelligence services, which led to a military police inquiry.

According to Dr. Wetta Claude, Executive Secretary of the National Anti-Corruption Network (REN-LAC), such a policy does not exist (1). This is true for Burkina Faso in general, and the defence sector, in particular. There is no evidence on the existence of a policy or rule against bribery for soliciting preferred postings. If such a policy were to exist, it would be illicit anyway, as its purpose still reflects bribery and corruption. However, refusing bribes is what the law recommends from all. And yet, it may open doors for incentives, to encourage many people to do so. Burkina Faso has laws, policies and institutions against bribery and corruption. No evidence was found on refusing bribery for gaining preferred postings (1), (2), (3).

There is no evidence of an existing policy against bribery for gaining preferred postings in Burkina Faso’s Army. Since such a policy or rule does not exist, no sanctions can be applied. However, bribery and corruption remain widespread in the country (1), (2), (3), (4). However, bribery and corruption, in general, are criminalized and punishable under the Penal Code (5).

There is no evidence of an existing policy against bribery for gaining preferred postings in Burkina Faso’s Army. Since such a policy or rule does not exist, no enforcement can be applied. As such, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.

The following legislation criminalises corruption in Cameroon:
The penal code of Cameroon (Law No. 67-LF-1 of 12 June 1967):
– Article 134 criminalises the giving and taking of bribes.
– Article 137 penalises offering and receiving bribes, extortion and collusion with public employees.
– Articles 142 and 160 criminalise intent of extortion, collusion or bribery as offences.
– Articles 161, 184 and 312 criminalise embezzlement.

– Decree No. 95/048 of 1995 and Law No. 2000/015 of 19 December 2000 sanction corrupt magistrates.
– Decree No. 94/199 of 7 October 1994 penalises administrative offences.
– Law No. 2006/3 of 25 April 2006, Declaration of assets and properties.

Criminal Procedure Code:
– Law No. 67-LF-1 of 12 June 1967
– Law No. 177/23 of 6 December 1977
– Law No. 72-16 of 28 September 1972
– Law No. 2005/007 of 27 July 2005

Special Criminal Court:
– Law No. 2011/028 of 14 December 2011
Bank confidentiality:
– Law No. 2003/004 of 21 April 2003
Financing of political parties and election campaigns:
– Law No. 2000/015 of 19 December 2000
National Anti-Corruption Commission:
– Decree No. 2006/088 of 11 March 2006. [1] [2] [3]

Other policies include:
– National Governance Programme,
– Cameroon Tax Code,
– Cameroon Public Service Code,
– Cameroon Public Procurement Code,
– UN Convention against Corruption ratified by Cameroon on 25 April 2004,
– UN Convention on the Fight against Transnational Organised Crime
– African Union Convention on the fight against corruption. [4]

The Penal Code gives provision for criminalisation with sanctions for bribery and corruption ranging from five years to life imprisonment as well as the payment of fines and seizure of property [1].

A 2016 report from the International Crisis Group states that “several witness accounts stress that customs officers bribe their superiors in Yaoundé to get themselves posted to the Far North” [2] [3] [4].

Police and gendarmerie officers extort money through bribes before rendering services to citizens [2]. The laissez-faire attitude in which bribery and corruption is addressed within the defence and security sectors explains why these sectors remains one of the most corrupt according to Afro-Baromenter (2015) [1]. The fact that bribery and corruption are so widespread across all government levels and sectors indicates that the laws governing bribery and corruption are inconsistenly enforced [3].

Ther are a number of Department of National Defence (DND) directives that relate to this subject, including DAOD 7025-0 Fraud Protection and Management, [1] DAOD 7024-0 Internal Disclosure of Wrongdoing in the Workplace, [2] DAOD 7026-1 Special Examinations and Inquiries, [3] and the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. [4] There are multiple checks and balances in both the career management system and in the chain of command to address any personal influence by the individual being posted. For CAF members, paragraph 117 in the Code of Service Discipline of the National Defence Act states: “receives directly or indirectly, whether personally or by or through any member of his family or person under his control, or for his benefit, any gift, loan, promise, compensation or consideration, either in money or otherwise, from any person, for assisting or favouring any person in the transaction of any business relating to any of Her Majesty’s Forces …”” [5]
DND personnel can be indicted under “Frauds on the Government” section of the Criminal Code (section 121), which defines fraudulent acts: “demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for himself or another person, a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission”. [6]

Sanctions can include criminal prosecution/ incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties. Providing bribes for a posting could result in charges under section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada, [1] Sections 80 and 81 of the Federal Financial Administration Act, [2] and paragraph 117 (f) of the National Defence Act. [3] For the CAF in practice, records indicate from 1999 to 2019 monetary penalities relating to fraud have been no more than $10,000 in fines, reduction in rank, reprimand, and sentences well under 1 year imprisonment.[4]

Enforcement could take place under Queen’s Regulations and Orders (QR&O) article 4.02, General Responsibilities of Officers [1] and article 5.01, General Responsibilities of Non-Commissioned Members. Sanctions are published by DND press release [2] and by the Office of the Chief Military Judge. [3] However, given that only 1 case citing bribery is found, that is, the term ‘bribe’ queried in the military judicial desicion search, [4] it may be inferred that sanctions are not consistently applied.

Military officials and authorities are considered public officials and authorities, and are also subject to general legislation when acting outside of their service, or when the victim is not part of the military. They can be sanctioned for committing passive or active bribery under the ordinary court, although the specific act of bribing when soliciting preferred postings could be considered an infraction committed within the scope of military service. The specific act of bribing to obtain preferred postings is not classified under the law as an infraction [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9].

While sanctions are not specifically applied to cases in which bribes are used to gain preferred postings, general legislation might apply to punish these cases. The Penal Code establishes sanctions for crimes and simple offences committed by public employees in the performance of their charges, and these apply to authorities in the defence sector [1]. Sanctions for bribing (cohecho) include the penalty of minor seclusion in its medium degree, absolute disqualification for public offices or offices in its minimum degree, and fines for both who requested and who accepted the benefit. If the benefit is not economic, the fine is from 25 to 250 monthly tax units. Bribes have also been included in the Handbook for the Prevention of Crimes by Personnel in the Subsecretary for the Armed Forces. Sanctions are not specific to the act of soliciting preferred postings through bribery [2, 3].

There is not enough evidence to score this indicator.

There is no specific information on the regular application of appropriate sanctions or punishments when bribery is used to obtain preferred postings. In addition, information on the actual punishment of bribery in the defence sector is limited. While the corruption-related offence of fraud, embezzlement and influence peddling have deserved considerable attention, cases of bribery have been less publicised and investigated, making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of enforcement. Despite these observations, there are examples in which the investigation and prosecution have resulted in actual sanctions. In general, the evidence indicates that bribery seems to be related to the areas of military acquisition, contracting and procurement rather than for the undue advancement within the military career [1, 2, 3, 4]. If bribery occurs for career advancement and to obtain preferred postings, it is not clear that appropriate sanctions or punishment would apply.

Bribes for any posting are strictly forbidden according China’s Criminal Law and to both Military and Party regulations. [1,2] However, in practice, gift-giving, a culturally acceptable practice (due to guanxi) is widely seen as normative and is used to secure favourable appointments. [3,4]

China’s Crimimal Law has strong anti-bribery provisions. These apply to all military personnel and include criminal prosecution and incarceration, demotion and dismissal, and considerable financial penalties, including confiscation of wealth. State and army officials found guilty on corruption grounds may receive the death penalty (usually commuted to life sentence).

Sanctions are applied to officers found guilty of bribery. However, given the political nature of anticorruption in China, officials with connections to powerful Party leaders can escape punishment. In addition, despite heavy enforcement in recent years, gift-giving for promotions has been so widespread [1,2] that more time is necessary to evaluate the results of this enforcement.

The Law on Recruitment or Decree-Law 1861 of 2017, defines a series of sanctions related to the development of behaviours that violate the proper functioning of the process of recruitment, control of reserves, and mobilisation of personnel. [1] Public servants from the recruitment service or any person who attempts to prevent, obstruct, deceive, delay, bribe, or constrain the authorities of the Recruitment and Mobilization Service are defined as infringers. The regulations emphasise that the penalties for these crimes are already stipulated in the established criminal and military laws. Law 1474 of 2011 or the Anti-Corruption Statute, [2] amending Article 444 of the Penal Code, [3] recognizes “bribery” as the surrender or promise of money or other usefulness to a witness to obscure the truth or remain silent in whole or in part in their testimony. Likewise is the Single Disciplinary Code of the Civil Service, Law 734 of 2002, [4] defines a series of prohibitions on public servants, including direct or indirect request for gifts, entertainment, gifts, favours, or any other kind of benefit, or the generation of any kind of coercion on public servants or on individuals exercising public functions, for personal gain. Decree 1797 of 2000, [5] outlines the disciplinary regime of the Armed Forces, and recognizes as grave offenses the request and acceptance of commissions or gifts in money or in kind for the acquisition of goods and/or services for the Armed Forces and the demand for money or gifts for official services that they are required to undertake. Finally, in Law 1765 of 2015, [6] regulates military criminal justice and states that “crimes against the public administration” committed by members of the Armed Forces must be tried under the provisions of the Military Penal Code and the Criminal Code, in addition to its supplementary rules. A comprehensive regulatory framework exists in Colombia which recognises the crime of bribery in the exercise of the civil service. It is not possible to show more clearly the existence of a policy of the Ministry of Defence or of the Military Forces and Police related to the definition of appropriate procedures to prevent, reject, and process bribes in the recruitment process.

Penalties for the offence of bribery range from imprisonment to fines. The Anti-Corruption Statute [1] and the Penal Code [2] impose penalties such as imprisonment from six to twelve years and fine of 100 to 1,000 salaries. For its part, the Single Disciplinary Code of the Civil Service [3] classifies disciplinary misconduct between very serious, serious, and minor, to which each deserves a kind of sanction that goes between the dismissal and disqualification, the suspension from office, a fine, or a written warning. Law 836 of 2003 [4] defines sanctions for members of the Armed Forces who commit crimes against the public administration defining general and special disqualifications. Law 1407 of 2010, [5] recognises two main penalties, imprisonment and fine, in addition to ancillary penalties such as the prohibition of the exercise of profession or office, the absolute dismisall from public force, house arrest, the ban of public rights and functions, among others. Article 59 of this Law also defines disciplinary sanctions such as the absolute severance from the Military Forces for serious misconduct, suspension for up to 90 days when serious or serious misconduct occurs, and simple, formal or severe punishment, in the face of minor faults.

Given multiple corruption events within the Military Forces, civil society sectors, the press, and control entities have questioned the application of the current regulations and the role of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the process of enforcing justice. The supervisory body has high disapproval ratings related to its role in ending impunity and corruption. In 2016, it received a vote of 57% favourability for its management, and 56% and 62% in 2017 and 2018, respectively. [1, 2, 3] According to Interviewee 6, it is clear that the application of justice to Military Forces does not occur in a timely manner, and investigations can last for years without results. [4] Semana magazine columnist Maria Jimena Durán has claimed that when corruption scandals inside Military Forces were exposed by a media, this allowed for timeliness in prosecutions and the rapid response of the Prosecutor’s Office. [5] According to the position of the Prosecutor’s Office, the application of penalties for bribery is ineffective. An individual linked to serious acts of corruption (bribery) who should spend between 6 and 12 years in prison may only receive a sentence of a year and a half. An individual can benefit from accepting charges at the time of indictment, which can lead to a reduction of up to half the sentence, reducing prison time to about six years. Then whilst in prison, there is the benefit of work and study, which allows for a further reduction of the sentence with two days reduced for one served, essentially allowing for individuals to serve only three-fifths of the sentence, “in conclusion the effective penalty for a bribe in Colombia is a year and a half”. [6]

The Military Code of Conduct (Law n° 2016-1109 Portant Code de la Fonction militaire, Official Journal, 16 February 2016) (1) does not prohibit bribery for soliciting for preferred posting in the defence and security sectors. There are no known policies or rules against bribery for soliciting preferred postings within the defence and security sectors specifically. However, the Criminal Code and Order No. 2013-660 (as amended by Act No. 2013-875 of 23 December 2013), both documents consider the soliciting, offering and receiving of payments for the performance or non-performance of a public official’s function, a criminal offence (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 Defense or security officials (2), (3).

Following Act No. 2013-875 of 23 December 2013 ratifying Order No. 660 of 20 September 2013 on (ORDONNANCE no 2013-660 du 20 septembre 2013 relating to the prevention and fight against corruption and similar offences), bribery and influence peddling are codified offenses as per Articles 15, 16, 18 and 21 (2), (3).

The Review of Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (2017) states, “Bribery and trading in influence (arts. 15, 16, 18 and 21): The active and passive bribery of public officials (Order No. 660, art. 29) through the direct or indirect offering or promise to a public official of payment, gifts or benefits, or the acceptance or solicitation by a public official of a bribe, constitute an offence in Côte d’Ivoire” (3).

As per the Criminal Code (Law No. 81-640, Instituting the Penal Code), the act of offering, giving or promising a bribe to a public official or the act of soliciting, authorizing or receiving a bribe is considered a criminal offence. According to Articles 233 and 234, the act of soliciting or paying a public official to perform an official function is codified as a crime (4).

As per Article 1, of Order No. 660 (as amended), the scope of application defining a “public official” would de jure cover personnel in the defence sector (2). 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 (2).

Order No. 660, (as amended) 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 inaction of 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). Art. 30 – “Any public official shall be punished with 1-5 years of jail and penalties ranging from 100,000 to 1 million FCFA for soliciting or accepting a cash payment or in-kind payment (rétribution en espèces ou en nature) for him/herself or for a third party for an official act that has already been performed” (2). Furthermore, Order No. 660 (as amended), 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) (2). According to Art. 233 of the Criminal Code – “Any public official will be punished with imprisonment from three months to one year who is found guilty of soliciting or accepting a payment in cash or in kind for himself or for a third party, as compensation for an official act already performed.” According to Art. 234 – “Whoever seeks to obtain the accomplishment, the execution or the postponement of an act through favors or benefits provided for in Article 233, or who uses threats, promises, payments, gifts or presents or gives in to solicitations for corruption, even if he/she has not taken the initiative, will be punished with the same penalties as those provided for individuals convicted of corruption, whether the coercion or corruption has or has not produced its effect.” Article 233 punishes the individual who uses gifts or presents or gives in to solicitations tending to pay for an act already performed by one of the individuals referred to in Article 232 (3).

No public evidence found for enforcing sanctions against perpetrators in the defence ministry for soliciting bribes to gain preferred postings. Generally, there is an overwhelming lack of evidence that cases of bribery or corruption among defence personnel are investigated and prosecuted. The UNHCR Freedom in the World 2018 report on Côte d’Ivoire says, “corruption and bribery remain endemic, and particularly affect the judiciary, police, and government contracting operations. Perpetrators seldom face prosecution” (1). Although no evidence in open sources reported of MoD officials sanctioned or disqualified from public office as a result of bribery, the general lack of prosecutions for public officials involved in corruption reflects the cases of military and security officials as well.

Moreover, the High Authority for Good Governance (HABG) established by Order No. 660 to ensure that the provisions of the Order are enforced is highly criticized by Ivorian media as ineffective in terms of enforcement. See Q35B above (2), (3).

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]. This includes both offering, giving, receiving or soliciting bribery. The national policy for good conduct in the public sector applies to the defence domain as well [2]. There are specific administrative directives that concern 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 benefits between superiors and subordinates [3, 4, 5]. Further, the Military Penal Code criminalises the superiors’ unjustified reception of subordinates’ gifts, loans or other advantages (abuse of position) [6].

Sanctions for bribery exist in law: In the Penal Code, offering and receiving bribery are sanctioned by fine or jail of up to six years [1]. In the Military Penal Code, abuse of position is sanctioned by fine or imprisonment of six months unless higher punishment is prescribed by other legislation [2].

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable, as there are no cases of bribery for soliciting preferred postings.

Law no. 232 of 1959 concerning service conditions and promotion for armed forces officers as well as other relevant laws and decrees does not mention a policy for refusing bribes to gain preferred postings (1). According to our sources, there are no known policies which are applied against brines to gain promotions (2), (3). As one source put it “such policies never existed for 35 years of my service, despite the fact the leadership knows about many cases of gifts for promotions” (4).

There are no sanctions as there are no policies or regulations that punish such activities. It is not defined as a risk and therefore, there are no policies or sanctions (1), (2), (3). Nowhere in relevant laws are sanctions for soliciting preferred postings through bribery mentioned.

This sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable because, according to our sources, in the case of bribes, it is usually in the form of gifts and not money. And therefore, there are no known cases of persecution or sanctions being applied despite the evidence of corruption and bribery (nepotism) (1), (2), (3). There is no formal mechanism for sanctions when solicited preferred postings take place.

There is no law on bribery that specifically applies to the Defence Forces. As described in Q43, giving, accepting and arranging bribery are criminal offences in Estonia. [1] There are no internal documents to duplicate the already existing law on bribery. [2]

There are no known cases where a serviceman has bribed someone to gain a preferred posting. The situation is rather the reverse: the Defence Forces have created incentives to fill certain positions that are more difficult to fill due to lack of staff, a former flag officer said in an interview. [1] In cases when a rather unpleasant position needs to be filled quickly, an agreement is made: after the term of the posting is over, the candidate is sent to his or her preferred posting. As described in Q43, accepting, arranging or giving bribes is punishable by a pecuniary punishment or up to five years’ imprisonment. Dismissal as a punishment is not included in the legislation. [2]

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable.The Assessor found no evidence of an occurrence of bribery for a preferred posting.

Act on State Civil Servants, Chpt 4, Section 15 states: A civil servant may not ask or accept financial or other benefit, when it may decrease trust on the civil servant or the authority. [1]

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. [2] The Criminal Code of Finland, chpt 16, section 13: A person who promises, offers or gives to a public official in exchange for his or her actions in service a gift or other benefit intended for him or her or for an-other, that influences or is intended to influence or is conducive to influencing the actions in service of the public official, shall be sentenced for the giving of bribes to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years. Also a person who, in exchange for the actions in service of a public official, promises, offers or gives the gift or benefit referred to in subsection 1 shall be sentenced for bribery. Section 14 is about the aggravated giving of bribes. [3]

Act on the Defence Forces, chpt 4, section 48 states: A professional soldier who relevantly or continuously acts against or neglects his duties may be suspended for min. one and max. six months unless a warning or another measure is not considered act sufficient given the gravity or recurrence of the wrongful act. Pay may be suspended for the same period of time. The authority deciding upon dismissal of the official shall begin the process within three months since it became aware of the activity that may cause dismissal. Before a decision is made about the dismissal, the authority must provide the professional soldier with a chance to be heard in the matter. Also the shop steward must be provided with a chance to be heard in the matter upon the professional soldier’s request and there is no justified reason for an immediate dismissal. [1]

Possible sanctions include criminal prosecution/incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties. The Criminal Code of Finland, chpt 40, Section 1 states: 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 cover the aggravated acceptance of a bribe and bribery violation. [2] The Criminal Code of Finland, chpt 16, section 13 states: A person who promises, offers or gives to a public official in exchange for his or her actions in service a gift or other benefit intended for him or her or for an-other, that influences or is intended to influence or is conducive to influencing the actions in service of the public official, shall be sentenced for the giving of bribes to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years. Also a person who, in exchange for the actions in service of a public official, promises, offers or gives the gift or benefit referred to in subsection 1 shall be sentenced for bribery. Section 14 covers the aggravated giving of bribes. [3]

There are no reports on appropriate sanctioning not having taken place from media sources or court rulings. Although bribery is very rare in Finland, there is the presence of a ‘godfather network’, in which senior officials support select junior staff through their careers and into better positions; in essence a system of favouritism. This was reported by the former Human Resources Manager of the Navy in 2020 [1].

Although there is no explicit mention of “bribes to gain preferred posting” in the military forces per se, these fall under the definition of corruption in Article 432 of the Penal Code, defining active corruption and passive corruption, encompassing bribery to gain advantages. [1]

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 a final decision (Article L.7 of the Electoral Code). [2]

No record was found of any case of bribery.
No element leads us to believe that, should there be cases of bribery to gain preferred postings, sanctions wouldn’t be applied by the justice system, just like the justice system has been independently prosecuting corruption cases involving the Ministry of Defence (ICS influence-peddling case, [1] Balard favouristim case [2]).

Offering/taking bribes is considered a criminal act according to prevailing legal provisions, notably the Criminal Code (see also Q35A) [1,2]. However, there is no dedicated policy of refusing bribes to obtain preferred postings in the defence sector.

With regard to the selection and promotion of personnel, there are formal processes in place to render the appointments objective (see Q42A).

Bribery can result in imprisonment for up to ten years (depending on the severity of the case). If a soldier or official is charged with bribery, they automatically lose their status. In concrete terms, this means that public officials are not allowed to demand, accept or allow themselves to be promised any advantages/benefits for any kind of purpose [1].

Corruption/bribery is not only met with criminal charges, but also leads to consequences based on civil service or employment law (such as a potential loss of position, status, claims for benefits). These provisions apply to bribery of all kinds, including payment to obtain desired positions [2]. See also Q35B.

With regard to the enforcement of general bribery legislations, there is evidence that there is strict investigation and prosecution (see also Q35B) [1]. No cases of bribery to gain preferred positions could be identified in recent years. Therefore this indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’.

Section 239-245 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) criminalises corruption of and by a public officer or juror (“Every public officer or juror who commits corruption, or wilful oppression, or extortion, in respect of the duties of his office, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour” Section 239.1 and “Whoever corrupts any person in respect of any duties as a public officer or juror shall be guilty of a misdemeanour” section 239.2).

The definition of corruption is broad as it includes direct and indirect corruption by gift, promise, or the prospect of gaining any value, including the acceptance of a bribe (Section 244) or the promise of a bribe (Section 245) (1).

Corruption cases are prosecuted as misdemeanours, which upon conviction result in a maximum of three years in prison. However, in March 2017, the current finance minister announced the government’s intention to amend the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), to upgrade corruption to a felony offence, and increase the prison sentence to a maximum of 25 years (1).

Despite a strong legal and political framework, there are still significant gaps in the implementation of anti-bribery measures. A lack of funds and staff for the enforcement institutions are often cited. For instance, in July 2018, the Ghana Anti-Corruption Coalition urged the government to properly resource and staff the bodies and law enforcement agencies involved in the fight against corruption (1).

To empower the law enforcement architecture, the current Akufo-Addo administration, established in July 2018 the Office of the Special Prosecutor (2).

Bribery and corruption are defined as offences by law [1]. Article 235 states that “An official who requests or receives, directly or through a third party, for himself or for another, any unlawful benefit of any kind, or accepts the promise of such benefit, for his action or omission in connection with the performance of his duties, future or already finished, punishable by imprisonment and a fine” [1] This applies to gain preferred postings as well as other possible situations (e.g. avoidance of disciplinary action).

Sanctions for soliciting preferred postings include criminal prosecution and dismissal [1, 2], but there are no maximum penalties for imprisonment and fines. Moreover, there is no such tradition of bribery in the Greek Armed Forces; instead, officers may seek political support for promotions and preferred postings.

Appropriate sanctions are regularly applied when bribery occurs [1]. Junior officers are not allowed to offer gifts to senior officers according to Article of 24 of the Military Code of Conduct [2]. There are no known cases of offering bribes to gain certain postings.

The Criminal Code in Hungary [1] includes sections that address offering, giving, receiving, and soliciting bribes. It is not a defence specific law but meets all criteria regarding officials (including defence officials). The Criminal Code regulates in detail, how various cases of bribery are to be handled. Moreover, Paragraph No. 300 of the Criminal Code specifically stipulates that if any official person fails to report bribery, the person may get punished by three years of incarceration [1]. In the 1990s there were reportedly some cases, where bribes paid a role in posting to well-paid positions abroad, for example, to UN positions [2]. However, these cases came to an end through Hungary’s NATO and EU accession, when the possibility of getting deployed or posted abroad became widely available. Since then, there are no known cases of posting-related bribery. As the source responsible for selected posting suggested currently they are rather having a hard time to attract people, even to high-level opportunities [3].

Sanctions include criminal prosecution/incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties [1]. The Criminal Code regulates in detail, how various cases of bribery are to be handled. Moreover, Paragraph No. 300 of the Criminal Code specifically stipulates that if any official fails to report bribery, the person may be punished with three years of incarceration [2].

When bribery happens, and it is revealed, the criminal law is applicable to military personnel as well. However, there are no known cases where sanctions or punishments have been applied [1]. Those persons working or previously worked for the army among the interviewed people had no experience, and had no awareness (even of rumours) that this had ever happened. As such, this indicator is scored Not Applicable.

There is no specific policy relating to bribery for soliciting preferred postings. All nation-wide anti-corruption policies and legislation are applicable to the defence sector. There is also regulation in each Armed Forces branch’s Act covering bribery offences, for example 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:

“25. 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]

There have been reports of the CBI arresting Army officials involved in a preferred postings racket in 2017. An FIR was filed under Sections 7, 8, 12, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [4].

Technically, as bribery is an offence in the Armed Forces, sanctions for any bribery offence include criminal prosecution/incarceration and dismissal and the aforementioned can be applied in the case of bribery for soliciting preferred postings [1][2]. Gifts of Rs 150 upwards cannot be accepted and if after an inquiry it is proven that the accused has accepted such a gift, it will lead to a Court Martial [3].

There is evidence to suggest that cases are being investigated through formal procedures. In 2017, the CBI arrested Army officials including a Lt. Colonel for seeking monetary gratification from officers in exchange for granting them favourable postings [1][2]. The accused were charged under Sections 7, 8, 12, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [3][4].

State civil apparatus (ASN) positions are filled in accordance with the Law on ASN [1], which requires openness. Furthermore, regulations and penalties regarding bribery for position selection are stipulated in the Penal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana/KUHP) [2]. Details of sentences are explained in the Law on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption [3]. Penalties for bribery are imposed on both the giver and the recipient of the bribe [4]. Gratification control is also mandated in the regulations of each ministry, which explain in detail what is and what is not considered a gratuity [5]. Meanwhile, the guidelines for the process of controlling the offering, giving, receiving or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person with a public or legal duty are regulated in Article 1 of Minister of Defence Regulation No. 16/2015 [5]. Article 2 states that any bribery offences, in the form of money, goods and/or services related to the offender’s position and/or contrary to their obligations or duties, must be reported [5].

Penalties for the perpetrators of bribery (briber and recipient) include administrative sanctions [1] and prison sentences of between four and 20 years, with a fine between 200 million to 1 billion rupiahs [2]. However, since the Gratification Control Unit (UPG) in the ministry is obliged to submit periodic gratuity reports to the KPK every three months [1], the KPK can take over the investigation and prosecution functions from the UPG [3] by involving the police and the Prosecutor’s Office.

In the Gratification Control System at ministry level, which includes the Ministry of Defence [1], the Minister is responsible for the Gratification Control Unit (UPG), as detailed in Article 5 of Minister of Defence Regulation No. 16/2015 [1]. The UPG processes reports of received gratuities. All gratuity reports from Ministry of Defence employees are received by the Gratuity Control Unit (UPG), which reviews the report and provides recommendations as to whether the report should be processed by the UPG or the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). Reports received and processed internally by the UPG are followed by sanctions, usually in the form of administrative sanctions. Meanwhile, Article 7 of the same regulation states that the status of gratification reports that are under the authority of the Corruption Eradication Commission is determined as receiving or giving a gratuity if considered to be bribery by the Corruption Eradication Commission [1]. A summary of gratification reports is submitted to the Corruption Eradication Commission every three months. In cases of corruption or bribery for rotation, transfer or promotion of positions that are investigated and prosecuted by the KPK in the Corruption Court Trial, offenders are generally punished with imprisonment and fines [2,3,4]. However, a quick check of the KPK 2019 annual report failed to find the Ministry of Defence or the Armed Forces among 210 state institutions that submitted gratification reports [5]. There is no news on for soliciting preferred postings through bribery in the Armed Forces. However there is a case in 2016 whereby a military personnel was sanctioned for receiving bribery in the selection process of potential cadet [6]. The person was put into military jail and stripped from his position upon following the legal process.

Bribery is condemned in the Armed Forces Penal Code [1]. Article 118 refers to bribery in relation to preventing a soldier from doing his duties, but there is not a specific provision against bribery for soliciting preferred postings.

As there does not seem to be a policy or rule against soliciting preferred postings through bribery, there are no sanctions for this activity. Preferred postings through connections and use of influence is reported [1].

This indicator is marked Not Applicable, as no sanctions for soliciting preferred postings through bribery exist in law [1].

Iraq’s military penal code contains provisions that prohibit personnel from giving or receiving bribes. Law 19 of the year 2007, discusses the application of sanctions, the security actors subject to sanctions, and applies to several offences including fraud, embezzlement, theft, dishonesty, perjury, bribery, sodomy and prostitution. Bribery is mentioned in Clause 77 (1).

Iraq’s Military Penal Code catalogues ‘high’ and ‘low’ level sanctions determined by the crime/act in question (1). It refers to crimes of treason which are punishable by death according to the Code of Military Criminal Procedures of 2007 (2). Lesser crimes may land offenders in jail temporarily. Other sanctions include exclusion from service or a demotion in rank. Sentences and sanctions are relaxed only in mitigating circumstances. Sanctions apply to both personnel and procurement officials. There is no specific details on sanctions for bribery however.

Given that it is unclear that there are sanctions in place for the offence of using briberty to gain preferred postings, this indicator has been marked not applicable.

The Israeli Penal Law 5737-1977 prohibits 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 (see Articles 290-297 of the Penal Law) (1). General Staff Directive 33.0112 “Gifts, Benefits, Donations, Fundraising and Fines” forbids a soldier from requesting or receiving gifts due to being a soldier, due to his position in military service or in exchange for an act done in the framework of his military service (2). The legislation applies to all military authorities and bribery 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 (1).

In addition to criminal sanctions under the Penal code, Israeli law also allows for 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. Confiscation may occur where a bribe has been transferred to a non-bona fide third party (1). Article 297 of the Penal Law deals specifically with confiscation on conviction for a bribery offence and allows confiscation of what was given as a bribe and the proceeds of bribery (2). State Attorney Guideline 9.15 refers prosecutors to Article 297 and notes special provisions concerning forfeiture for bribery offences (3). Furthermore, the Public Service Commissionership has rules regarding suspension of employees during the investigation or after they have been convicted – which apply to the defence sector and the procedure for suspension and temporary transfer to another position by the public service commissioner (4).

Public officials have been convicted of bribery in cases where assistance in gaining a preferred public position was determined to be a bribe (1) (2). Additionally, in the IDF, if criminal activity is suspected, a military police investigation shall be initiated. In such a case, an appointment can be revoked, or if a person has begun serving in the position, he/she can be suspended until legal proceedings have been concluded. In case of conviction, such a person can be dismissed from the service (3). These procedures are determined under High Command Instruction 3.0226 “Suspension and Removal”, which was authorized by the Minister of Defence (3). In the MOD, besides the regular criminal procedure, similar instructions and procedures are in place regarding suspension, dismissal etc. under the Civil Service Regulations.

Bribes and corruption in public administration is forbidden by law and punished according to the national penal code, section 2, Title II [1]. Moreover, specific provisions against bribes in the armed forces are provided by the Three-year Anticorruption plan of the Administration [2] and further specified in the Code of Conduct of the personnel of the Ministry of Defence [3], where under section II, art. 3 it specifies that offering, giving, soliciting and receiving any item, for him/her or any other person is prohibited.

Possible sanctions, may include criminal prosecution, dismissal, incarceration and financial penalties as defined by national law for acts of bribes and corruption in the public administration [1]. Imprisonment can vary according to the type of crime committed:for embezzlement from 4 to 10 years; bribery from 6 to 12 years; corruption from 3 to 10 years depending on the illegal act performed.In addition, Presidential Decree of 16 April 2013, n. 62 indicates disciplinary responsibility that can be attributed by the administration [2].

According to the 2019 report of the Anticorruption supervisor, a total of 20 cases of corruption occurred in the acquisition and management of personnel (see section 2B of the report) [1]. Presumably an equal number of investigations occurred, but there is no evidence on the website. In the same report, section 12 identifies the number and entity of sanctions and punishments occurred during the year. According to public media, punishment and sanctions have been applied in cases of bribes to enter the military service and bribes related to economic treatment [2].

Chapter XXV “Crimes of Corruption” of the Penal Code covers bribery of Japanese public officials. [1] It does not define the term ‘bribe,’ although this has been interpreted by the courts as anything that “fulfills a man’s need, greed or desire”. Giving, offering or promising to give a bribe are offenses. Only a natural person, i.e. human being as distinguished from a legal person (as a corporation) created by operation of law, can be held liable for these corruption related actions under this Code. [2]

Under the Penal Code, [1] 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. [2]

No examples of attempts to pay bribes to get preferred postings were identified, as such this indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’. Offenses committed by SDF personnel – such as not showing up for duty without giving notice – have been punished with dismissal. [1]

Article 30 of Law No. 35 of the year 1966, Officers Service Law of the Armed Forces, issued in accordance with Article 126 of the Jordanian Constitution, clearly prohibits military personnel from offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting an item, which could potentially influence the actions of an official or another person in charge of public or legal duty [1]. However, although the policy, stipulated in Law No. 35 of the year 1966, does not explicitly specify bribes for preferred postings, it still applies to such incidents. There are clear policies that strictly apply to bribes within defence in the country. In addition to the specific legislation that relates to the armed forces, Jordan has a number of legislations and regulations that prohibit bribery in general. These include (1) The Civil Service Regulation No. 82/2013, (2) the bribery related provisions of the Jordanian Penal Code No. 16/196, (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]. It is important to note here, whilst bribery is prohibited according to Article 30 of Law No. 35 of the year 1966, there are no sanctions imposed for it through the Military Penal Code [3], and thus bribery within the defence sector for preferred postings, or in general, is not considered a military crime.

There are clear policies against bribery that apply specifically to the defence sector [1, 2]. Even though sanctions are not set out in the military penal code [3], there are other provisions within the law that impose sanctions on bribery and those include criminal prosecution/ incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties. The Penal Code distinguishes between two types of bribes, those made in return for (1) an illegitimate service, or (2) a legitimate service that is part of the duties of the official. Penalties include 3-20 years imprisonment for an illegitimate service, and two to three years imprisonment for a legitimate service [2]. There are sanctions imposed on bribery, and bribery is clearly defined as a crime in relation to defence personnel in Jordan.

Bribery is not condoned by the law and posts including prescription as soldiers, are gained through loyalty and relations, not through bribes. According to a military officer, accepting a bribe can harm one’s status within their tribe and their position in the armed forces. Therefore, most people avoid such practices [1,2,3].

Acts of corruption and canvassing for favours by military personnel are defined as offences in the Kenya Defence Forces Act section 124, [1] which in-turn refers to broader legistlations and offences in other laws including Bribery Act No. 47 of 2016, The Public Officer Ethics Act No. 4 of 2003, Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act No. 3 of 2003. [2, 3, 4]. The Bribery Act No. 47 defines various offences such as giving and receiving bribes and soliciting, and outlines various sanctions related to these crimes if committed by state officers serving in any public or official duties, including as a group, whether in corporate circumstances or otherwise.

Sanctions for corruption related offences are outlined in the various legislations such as the Bribery Act, No. 47 of 2016, Part V of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act No. 3 of 2003 all of which apply to public entities including state organs such as the Kenya Defence Forces. [1, 2] The penalties for bribery stipulated by law under the Bribery Act of 2016 include imprisonment for a period of not more than 10 years, a fine not exceeding five milion Kenyan shillings or both. For the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act a fine could be up to one million shillings, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to both; an additional mandatory fine can be given as a result of the conduct that constituted the offence. [3] For Public Officer Ethics, as a result of an investigation under this Part, the Commission is of the view that civil or criminal proceedings ought to be considered, the Commission shall refer the matter to the Attorney-General or other appropriate authority.

Where, and if, cases of corruption in The Kenya Defence Forces (KDF) are prosecuted through court martials records of these prosecution, conviction and sanctions applied are rarely made public. The KDF does not reveal records of officers found guilty of corruption, and the sanctions applied to them. [1]

Some cases have, at times, appeared in media reports for example officers under trial, and cases of lengthy detention without trial for bribery among other offences in the court martial. Such cases paint a picture of inconsistency in the way sanctions are applied. [2] This is a reflection of the wider trends in enforcing sanctions-related corruption offences. Despite the stringent laws against offences, though some like the Bribery Act No. 47 of 2016 are fairly recent laws, prosecutions still perceivably remain few compared to the number of corrupt related offences reported in the media and institutions.

A survey, for instance, conducted by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) observed that 54 per cent of the respondents thought the Commission was not effective in the fight against Corruption. Nearly half of these respondents (22.1 percent) cited rampant incidences of corruption and unethical conduct as the main reason for the ineffectiveness, and more importantly 16.4 percent cited lack of results in dealing with the problem of corruption and unethical conduct. [3]

The Ministry of Defence has a Code of Ethics for the Kosovo Security Force (KSF), adopted in 2019 following the KSF transformation. It is publicly available on the Ministry of Defence website. It stipulates that KSF members must be entirely impartial while making decisions, as any biases may cause unjustified damage or compromise the national interest [1]. Furthermore, this Code of Ethics states that while serving in the KSF, its members are prohibited from demanding, accepting, giving, or promising any gifts or favours in a direct or indirect manner, for him/herself or for family members; except for in protocol cases in line with the Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Discharge of a Public Function [2].

Bribery is sanctioned and it is a criminal act that is punished by criminal prosecution. Any Kosovo Security Force (KSF) member who is convicted of a criminal offence will be charged with immediate imprisonment for over six months [1]. Furthermore, a KSF member will lose his/her staff status and his/her service will be terminated if convicted by the court [2].

Senior officials of the Ministry of Defence have confirmed that sanctions are regularly applied when bribery occurs [1]. That said, some Kosovo Security Members were prosecuted for criminal offences related to corruption [2], but there is no data to suggest that they were sanctioned. Aside from this, no information is available to confirm any cases of criminal offence within Kosovo’s defence sector.  

There is no explicit policy against accepting bribes to gain preferred postings, but there is a policy of not accepting bribes for any reason, and there is a policy against trying to escape some of one’s military responsibilities, which could come in the form of attempting to get a comfortable position illegally. Article 58 of the military trials law says that those found guilty of attempting to do this can receive up to seven years in prison, and article 55 says that those who tried to escape some or all of their military responsibilities in any way could get up to three years in prison and a fine of about 990 USD (1).

Sanctions for accepting any form of bribe includes sentences of up to seven years in prison, although the financial sanctions are quite minimal and accepting bribes does not warrant dismissal (1).

It is unclear if sanctions are applied when bribery occurs. State auditors, journalists and activists did not know much about the matter (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). There are no credible media reports about this. The complete lack of information about the matter suggests that enforcement is weak, because these practices are common, according to the activists.

The Ministry of Defence has approved the Code of Ethics, which defines the ethical principles of employees, their rights, duties, responsibilities and ethical standards. This Code of Ethics is published on the Ministry of Defence’s website. The implementation of the Code of Ethics and an objective and comprehensive assessment of the implementation of the principles and norms contained therein are supervised by the Ministry of Defence’s Ethics Commission, consisting of the Chairman of the Ethics Commission and six members of the commission representing various departments. The Ethics Commission deals with complaints and submissions regarding breaches of the Code of Ethics, provides advice to staff on issues of ethical conduct, and organises explanations of solutions to ethical and unethical behaviour, promotes ethical recruitment and politics of staff, and coordinates ethics training. The Code of Ethics in paragraphs 6.6, 6.8, and 8 address the issue of bribes. The Code of Ethics is binding on both Ministry of Defence and its subordinate institutions, including the National Armed Forces. [1] Other normative acts, regulating the behaviour of a soldier from an ethical standpoint include the 2012 National Armed Forces Chaplain’s Manua,l approving soldier values ​​(selflessness, courage, justice, dignity, trust, love) and standards (legality, reasonableness and professionalism), [2] Section 4, paragraph 1 of the Military Service Law, “Soldier’s oath”, to “be loyal to the Republic of Latvia, its Constitution and the legitimate government”, [3] Article 9 of the Military Service Law [3] and the Regulations of the Military Service Service, Chapter 3, “General duties of soldiers”, [4] the Rules of Procedure for the Solider and National Guardsmen Military Discipline, [5] and On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials – Section 7, “Special Restrictions on Combining Offices of Public Officials”. [6]

In Latvia, all forms of corruption are regulated by Articles 321, 321, 322 and 323 of the Republic of Latvia’s Criminal Code. The punishment for taking or giving a bribe or for embezzlement is a deprivation of liberty for a term of up to fifteen years, a temporary deprivation of liberty, forced labor or a fine.

This indicator is marked Not Applicable as no cases of bribery to obtain preferred postings within the defence sector have been registered to date. [1]

The Code of Military Justice identifies bribery as a criminal offence. However, the law does not elaborate on the various bribery offences serving as a way to influence the actions of officials (1).

Depending on the criminal offence, the sanctions range between prosecution, dismissal, and financial penalties. For example, for theft and embezzlement, sanctions can range between 1 to 3 years of imprisonment, and in some cases financial penalties (1). Furthermore, every soldier jailed for one or more months for a criminal offence is dismissed from the military, according to the Code of Military Justice (2).

Sanctions due to bribery are inconsistently applied. In the event of bribery prosecutions, the indicted officer(s) are discharged from the military (1). However, according to a source, cases of corruption have been superficially dealt with in the past, or they have been ignored (2). Nevertheless, recently some officers have been discharged from the military due to corruption cases (3).

Even though there are no concrete articles or provisions specifically related to obtaining preferred posting, the Lithuanian Criminal Code (Article 225-229) criminalises bribery. These articles cover offering, giving, receiving, soliciting any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty [1]. Moreover, in 2017, the Ministry of Defence approved the National Security System’s personnel policy concept, which sets main policy principles regarding the purpose, improvement and planning for personnel [2], and another one specifically for soldiers [3]. This policy concept describes how the personnel should be selected, promoted or appointed to certain positions.

The Lithuanian Criminal Code implements possible sanctions such as fines, arrest, restriction of liberty, prohibition on certain types of employment, and custodial sentences [1]. It foresees disciplinary measures such as a prohibition on certain types of employment and sanctions of imprisonment of up to 8 years, depending on the severity of the offence and the amount of the bribe. ​There are no publicly known nor confidentially disclosed cases with regards to bribes for postings. ​

Although sanctions for bribery exist in law, so far, there are no publicly known cases where bribery was offered to gain preferred postings. However, there are grounds to believe that were such cases to occur, appropriate enforcement of sanctions would take place.

There is a no-gift policy for all ministries in Malaysia. The directives are contained in the Service Circular Number 3 (1998) forbidding public officers “from receiving or giving gifts if it is related to his official public duty, and/or, the form, amount or worth of the gift does not commensurate with the intent of the gift.” [1] The regulations are well stipulated in the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC)’s Guidelines, which are available online for public consumption. [2] Soliciting for preferred postings could be subject to Malaysian Anti-Corruption Law relating to abuse of power. [3] Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence is one of many ministries that have a special anti-corruption officer, seconded from the MACC. Nonetheless, it is a open secret that “your closeness with your head of department or strong departmental political connection may land you to a preferred posting”. [4] [5]

Sanctions are contained in Act 694: Malaysian Anti-Corruption Act 2009. Under the law, corruption is defined as “the act of giving or receiving any gratification or reward in the form of cash or in-kind of high value for performing a task in relation to his/her job description”. A person who commits an offence is liable to “imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years; and a fine of no less than five times the sum or value of the gratification which is the subject matter of the offence”. Furthermore, those who fail to report an act of giving and offering bribes are committing an offence and can be fined not exceeding one hundred thousand ringgit and/or imprisoned for a period not exceeding 10 years, or both. Any person who knows of and fails to report an act of soliciting and obtaining bribes is committing an offence under Section 25 (3) and (4) of the MACC Act 2009. [1]

Officers who are found to be involved in bribery cases can be prosecuted under the Soliciting/Receiving Gratification (Bribe) legislation (section 16 & 17(a) MACC Act 2009). [1] There are many cases where some officers were punished either through termination of service, demotion or, in extreme cases, prosecuted under the MACC Act 2009. There is no public information available, however, for specific cases where an officer was punished. [2]

The new general statutes for the armed forces and the national police do not contain any provisions prohibiting the payment of bribes to obtain preferred postings.¹ ²
However, Article 120 of the Penal Code clearly states that is illegal for all civil servants, whether employed in an administrative, judicial or military capacity, to “solicit or agree upon offers or promises”, “solicit or receive gifts or presents” to obtain “awards, medals, distinctions, rewards, posts, functions or employment or any other favours from a public authority”.³

Article 120 of the Penal Code states that is illegal for all civil servants, whether employed in an administrative, judicial or military capacity, to “solicit or agree upon offers or promises”, “solicit or receive gifts or presents” to obtain “awards, medals, distinctions, rewards, posts, functions or employment or any other favours from a public authority”.³ Anyone found guilty of bribery in these circumstances can face from five to ten years imprisonment and a fine of twice the value of the approved promises or things received or requested, unless that fine would be less than 100,000 CFA.³
Moreover, the new general statutes for the armed forces and the national police make clear that military or police officials found to have contravened the Penal Code can face suspension and dismissal.¹ ² Article 86 of the general statute of the police states that police officers who have violated their professional obligations or broken the Penal Code can be suspended by decree, with the approval of the minister responsible for security.² Article 150 notes that officers will be dismissed from their post if they are found to have committed a criminal act.² Meanwhile, Article 36 of the general statute for the armed forces states that they are subject to penal law and to the military code of justice.¹ Whenever an individual becomes subject to a judicial investigation, he or she is stood down from active service until a definitive judgement is made. Breaches of the military disciplinary code or criminal offences can lead to the Council of Ministers dismissing the offending individual and can result in either the temporary or permanent loss of their professional qualifications.¹

Sanctions are rarely applied in cases of bribery that occur during recruitment processes.
Corruption within the police force is widespread and the opportunities for rent-seeking activities mean that it has become commonplace for applicants to have to pay bribes to advance their applications for lucrative positions.¹ ² ³ Media reports are damning. One article states that “it is well known in our country that the recruitment processes in the police violate all the rules. To be sure of success, one has to have contacts or pay cash”.¹ In a previous article, the publication had reported on allegations of fraud in the recruitment of 170 police officers.¹ The authorities reportedly opened an investigation into the claims, but the assessor found no evidence of any punishments as of April 2018.¹
The Netherlands Institute for International Relations highlights that corruption is particularly visible in the police and security forces, where jobs are distributed as political favours and sold at a price.⁶ “A job in customs, for example, can allegedly be bought for 2 million CFA (3,023 EUR). According to a European expert with extensive knowledge of the Malian security and justice sector, some 80 percent of recruits join the security forces in this manner.⁶
Furthermore, allegations surfaced in March 2018 that Malian police officers serving in international UN missions were facing extortion from their superiors to continue working for the UN.⁴ Officers claim they are having to pay a 30,000 CFA (50 USD) contribution each month to “finance the activities of their bosses in Mali, without any further details”.⁴ The payments reportedly go to the Ministry of Security and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.⁴
At the beginning of 2018, the Malian government wrote to the UN asking for a reduction in the length of the contracts of their police officers serving with the UN from two years to 18 months.⁴ UN sources note Mali is the first country ever to do this: developing countries are typically keen to send their police officials on UN missions, where they can boost their capabilities and have their salaries paid for by the UN. As a result of this decision, 49 Malian police officers serving in Congo, Haiti, CAR and Sudan will return home earlier than planned. According to police sources, this is because these officers had refused to pay the 30,000 CFA monthly contribution.⁴ The assessor found no evidence to indicate that any investigations are taking place.
A defence attaché working in Bamako said that a Lieutenant Colonel within FAMA told him that corruption is so widespread that you must be corrupt to get promoted.⁷ In the defence attaché’s view, illicit payments don’t necessarily skew the system, but they lubricate it. Many people are appointed because of their capabilities, but they still need to pay.
Nevertheless, there are rare instances of corrupt officials being held accountable. In November 2016, the daughter of a military general, who worked as a cook at a police training school, was condemned to five years in prison and ordered to repay 75 million CFA (140,500 USD) to 95 victims.⁵ Sergeant Aminata Kané was found guilty of having solicited bribes to facilitate successful applications for posts in the customs authority, the police, the gendarmerie and the national guard.⁵ Applicants had been ‘encouraged’ to pay between 100,000 CFA and 5 million CFA to secure jobs within the security forces.⁵

As such there is no strict policy regarding bribes when requesting preferred destinations. However, the Federal Penal Code states that “the public servant who by himself, or through a third party, unlawfully requests or receives for himself or for another, money or any benefit, or accepts a promise, to make or stop making a proper act of his functions inherent to his employment, position or commission, as well as the one that gives, promises, or delivers any benefit to [any public servant] to do or omit an act related to his functions, his employment, position or commission, will be committing bribery.” [1]

The military who by their position or commission intervene in the insaculation, lottery, and recruitment of conscripts, exclude from the registration or the lottery, obtain an unjustified exception, postpone their enlistment, replace them with different persons, or who in any other way violate the present Law and its regulations will be punished for the crime of violation of military duties with a one-year prison sentence. [1]

Regarding the sanctions that can be applied to those who carry out corrupt conduct to obtain preferred destinations, the Code of Military Justice will impose a sentence of eight months in prison on those who “use fraudulent resources or means that make it impossible for them to comply with any military obligation” [1] and those who “improperly request or receive money or any other gift, to do or stop doing something just or unjust, related to their duties” will be dismissed and disqualified for 2 years. [2]

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’, as there is insufficient information to know whether bribery sanctions are applied to attempts to obtain preferred destinations. At best, mention is made of certain bribery offenses without providing details. [1] [2]

The Criminal Code criminalises bribery for the obtainment of any benefit including in employment and promotion, while bribery 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. [1]

Possible sanctions include criminal prosecution and up to 12 years of imprisonment. [1] An employee in the defence sector who is found guilty and sentenced to longer than 6 months imprisonment will be dismissed. [2]

Concrete results are still lacking in the fight against corruption. [1] Cases of corruption in the army are very rarely reported and processed, while sanctions for bribery and corruption are inconsistent and usually very mild. [2] A request was made by the assessor to the MoD but the Ministry didn’t provide any information on this issue and explained that it was the responsibility of the judiciary and prosecution.

No evidence of policies or rules against bribery for soliciting preferred postings was found (1)(2):
⁃ In particular, the Regulations on General Discipline of the Moroccan Royal Armed Forces do not mention policies, rules or mechanisms against bribery for soliciting preferred postings within the military.
⁃ The new anti-corruption platform does not refer to bribery for soliciting preferred postings.

Moreover, the interviewees support the idea that bribery is widely practiced in this context (3)(4). This issue concerns other sectors, such as the police, local administration, public health and education personnel. This situation was referred to in a Wikileaks cable, which, although dated, is the last concrete evidence of the existence of bribery for soliciting preferred postings. According to it, military academy students bribe members of the administration to increase their class standings and obtain more lucrative positions or postings.

No evidence of sanctions for soliciting preferred postings through bribery was found (1)(2):
⁃ In particular, the Regulations on General Discipline of the Moroccan Royal Armed Forces do not mention sanctions against bribery for soliciting preferred postings within the military.
⁃ The new anti-corruption platform does not refer to bribery for soliciting preferred postings.

Moreover, the interviewees support the idea that bribery is widely practiced in this context, due to the lack of sanctions for people engaging in or benefiting from bribery (3)(4). This issue concerns other public sectors, such as the police, local administration, public health and education personnel. This situation was referred to in a Wikileaks cable, which, although dated, is the last concrete evidence of the existence of bribery for soliciting preferred postings and the lack of sanctions. According to it, military academy students bribe members of the administration to increase their class standings and obtain more lucrative positions or postings, without this being sanctioned.

Given that there is no legislation sanctioning bribery for postings, this sub-indicator is marked as non applicable.

The Military Misconduct Law includes provisions on the misuse of power and misuse of authority. The Military Misconduct Law is not publicly available and it is therefore not possible to clarify whether there are any provisions directly addressing the refusal of bribes for preferred postings. Section 52 of the Defence Services Act covers corruption and bribery in general and fails to directly address any policy of not accepting bribes for preferred postings [1]. Moreover, the 2008 Constitution grants the military the power to deal with corruption internally. According to Article 343, the decision of the Commander-in-Chief is final and conclusive in the adjudication of military justice [2,3].

Brigadier General Zaw Min Tun, spokesperson for the military, said that the military does not neglect corruption cases and has taken action against corrupt officials through its own internal mechanism. According to Brigadier General Zaw Min Tun, punishments in the military are harsher [1]. According to The Irrawaddy, such reports of corruption are rare. Section 52 of the Defence Services Act covers corruption and bribery in general and fails to directly address any policy of not accepting bribes for preferred postings [2]. We are not able to locate any concrete evidence with regard to bribery for preferred postings and the military rarely releases information about such cases.

The military tackles corruption internally and rarely makes prosecutions public [1]. Section 52 of the Defence Services Act covers corruption and bribery in general and fails to directly address any policy of not accepting bribes for preferred postings [2]. The assessors were not able to locate any concrete evidence with regard to bribery for preferred postings and the military rarely releases information about such cases. Therefore, this indicator is marked ‘Not Enough Information’.

Bribery for the purpose of soliciting preferred postings is clearly prohibited according to the Dutch Criminal Code, which, under Articles 363 and 178, forbids all officials from receiving payments in return for acting lawfully or unlawfully (passive bribery), as well as giving payments to persuade an official to act lawfully or unlawfully (active bribery) [1]. Indeed, Article 363 prohibits officials from accepting anything that would cause them ‘to do or refrain from doing anything in their ministry’. Furthermore, Article 70f of the Civilian Defence Personnel Code (pertaining to civilian personnel) and Article 126d of the General Military Personnel Code (pertaining to military personnel) also prohibit the requesting or accepting of bribes in the form of fees, rewards, gifts or promises [2,3].

Integrity violations (which include the acceptance of bribes for the purpose of favourably allocating a position) are investigated through the formal processes outlined in Chapter 6 of the document ‘Implementation of Defence Integrity Policy’ [1]. This process may culminate in criminal proceedings executed by the KMAR or the Public Prosecution Service. According to Article 363 of the Dutch Criminal Code, officials can be sentenced to up to six years’ imprisonment or receive a fifth-category fine for accepting or asking for a bribe [2]. Other penalties for ‘breaches of integrity’ include the filing of an official report, reprimand, relocation and dismissal [3].

This indicator has been marked ‘Not Applicable’. There are no known cases of bribery to gain preferred postings for the period of research for this iteration of the GDI.

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 who accepts, or obtains, or agrees, or offers 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 is liable for 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 detailed with an imprisonment term not exceeding three years [3].

As per the Crimes Act 1961, corruption and bribery penalties are clearly stipulated and persons are liable for imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years who accepts, or obtains, or agrees, or offers 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 is liable for 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 detailed, with an imprisonment term not exceeding three years [3].

Over the course of conducting the assessment no examples of bribery for preferred posting have been found within the sources consulted, examined or interviewed. As such, this indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’.

Both the Military Code and the Public Penal Code address corruption in general terms without explicit references to a policy of refusing bribes for preferred postings. However, such policies can be inferred generally from both legal frameworks.

Article 228 of The Military Code of 2003, states that officers found guilty of corruption, theft or other general crimes can be dismissed, demoted or imprisoned. Bribery to gain preferred postings can be considered corruption, even though it is not explicitly mentioned.

Connected to this, Art. 228 states:

“A custodial sentence of at least three months, with or without stay, given to an officer or non-commissioned officer for any of the following can also entail the loss of rank:
1) bribery of public officials;
2) theft, fraud, breach of trust.”
(Consultant translation French to English)

The Public Penal Code, Section VII on Corruption and Influence Peddling (Trafic d’influence), Articles 130–133, which applies to civil servants including military officials, contains penalties for corruption and influence-peddling in more detail. The penalties extend to those who solicit or accept bribes, offer gifts or use a public office (including military officials):

“Any elected official, public, administrative or judicial official, military official or person treated as such, agent or employee of a public administration or of an administration under the control of the public authority, or citizen in charge of a public service, who
who solicits or accepts offers or promises or who receives donations or gifts, to act or not act on its functions or profession, even legal, but not subjected to salary, shall be punished by two to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 to 1,000,000 francs.”
(Consultant translation French to English)

According to recent research confirmed by interviewees, different forms of bribe occur to gain preferred postings (1), especially in the border regions subject to different kinds of trafficking (2, 3).

As mentioned in 44A, the language in the Military Code and Public Penal Codes does not explicitly mention the payment of bribes (pot-de-vin) to gain preferred postings. Such infractions are described generally in the Military Code (Article 228) and in more detail in the Public Penal Code (Articles 130–133).
The anti-corruption code, discussed in detail in question 35, would also apply to bribes for preferred postings. 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 report to Ministry of Defence (Article 46). They are charged with finding and following up all infractions of the law (Article 47) at all levels of the armed forces (Article 48). Chapter III, Section 7 of the Public Penal Code (2) (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 francs. The law extends to persons soliciting or accepting offers, promises, gifts or presents. This includes being given an elected office or other official or government positions (Art. 130). Any person who has requested or approved bids or promises, solicited or accepted gifts or presents, to obtain or attempt to get decorations, medals, honors 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).

No evidence was found of such cases being investigated (1).

Section 98 of the Nigerian Criminal Code deals with the offence of corruption by defining what it is and describing its related offences (1), (2). Bribery offences defined under section 98 cover offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting property or of benefit of any kind (essentially any item of value) for oneself or any other person to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.

The Nigerian Criminal Code prohibits bribery and corruption and also gives provision for sanctions (chapter four of the code) (1), (2).

Although the Code spells out penalties for bribery, penalties are not consistently applied to all people accused, tried and charged for bribery (1).

There is no explicit policy with regards to refusing bribes for professional roles. In general, however, both the Law on Service in the Army [1] and the Code of Ethics [2] sanction cases of bribery, which would include any cases of bribery for professional roles. More concretely, the Law prohibits the acceptance and receive of gifts for material, financial or professional gains (Article 131/18) [1] while the Code stipulates the need to “avoid corrupt behaviour” and therefore discourages the acceptance of or request for gifts, services, help or any kind for material or financial gains (Article 10) [2]. In addition, the Criminal Code regulates these similar offences of accepting and giving bribes [3].

The Law on Army Service stipulates the sanctions for bribery range from 10-30 percent salary cuts, a ban on promotion to higher ranks for one year, demotion or dismissal from work (Article 132) [1]. No particularly harsh measures, such as prosecution or imprisonment, are prescribed by this Law [1]. These harsher sanctions are dealt with through the Criminal Code which can implement penalties of prosecution or imprisonment from 1-5 years (articles 357-358) [2].

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable. Formal mechanisms for sanctions are in place, but so far no cases of corrupt behaviour such as bribery, receiving gifts or conflict of interests have been recorded [1].

Bribery for soliciting preferred posting is prosecuted on the basis of the Penal Code §388 which defines aggravated corruption. §388 does not explicitly mention bribery for soliciting preferred postings, but it applies to acts of corruption “carried out by or toward a public official or any other person by violating the special trust attached to his position, office or assignment”. The Penal Code specifies that bribery offences include offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting bribes [1]. Section 10.19 of the State Personnel Handbook 2020 provides guidelines for dealing with corruption by civil servants [2].

The Penal Code §388 proscribes a punishment of up to 10 years imprisonment for aggravated corruption, which can be distinguished from other crimes of corruption by, among other things, being carried out by or toward a public official [1]. The State Personnel Handbook 2020 mentions dismissal and other disciplinary sanctions for corruption and specifies that the issue should be dealt with independently of criminal prosecution [2].

There are no registered cases of bribery for soliciting preferred posting in the defence sector [1, 2, 3]. This may be due to the strong laws and policy in place.

There is no specific legislation regarding bribery for soliciting preferred postings. Blanket anti-bribery legislation states any gifts, remuneration or commission, which affects an employees’ performance is prohibited under the Civil Service Law RD 120/2004 (1). RD 12/2011 “the Law on the Protection of Public Funds and Avoidance of Conflicts of Interests” prohibits preferential treatment without a justified reason in the public sector (2). The words bribery and corruption, are not used or defined within either piece of legislation (1), (2). However, bribery for soliciting a preferred posting would fall within the definition of gifts or remuneration in RD 120/2004, and RD 12/2011. In the defence sector, there is a lack of transparency over the selection process, no information is available around the selection of posts (2), (3), (4). Government bodies, such as the State Financial and Administrative Monitoring Institution and the National Center of Financial Information, investigation powers are overseen and limited by the public prosecution service (1).

The sanctions in place for soliciting preferred postings through bribery would fall within the general legislation mentioned in sub-section 44A, through RD 120/2004 and RD 12/2011 (1), (2), (3), (4). Punishments include a minimum fine equivalent to the bribe, up to ten years imprisonment, and the suspension of duties in office (2).

Enforcement of the above legislation including sanctions has occurred, but not concerning bribery to gain preferred postings (1), (2), (3), (4). No reports were found relating to the enforcement of sanctions in the defence or security sector (5), (6). Enforcements take place in the criminal courts, more specifically in the Courts of First Instance (7). While sanctions are enforced, there is insufficient evidence in the public realm to conclude that appropriate sanctions and punishments are regularly applied.

Bribery and corruption are defined as offences in the general law of the ACC (3). However, the law does not provide definitions, particularly on what constitutes soliciting or offering bribes. Bribery is not limited per se in ACC or the military apparatus law. The constitution mentions general misconduct and corruption offences (1), (2), (3).

According to the Military Service Law (Chapter 8, Articles 94-99), sanctions include criminal prosecution, incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties exist and may apply (1).

There are no known cases of military personnel who were prosecuted or punished because of their engagement with corruption cases or bribery (1). If these practices were discovered, the investigation would likely be held internally and not end with a trial or penalties according to the law (1), (2).

Bribery of public officials is penalised under Articles 210-212 of the Revised Penal Code [1]. In addition, other laws that penalise bribery to gain preferred postings include Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), which prohibits requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law [2]. Republic Act 6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) prohibits public officials and employees from soliciting or accepting, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favour, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person: (1) in the course of their official duties; or (2) in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by, the functions of their office [3]. Presidential Decree No. 46 (Giving of Gifts on any Occasions) punishes the act of giving, or offering to give, to a public official or employee, a gift, present or other valuable thing on any occasion (including at Christmas) when such a gift, present or other valuable thing is given because of the public official/employee’s position, regardless of whether or not the giver hopes or expects to receive a favour or better treatment in the future [4].

Penalties for violations differ for each law. The Revised Penal Code stipulates imprisonment for two to 12 years, a fine of not less than three times the value of the gift and suspension [1]. Republic Act 3019 stipulates imprisonment for six to 15 years, perpetual disqualification from public office and confiscation of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth [2]. Republic Act 6713 stipulates imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (or both) and, in the discretion of the court, disqualification from public office [3]. Presidential Decree No. 46 stipulates imprisonment for one to five years and disqualification from public office [4].

Patronage politics, which is widely practiced in government offices including the military, prevents adequate enforcement of sanctions or even the conduct of investigations [1].The “padrino” (patron) system allows appointive or elective officials to use their influence to force those with hiring and firing powers in the government to employ, if not promote, their protégés and supporters [2]. Padrinos usually get their underlings to occupy “lucrative” posts, hence worsening corruption, as these supporters find ways to pay back their enablers [2]. The Chief of Police has admitted that political patronage still exists within the ranks [3]. According to a news article, the AFP Inspector General is a three-star position but some of its commanders were denied their third-star rank because of the padrino system’s continuing role in the promotion and designation of senior officers [4]. Two bills related to political patronage are still pending in the Senate [5, 6]. Furthermore, the Office of the Ombudsman tasked with investigating corruption cases has stopped conducting lifestyle checks and restricted public access to officials’ Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth [7, 8].

The Polish Criminal Code (Articles 228-230a related to corruption) establishes sanctions, comprising of fines and imprisonment of up to ten years. The definition of ‘public official’ regulated in the Criminal Code includes the military and civilian defence personnel. Offences cover offering, giving, promising, receiving, soliciting and accepting promises of undue financial and personal benefits, directly or through intermediaries, in exchange of action or no-action in implementation of public duty [1]. Therefore they fully cover cases of bribery for soliciting preferred postings.

In case of bribes to gain preferred postings, there are administrative and criminal justice measures such as immediate suspension from the post, 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 228-230 related to corruption) establish sanctions comprising of fines and imprisonment of up to two years. The definition of public officials in the Penal Code covers military personnel as well [2].

According to data from the Ministry of National Defence, the number of detainees and convicted soldiers for corruption between 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 through 2017 the military police started 27, 32, and 49 new criminal investigations and continued 19, 29, and 27 criminal investigations in corruption cases against military and civilian personnel. Five indictments in 2015 and 2016 and 14 in 2017were filed with the court [4, 5, 6].
In 2016/2017 the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau started four and five criminal investigations respectively in corruption cases in defence and security sector [7, 8]. The report does not provide sector-specific data on how many indictments were filed with the court.
Also official statistics on convictions in corruption cases do not provide sector-specific data. Some convictions have been reported by the media [9]. 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 on determinate prison period, the others either got a suspended prison sentence or non-prison sentence [10]. In all the courts, the number of prison sentences in cases of corruption convictions was c. 9% in 2016-2017 [6].
Available statistics do not provide information on how many cases were connected with appointment decisions; however, studies indicate it as an area of risk [10].

Bribery and facilitation payments are strictly prohibited by the Penal Code. This applies to acceptance/solicitation, or giving/promising of undue advantage, as well as passive corruption and active corruption [1]. There is a legal regime applicable to political and top-level public administration officers [2]. The Military Justice Code also prohibits bribery and facilitation payments and establishes sentence duration [3]. There is no specific mention of posting-related bribery.

The Penal Code establishes sentence durations of up to five years imprisonment or 600-day fines in the case of soliciting or accepting an undue advantage [1]; in the case of giving or promising undue advantage, sentence duration falls to up to three years imprisonment or a 360 day fine [2]. With regards to passive corruption, solicitation or acceptance in the context of actions or omissions in violation of office prerogatives, sentence duration runs from one to eight years imprisonment [3]; when actions or omissions do not run against office prerogatives, sentence duration runs from one to five years imprisonment [4]. With regards to active corruption, giving or promising carries a sentence of one to five years [5] when office prerogatives are violated and up to three years or a 360-day fine when office prerogatives are not violated [6]. These penalties may be hardened if transactions involve high [7] or very high [8] sums.

With regards to military personnel, solicitation or acceptance carries a sentence of two to ten years imprisonment [9]; giving or promising carries a sentence of one to six years imprisonment [10]. Exceptions include a repudiation of actions [11]; aggravated sentences are stipulated for attempted corruption by officers who hold higher ranks or directly supervise those whom they have attempted to corrupt [12].

Neither the Penal Code nor the Military Justice Code or the Statute of Armed Forces Military provide specific sanctions on the solicitation of postings. These solicitations are defined as criminal offences by the broader Penal Code provisions. Existing evidence pertains to more general bribery charges and suggests sanctions are enforced to the full extent of the law [1] [2].

Bribery and corruption are offences defined in law, however, not all aspects are defined offences. Law No. 11 (2004) of the penal code sets out clear rules in relation to bribery. [1,2] Article 72 states ‘whoever is condemned to imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years for an offence against the external or internal security of the State, in an offence of bribery, embezzlement, damage to public funds, forgery of money or government financial bills, arson, possession of explosives or intentional murder, shall be put by virtue of the law, after completing of his penalty, under police probation for a period equivalent to half of the term of his penalty, on the provision that the police probation shall not exceed five years’. This broad article does not define all aspects of bribery such as offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting bribes, and the law does not refer specifically to bribery, nor does it refer specifically to bribes to gain preferred posting. Whilst bribery and corruption are defined offences in law, the definition is lacking some detail and specificity.

Sanctions exist in law. Possible sanctions include criminal prosecution/ incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties. [3] Article 140 of the penal code states ‘any pubic officer who asks for or accepts, for himself or another party, money, benefit or a simple promise for something in return for undertaking any activity or abstaining from carrying out any activity under the remits of his office shall be considered a receiver of bribery; the penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and a fine not exceeding what he received or promised shall apply to him, provided that it shall not be less than five thousand Qatar Riyals (5000QR)’. [2] Article 142 states that the penalty of imprisonment of no more than seven years and a fine not exceeding 15,000QR shall apply to any public officer accepting money or benefits in return of a favour. Article 143 also penalises third party or intermediary handlers of bribes. This demonstrates that there are strict sanctions and rules in relation to bribes, and although these do not explicitly address bribes for preferred postings, these do apply to the defence sector.

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

The existence of anti-bribery policies and sanctions that apply to bribes to gain preferred postings within the defence sector, includes sanctions on the offenders. Such sanctions are applied whenever such crimes occur. [1] However, according to other sources, there have not been any of these cases within the military or the defence sector. [2]

There is no evidence that such a specific policy against bribes to gain preferred postings exists – the federal law ‘On Military Duty and Service’ does not mention such cases [1]. However, the general anti-corruption sanctions detailed in the Criminal Code Articles 290 ‘On receiving a bribe’, 291 ‘On giving a bribe”, 291_1 ‘On mediation in bribery’ and 291_2 ‘On petty bribery’ do apply in cases of bribery committed for that purpose [2].

There are no specific sanctions for soliciting preferred postings through bribery. The federal law ‘On Military Duty and Service’ does not mention such cases [1]. However, these cases of bribery, when they occur, are punished in accordance with the Criminal Code [2]. Articles 159, 290 and 291 of the Criminal Code prescribe up to two years in prison, up to 10 years’ disqualification, a fine of up to five million rubles and up to five years’ correctional labour [3].

Whenever such cases of bribery are discovered, the sanctions are applied, though there is no data available on how consistent the sanctions are [1,2]. It is also hard to say what percentage of all bribery cases get uncovered by the officials.

The Anti-Bribery Law (1992) covers cases which result in the exchange of money for positions. There are explicit indications on recieving money but not on soliciting and payment. Preferred postings are either acquired as part of tribal quota in the army, for loyalty to the royal family or connections with the Saud family (1), (2). The Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG), for example, while structured as a conventional military force, has traditionally drawn upon specific regional tribes for its recruits. This composition dates back to the early twentieth century and is based primarily on tribal affiliation and identity, with the first iteration of the SANG formed as a coalition of tribal war chiefs that were staunchly loyal to the country’s founding king, Abdulaziz ibn Saud (3), (4). These recruitment practices remain to the current day and are intended to guarantee continued loyalty to the regime. Furthermore, the separation of the SANG from the conventional armed forces, the former being under the administrative control of the Ministry of the National Guard while the latter operates under the Ministry of Defence, is effectively a counterbalance and bulwark against potential threats to the royal family that might arise from a cohesive and strong military (5), (6). Preferred postings in the SANG are likely awarded to members of prestigious and influential families that have historically proven their loyalty to the ruling family.

According to the law, and our sources, there are sanctions which can be more than one-year imprisonment and fines (1), (2). These sanctions include fines that demand 10 times the amount of the bribe and imprisonment of no more than 10 years for instances in which there are several findings of bribery, or less than 3 years imprisonment for other findings of bribery.

According to our sources, no sanctions are applied when bribery happens, as most cases of bribery are handled and solved informally most of the time (1), (2).

A series of legal acts, which can be applied to military and civilian personnel within the defence system, recognises the taking or giving bribery to gain certain benefits, including a preferred posting, as a criminal offence or breach of discipline [1, 2, 3, 4].

Disciplinary sanctions for civilians, as envisaged by the Law on Civil Servants, range from salary cuts to ban on promotion or dismissal from work [1]. The Criminal Code contains imprisonment from six months to five years for giving bribery, whereas receiving bribery can lead up to 12 years of imprisonment [2]. The Code of Honor does not presume any sanctions; however, if the breaches of its provisions are punishable according to other legal acts, they will be sanctioned [3].

There is not enough information to score this indicator. According to its response to BCSP questionnaire, the MoD does not keep central records on the criminal charges filed against MoD and SAF personnel. The human resources sector has responded that within their own unit there have been no criminal charges, while they do not possess information on other organisational parts of the MoD and SAF. Thus, it is difficult to gain a comprehensive picture of enforcing sanctions on offences related to bribery. Media reports [1] demonstrate a willingness to tackle and disclose the cases of bribery to the public; however, the conclusion of such cases usually remains unknown.

The Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) maintains a zero-tolerance policy against corruption, which includes bribery in all forms and purposes, with convictions resulting in punitive measures such as a fine of up to $100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or both [1]. Moreover, the government in 2016 provided new pre-enlistees with the opportunity to select their desired vocations [2, 3]. Although not directly related to corruption, it can be inferred that such a policy will be a further deterrent against the use of bribery for preferred postings.

Possible sanctions for bribery/military offences have been clearly outlined in relevant legislation such as the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Act, with imprisonment for a term not of up to five years if the offence is committed during active service [1]. There are no known reports of individuals being charged for bribery cases in relation to preferred postings.

While there are no reported cases of bribery to influence conscript postings, the MINDEF has consistently pursued any detected violations to preserve the integrity of its conscription policy [1].

The South African National Defence Force (SANDF) Code of Conduct does provide rules and policy on misconduct and corruption, which would pertain to bribery. The Military Police, Hawks (Civilian) and the newly-formed Directorate Anti-Corruption and Anti-Fraud (DACAF) has made provision for a reporting register and procedure on investigation and prosecution of matters involving SANDF and Department of Defence (DoD) members relating to bribery [1].

The Defence Act No. 42 of 2002 refers to the SANDF ‘Code of Conduct’ as legally enforce through the Military Discipline Code, found in section 104 (1) of the Defence Act, 1957 (Act 44 of 1957) [2]. The ‘Code of Conduct’ is also referred to as the  ‘Soldier of Africa: Code of Conduct for Uniformed Members of the SANDF’, and is a part of basic training and induction. There is also a code of conduct applicable to Commissioners and the employees of the Defence Force Service Commission. Both the SANDF Code of Conduct and Defence Force Service Commission (DFSC) codes can be found as annexures in the Defence Force Service Commission 2017/18 Annual Activity Report [3].
 
The Directorate Anti-Corruption and Anti-Fraud policy is not made publically available, so it is not possible to ascertain to what extent bribery and corruption are specifically defined.

Sanctions exist in accordance with the Military Legal Services and range from imprisonment in civilian prisons to confinement on base, to demotion, docked pay, among other things [1, 2, 3].

Military justice proceedings are carried out from charges to sentencing when effectively pursued through the Military Legal Services (MLS). However, financial constraints on the MLS have created a significant shortage in trained judicial officers for the DoD, thereby creating gaps between allegations, charges, on-trial suspects, and convictions [1, 2, 3].

Article 5 of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act prohibits improper solicitations regarding a preferred job posting. Solicitation to intervene or influence the appointment, promotion, assignment or reassignment of any official is illegal. [1] Giving or receiving goods or money that exceed a certain value in the public sector can be considered bribery even if it is not related to gaining preferred postings. Those receiving or giving 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. [2]

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. [1] 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 duties for up to 10 years according to Article 129 and 130 of the Criminal Act. [2] A person who makes an improper solicitation to an officer for preferred postings can be punished with a fine of up to 20 million Korean won. [1] The defence policy implemented by the Ministry of National Defence in May 2019 contains strict punishments for receiving or giving bribes for preferred postings. Those promoted through improper solicitations or those who conceal corrupt behaviour can be punished with a dismissal. [3] [4]

Despite the existence of strong interventions, it is questionable whether the sanctions are applied consistently in practice. Monitoring all officials’ actions and bribery practices is difficult as corrupt activities often occur secretly within an inner circle. [1] In addition, prosecution processes or outcomes for military personnel are not disclosed publicly under the terms of the Official Information Disclosure Act, allowing discretion to public institutions not to disclose confidential information. There is no official data showing successful prosecutions and sanctions for military personnel involved in bribery, as public institutions do not disclose prosecution outcomes publicly. [2] In the meantime, the effectiveness of the ISG Act has been questioned by the media because bribery and improper solicitation persist after its enforcement. One article published in 2017 revealed that “jobs for the boys” in government organisations were still prevalent after the ISG Act came into force. [3]

Bribery and solicitation of specific posts is not mentioned in the SPLA Act 2009. Section 73.1 of the Act implies that bribery is an offense and could earn offenders no less than fourteen years in jail. [1]

Sanctions exist, as established in the SPLA Act 2009, amounting to fourteen years in jail. However, there is no mention of financial fines. [1]

There is no publicly available information to grade this indicator; as such, it has been marked ‘Not Enough Information’. Rarely, if ever, is there news of military personnel being punished for bribery or any other corrupt practices. Reporters are hardly ever invited to cover court martial proceedings. The result is a dearth of information about enforcement by the military.

Military postings are regulated by Royal Decree 456/2011, of 1 April, but bribes to gain preferred postings are not included in this Royal Decree [1]. Article 35 of Royal Decree 96/2009, which approves the Royal Ordinances for the armed forces, states that personnel “will not influence the speeding up or resolution of the processes or procedures without just cause and, in no case, when it involves an impairment of the interests of third parties” [2]. There is no express mention of bribes to gain preferred postings or anything similar in the Royal Ordinances, considered a Code of Conduct [2]. However, bribery is clearly included in Article 420 of the Spanish Penal Code (which affects the military) [3] and in Article 192 of the Military Penal Code [4].

Article 420 of the Penal Code states that “the authority or public official who, for his own benefit or that of a third party, receives or requests, by himself or through an interposed person, a gift, favor or remuneration of any kind or accepts an offer or promise to perform an act of his office, will incur a prison sentence of two to four years, a fine of twelve to twenty-four months and special disqualification for employment or public office and for the exercise of the right of passive suffrage for a period of five to nine years” [1]. Article 191 of the Military Penal Code, specifies that “the military personnel who, taking advantage of his condition, seeks interests in any kind of contract or operation that affects the Military Administration, will be punished with a prison sentence of three months and one day to six years”. Article 192, says that “the military personnel who, in charge of supplying the Armed Forces, substitutes some effects for others or alters their fundamental qualities or specific characteristics, will be punished with a prison sentence of one to six years. In time of war, the penalty of three to ten years in prison shall be imposed” [2].

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’. None of the mentioned issues of offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence are among the 93 listed faults (soft, severe, and very severe) in the Organic Law 8/2014 of the Disciplinary Regime of the Armed Forces [1]. Statistics of the military judicial processes consider the offences listed in Article 6, 7, 8, and 17 of Organic Law 8/2014 (also Article 7, 8, and 9 of Organic Law 12/2007 for the Civil Guard [2]. Thus, none of the 369 violations of items listed as offences in the statistic yearbook on military jurisdiction expressly refers to anything related to bribery [2]. Cases of bribery to gain preferred postings are not frequent [3]. In a non-thorough review of judicial cases, no cases regarding bribery for preferred postings were found [4, 5], but the possibility cannot be ruled out.

A search of the websites of the Ministries of Defence and Interior did not yield any reference to a policy or rule specifically against bribery for soliciting preferred postings. Nor is any such reference made in the Armed Forces Act [1,2,3]. However, the Sudan Criminal Act does forbid active and passive bribery in general. Sudan’s Criminal Act of 1991 defines bribery as a punishable offence across and throughout the government, but is not specific to the defence and security sectors, let alone specific to bribes for the purpose of attaining preferred postings in the military. According to this law, bribery is an offence that can be committed by whoever gives or offers a public servant or employee gratifications to take a given action, whoever receives or requests gratifications for themselves or another, whoever assists or tries to assist the giving or accepting of gratifications and whoever knowingly benefits from gratifications [4].

A review of the websites of the Ministries of Defence and Interior [1,2], as well as the Armed Forces Act [3], suggests that there are no sanctions specifically for soliciting preferred positions through bribery in Sudan. On the contrary, as explained in a 2020 report published by the European Commission on Foreign Relations [4], for example, the military forces that control Sudan’s vast parastatal network of companies (including those working in all manner of non-security-related sectors) appoint loyalists to management positions in the companies in exchange for their loyalty [4] – and, in many cases, for the kickbacks that managers of these companies can offer from the resources they embezzle. In other words, loyalists are effectively bribed – in exchange for their unwavering loyalty – by military leaders who are in a position to dole out posts that are ripe for embezzlement. Loyalty and willingness to participate in a corrupt patronage system are themselves a form of bribery to obtain and maintain positions within military-owned companies. Nevertheless, in theory, the possibility of sanctions exists via the 1991 Criminal Act, which stipulates a punishment of up to two years’ imprisonment for public servants (it does not specify for military personnel) and people who bribe them [5].

A review of the websites of the Ministries of Defence and Interior [1,2] does not yield any evidence that the ministries are concerned about public servants accepting or soliciting bribes from military personnel seeking preferred postings. The websites did not provide any information about civil servants who have participated in such bribery schemes, been penalised for such behaviour or have even made decisions regarding postings.

As noted in Q42, there is a strict recruitment procedure within Swedish Armed Forces (SAF) which makes it difficult to gain preferred postings [1] [2]. The Defence Recruitment Agency [3], moreover, conducts sample testing of those applying for military training in the SAF and examines the individuals and their personal background and relationships, but as noted in Q43A, the agency’s regulatory framework does not explicitly acknowledge the risk of bribes. In the Swedish Penal Code [4], the legal text only covers bribe ‘taking’ and bribe giving’.

Instances of bribery are handled by the State Disciplinary Board (SA) and Chancellor of Justice (JK) [1] [2] (see Q35), and in cases where employees have committed criminal acts that fall under the Swedish Penal Code, possible sanctions include criminal prosecution, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties.

Appropriate sanctions or punishments in line with the Swedish Penal Code [1] are regularly applied when bribery occurs.

The code of conduct for federal personnel, that 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 sets out penalties for active and passive bribery of Swiss government with financial penalties or imprisonment of up to five years [2]. The military’s penal code contains corruption specific rules on active and passive bribery (Section 9) [3]. The Federal Personnel Act (BPG) prohibits federal employees from accepting gifts within the framework of their 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 Bundespersonalverordnung) (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). If they do so in good faith they are protected from negative professional consequences for doing so (Article 22a. 5 BPG) [4]. A 2018 brochure on compliance issued by the military reaffirms general legal and ethical obligations and mentions specifically the fight against bribery and corruption as legal obligations [6]. There are no specific rules on sanctions for influencing a promotion or assignment. Promotions are tied to specific conditions and are granted through clear preset procedures. The Ordinance on the Organization of the Military (Armeeorganissation) (AO) requires the Federal Council to consider an appropriate representation of the militia as well as of the different linguistic groups of Switzerland for middle and top ranks (Article 4.3). The detailed conditions for promotions are given in the Ordinance on the Military Service (Verordnung über die Militärdienstpflicht) (VMDP). The ordinance lays out rules on age limits, permissible timing, the minimal number of service days and assigns the power to promote to specific actors within the administration (Article 71.2). The ordinance defines the preconditions for a promotion (Article 72) as well as the necessary qualifications (Article 73) and where the right to propose a promotion lies (Article 74). Promotions to the most senior ranks are through the Federal Council (Article 39 and Annex 3) [7].

The code of conduct for Federal personnel, that 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 articulates penalties for active and passive bribery of Swiss government personnel with financial penalties or imprisonment of up to five years [2]. The military’s penal code contains corruption specific rules on active and passive bribery (Section 9) [3]. A 2018 brochure on compliance for employees of the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS) reaffirms general legal and ethical obligations and threatens via labour laws (up to dismissal), financial or penal sanctions [4].

There are no reports on cases of bribery with regards to promotions during the period covered by this report. A 2018 brochure on compliance for employees of the DDPS reaffirms general legal and ethical obligations and threatens the use of a labour law (up to dismissal), financial or penal sanctions [1]. As promotions are tied to specific conditions and are granted through clear preset procedures set out in the Verordnung über die Militärdienstpflicht (VMDP) [2], and a large proportion of promotions are not for professional soldiers, and thus they are not tied to considerable material gain if bribery cases exist, they are likely to be exceedingly rare.

Bribary to gain a preferred posting in Taiwan’s armed forces is a serious offence against the laws of the 1) Criminal Code, 2) Armed Forces Punishment Act, 3) Civil Service Discipline Act, 4) Anti-Corruption Act, and the 5) Act on Recusal of Public Servants Due to Conflicts of Interest. The latter relates to offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to 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].

Offences of corruption or bribery to gain preferred postings will be subject to the sanctions of criminal prosecution, incarceration, dismissal, or considerable financial penalties in accordance with these laws [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].

Bribery to gain a preferred posting will be met with a sentence of three to ten years of criminal charge according to the act of “Punishment Act for Violation to Military Service System” [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. No cases or complaints of bribery to gain preferred postings have been reported in the last five years in court proceedings, conventional forms of media, or on social media [6].

Section 20 (1-2) of the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act 2007 specifically outlaws the giving, soliciting, and receiving of bribes in relation to employment or promotion in the public service, including in the military. [1]

Section 20 (1-2) of the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act 2007 specifies a penalty of TZS5 million or imprisonment for up to three years for the giving, soliciting, and receiving of bribes in relation to employment or promotion in the public service, including in the military.

There is not enough information to score this indicator. The Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau (PCCB) claims to sanction guilty parties in the defence sector as the law expects it to. [1] [2] [3] However, the secrecy in the defence sector has meant that it is difficult to find evidence to verify the claim.

According to the Anti-Corruption Act 2018, Section 173, any state official offering, giving, receiving or soliciting bribes shall be fined 100,000-400,000 baht, imprisoned for 5-20 years or sentenced to life imprisonment [1]. Moreover, in order to comply with the Open Data Integrity and Transparency Assessment (OIT) conducted by the NACC, the army has implemented anti-corruption measures that include the prohibition of receiving all kinds of bribes, both directly and indirectly [2].

According to the Anti-Corruption Act 2018, Section 173, any state official offering, giving, receiving or soliciting bribes shall be fined 100,000-400,000 baht, imprisoned for 5-20 years or sentenced to life imprisonment [1]. The Anti-Corruption Charter ordered by the Commander-in-Chief in 2012 also emphasises that the penalties or sanctions for bribery within the military must be adequately severe in order to prevent corruption in the defence sector [2].

According to Hadrien Saperstein (2020), the promotion of officers across the military is more dependent on the candidate’s pre-cadet class (who mostly are from rich or long-standing military families) than their professional capabilities [3]. The widespread bribery to gain preferred postings indicate that no sanctions are usually applied when the cases occur. Moreover, recently the case of “Elephant Tickets”, a fast-track promotion system where undeserving individuals could earn promotion towards bribery in the Royal Police Force, was revealed by the opposition party [4]. Furthermore, despite the existence of the Anti-Corruption Act 2018 and the Anti-Corruption Charter [1,2], sanctions are applied inconsistently in cases of bribery in general. Corruption has been a major problem in the defence sector for decades due to the latter’s centralised and bureaucratic system. Additionally, executives in the military often overlook anti-corruption policy as they believe it is not their priority but that of the NACC. Given all these factors, it can be suggested that a similarly lax approach to bribery and sanctions exists in the defence sector.

Article 2 and Article 8 of Law n° 2004-1, dated 14 January 2004, on national service, decree that any citizen aged between 20 and 35 years must perform a year of national service. Tunisia also has an element of voluntary conscription. In accordance with the aforementioned laws and regulations, recruits can choose to go on individual assignments agreeing to perform 21 days of training, and henceforth pay a monthly monetary contribution of 30 to 50 percent of their salary to the military (1). The legislation applicable to the defence sector does not include a specific policy warning against accepting bribes for avoiding conscription (2). However, there are a range of clearly defined offences in the Penal Code that clearly apply to bribery for avoiding compulsary conscription (3). These offences cover offering and giving (1) (the attempt is also punished (2)) receiving (3), or the 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) (1). 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 in service or outside of it (2). In the case of a military officer being convicted of a criminal offence (like bribery), he would be dismissed from his post (3). Although these disciplinary measures are general in scope, they are applicable in cases of corruption.

According to our sources, there is strong evidence that bribery is investigated in a serious manner and the prosecution of it is taken very seriously in the judicial system of Tunis (1,2). Evidence shows that cases of bribery in conscription are prosecuted. The National Anti-corruption Authority (INLUCC) report for the year 2017 shows that 2 cases of corruption related to the General Directorate for conscription have been transmitted to the justice by the Ministry of Defence (3).

Article 252 of the Criminal Code of Turkey, which all military and civilian personnel are obliged to observe, notes that any public officers who accept bribes will be punished with 4 to 12 years’ imprisonment [1]. The person offering the bribe receives the same punishment as the public officer. If the parties negotiated on a bribe, they are punished as if the offence is completed.

(2) If the person who accepts a bribe or negotiates on a bribe happens to be a judge, arbitrator, expert, notary public or sworn financial adviser, the punishment imposed pursuant to the first subsection is increased by up to one third.

(3) A bribe is defined as a benefit illegally secured by a public officer in negotiation with a person to perform or not to perform a task beyond their responsibility.

(4) The provisions of the first subsection also apply to persons involved in bribery while establishing a legal relation or progressing an existing legal relation with professional organisations in the statute of public institutions and corporations, or companies incorporated with the participation of professional organisations in the statute of public institutions, foundations operating within their body, or associations and cooperatives serving the public interest or joint stock companies open to the public.

(5) The direct or indirect offering of benefits or the giving of promises to officers or personnel of public institutions or corporations appointed in a foreign company to perform a legislative or administrative duty, or to those engaged in international duties in the same country, in order to enable the execution of an international trading transaction, or to perform or not to perform a task, or to secure and retain an unjust benefit, is considered bribery [2]. As emphasised before, bribery is one of the severe crimes of government personnel defined in the Turkish Penal Code [1]. Please also note that, as emphasised by Interviewees 3 and 4, bribery is considered a ‘personality-related defect’ within the Turkish military and is both institutionally and culturally discouraged [3,4].

Interviewees 5 and 6 suggested that there is no specific policy of refusing bribes to gain preferred positions within the military [5,6].

Interviewee 4 emphasised that possible sanctions in the event of bribery within the sector include criminal prosecution/ incarceration, dismissal and considerable financial penalties, along with the social isolation of the perpetrator, because accepting bribes is considered a ‘professional defect’ within the military, both in legal and professional terms [1]. So, in terms of legal institutions, the laws on corruption and bribery are very severe and deterrent for military and civilian personnel in the security sector.

Furthermore, the strategic culture within the military is opposed to bribery, to the point where even rumours of bribery could kill the professional career of military personnel. However, it should be noted that, as seen after reviewing the laws and regulations about the military and defence/security, there are no clear sanctions/regulations specifically relating to the crime of soliciting postings/positions within the military via bribery.

Relying on his own military service experience, Interviewee 4 suggested that sanctions are applied inconsistently in cases of bribery [1]. In particular, military personnel working for border security, military personnel working at the military recruitment centres, where conscripts first apply, and the auditing board members are at risk of being offered bribes. Therefore, according to Interviewee 6, the Ministry of Defence has some ad-hoc inspection commissions to fight bribery within the military and to reveal information about counter-bribery operations involving military personnel, as part of the effort to counter bribery [2]. For instance, one report dated October 13, 2019, reveals that four military personnel were arrested in a bribery operation at the border gate in the city of Van [3]. Open-source research shows that there is not a single court ruling available about a bribery case involving military personnel and there have been relatively very few reports about bribery within the military in the past years in Turkey when compared with the National Police [4,5].

Section 176 of the Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) Act 2005 [1] focuses on fraudulent offences. Subsection (b) states:
“that a person subject to military law, who improperly demands or accepts compensation, consideration or personal advantage in respect of the performance of any military duty or in respect of the performance of any military duty or in respect of any matter relating to the defence forces commits an offence and is, on conviction, liable to imprisonment not exceeding seven years.”

Section 176 (c) of the UPDF Act 2005 [1]states that:
“any person who receives directly or indirectly, whether personally or by or through any member of his or her family or a person under his or her control, or for his or her benefit, any gift, loan, promise, compensation or consideration either in money or otherwise, from any person, for assisting or favouring any person, in the transaction of any business relating to the defence forces or to any forces cooperating in the defence forces or to any mess, institute or canteen operated for the use and benefit of members of those forces commits an offence and is, on conviction, liable to imprisonment not exceeding seven years.”

According to the UPDF’s chief of legal services [1] and the deputy army spokesperson [2], there are many cases of personnel that have been brought before a court-martial for being involved in bribery. Three soldiers were arrested in May 2020 for taking bribes [3].

The law clearly defines a range of offences that apply to the defence sector personnel. These do not only relate to bribery for soliciting a preferred posting, but to corruption in general. For instance: abuse of power or official position (Article 364 of the CCU) or illegal enrichment (Article 368-2 of the CCU) [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 both the offering of, giving, receiving and soliciting of bribes. Further, there is also a Code of Conduct approved in 2017, which also binds defence personnel not to give or accept bribes for soliciting preferred posting [3].

The punishment for bribes as not appropriate use of power or abuse of state position according to the article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years. If such bribery leads to heavy damage for the state or citizens the punishment is from 3 to 6 years with fine and abolishment to occupy state positions for the period up to 3 years [1]. Cases of illegal enrichment (Article 368-2 of the CCU) are penalized with a maximum of 600 USD, confiscation of property, and 10 years of imprisonment [1]. Violation of the corresponding Articles of the Code on Administrative Offences of Ukraine (Articles 172-5, 172-7 etc.) stipulates a fine of maximum 485 USD with the deprivation of the right to occupy certain public positions [2]. However, these financial penalties do not act as a deterrent.

This indicator has been scored Not Applicable. Although there are many media reports on bribery in the context of conscription [1, 2, 3] or corruption in other spheres [4, 5], no cases have been reported in relation to bribery for soliciting preferred positions. No evidence revealed enforcement of sanctions either. However, there are some court decisions, but they do not relate to high-level corruption [6]. Interviewed MoD officers also found it difficult to provide any examples of such cases [7].

There is a range of clearly defined offences in law that apply to the defence sector concerning bribery. Although there is not a specific law that deals with ‘refusing bribes to gain preferred postings’, Federal Laws No. 6 and 7 of 2004, which specifically apply to the armed forces, define bribery and prohibits corruption within the defence sector (1). This article prohibits officers from accepting gifts of any sort whatsoever, whether directly or indirectly, from individuals, who are seeking a benefit through these gifts. There are strict policies relating to bribery within the armed forces, and bribery for preferred postings are not an exception. In addition to the Federal Law No. 6 and 7 of 2004, several laws also prohibit bribery generally in the country, such as the UAE Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 (as amended) (the “Penal Code”); the UAE Federal Law No. 21 of 2001 concerning Civil Service; the Dubai Government Human Resources Management Law No. 27 of 2006; and the Abu Dhabi Law No. 1 of 2006 concerning Civil Service in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi (2), (3), (4).

As previously explained UAE laws include anti-bribery policies that apply to the defence sector concerning bribes to gain preferred postings. These laws and regulations provide harsh sanctions for bribes. Sanctions are not all clarified in the Federal Laws No. 6 and 7 relating to the Armed Forces, however, those are clearly defined in other federal laws and also apply to the defence sector (1). These sanctions include criminal prosecution, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties (2). For instance, the UAE’s Federal Penal Code includes imprisonment between 5 and 10 years, and financial penalties that depend on the value of the bribe, and include confiscation of bribe gifts or money from the individual. Federal Law No. 6 of 2004 also stipulates dismissal for violations of its articles, which include a clear paragraph on bribery in Article 47 (paragraph 2). There are appropriate, and sometimes harsh, sanctions on bribery and those certainly apply to bribes about gaining preferred postings (3), (4).

There are anti-bribery policies and sanctions that apply to any attempt to gain preferred postings within the defence sector. Paying bribes in UAE to gain posts does not exist as the senior and middle positions are appointed by royal decrees (1), (2).

The Bribery Act 2010 [1] criminalises any type of bribery (including for soliciting preffered postings) and sets clearly defined offences in law that apply to the defence sector. 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 [1]. There is also a MoD policy against Fraud, Theft, Bribery, Corruption, Irregularity and Waste [2], which suggests a zero tolerance approach towards bribery, regardless of its scope.

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 [1].

This indicator has been marked Not Applicable, as no cases of bribery were identified. Out of the few UK military-related corruption cases reported in the media, none of them relate to bribery [1, 2].

According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, any person who procures their enlistment or appointment in the armed forces through false representation shall be punished as directed by court-martial [1]. This regulation does not clarify what would count as a ‘fraudulent appointment’, but it is presumed that progression to a posting via bribery would count as ‘fraudulent’. Bribery in general is also prohibited under the UCMJ, which includes asking, accepting, receiving, promising, offering or giving [2].

Title 18, Chapter 11 of the U.S. Code states that whoever pays or offers money or other things of value for the purpose of procuring an appointive office of place under the United States shall be fined or imprisoned for up to one year or both [3]. Similarly, anyone who solicits an appointment in this way is sanctioned in the same way. Beyond this provision, which seems aimed at political appointments rather than military postings, there does not seem to be any specific legislation on bribery for preferred postings and/or promotions. Regardless, general anti-bribery regulations would cover this sort of activity. As mentioned in Q35, bribery is criminalised under Title 18 of the U.S. Code [4], 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.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not specify sanctions, leaving it to the discretion of the court-martial [1,2]. As outlined in 44A, the sanction for offering to procure an appointive public office position is a fine or imprisonment for up to a year, or both [3]. General bribery sanctions for all public officials include 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 [4]. There is no mention of dismissal as a possible sanction for the Title 18 regulations.

The Criminal Investigations record published by the DoD Inspector General includes details of charges against defence personnel relating to bribery and other offences. In 2020, for example, 11 cases of bribery were recorded and sanctions varied from imprisonment to fines [1]. None of these cases relate to armed forces personnel using bribery to gain preferred postings, however, it suggests effective enforcement against cases of bribery in general.

This indicator is marked ‘Not Enough Information’. The structure and operation of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) establishes territorial divisions that must comprise each military component. These divisions are the so-called Strategic Integral Defence Regions (REDI) and Integral Defence Operational Zones (ZODI), under the control of the Strategic Operational Command of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (CEOFANB) [1]. While the CEOFANB has clear functions of planning and organisation, the process of making appointments and the provision of staff for coverage of the different regions and zones is at the total discretion of the president and officers within the CEOFANB [2].

The Military Discipline Law (LDM) establishes the principle of subordination and includes refusal to perform acts of service as a punishable offence. The law also classifies the solicitation or acceptance of money in exchange for acts of service as a serious offence. Although these regulations could indirectly prevent and punish cases in which bribes are offered in exchange for preferred posts, there are no regulations, policies, or plans that directly and explicitly prohibit and discipline bribery in exchange for certain service posts [3]. In addition, the opacity and discretion with which the different security regions are managed increases the risk of corruption in the management of resources and personnel, since there are no protocols or internal competition procedures for the assignment of the command of these zones. The official websites and documents of the REDI and ZODI do not reveal any campaigns or appeals to avoid bribery for preferred posts [4]. Furthermore, the 2003 Anti-corruption Law includes several regulations on acts of corruption, including a prohibition in Article 70 against using a position or post to gain any form of advantage or undue influence [5]. The provision only applies to public servants and establishes a penalty of two to four years’ imprisonment. It is unclear if this applies to military personnel.

There are no specific penalties for offering bribes to gain preferred posts. However, the Organic Code of Military Justice (COJM) [1] does specify the following crime: “those who illegaly obtain any personal benefit through contracts or other acts of the administration related to the armed forces” [2]. This would comprise irregular requests for preferred posts, although it is not possible to verify whether this happens and whether these requests are considered irregular in practice. The associated penalty is two to eight years’ imprisonment [3].

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’. There are no regulations that directly sanction the receipt of bribes in exchange for access to preferred posts. Within the military justice system, the LDM and COJM include certain provisions that sanction the receipt or request of money for acts of service [1, 2]. Within the civil justice system, the Ethics Code for public servants sanctions the receipt of bribes in accordance with the provisions of the Penal Code [3, 4]. However, no recent prosecutions of military officers for receiving or requesting bribes have been documented in information collected by civil organisations [5, 6].

There are general procedures followed when postings are completed. However, the procedures are outlined in internal manuals, which are not publicly available, and they are not posted on the Zimbabwe Defence Forces website [1]. The Criminal Law and Codification Act defines acts of bribery that apply to the issue of postings. It covers offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting bribes. The act also sets penalties that include prosecution and incarceration, fines and restitution [2]. There are allegations of bribing and corruption related to postings; these usually involve officers in the administration section/departments who solicit bribes before approving postings [3].

There have been incidences where the people who procedurally apply for a particular posting are denied the opportunity in favour of a relative or someone who paid a bribe [1, 2]. The matter can be reported by whistleblowers, and once an incident is reported, the senior investigating board, which is a branch in the military, will start investigating the case. If there is proof that there has been a breach of the Defence Act, the disciplinary processes can then be instituted [1, 2]. The results of the process are the ones that determine the sanctions on the individual(s) involved. Sanctions include demotion, payment of a fine which can be deducted from the basic pay depending on the amount of the fine. The tribunal also considers whether one is a first or repeat offender [1, 2].

Disciplinary action is usually taken under the Defence Act. However, there are allegations that favouritism results in offenders not being punished. In some cases, superiors are involved in bribery, so they do not initiate disciplinary proceedings. Nonetheless, when bribery cases are taken through disciplinary proceedings, sanctions are enforced according to the level of offence [1, 2].

Country Sort by Country 44a. Policy Sort By Subindicator 44b. Sanctions Sort By Subindicator 44c. Enforcement Sort By Subindicator
Albania 100 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Algeria 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Angola 50 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Argentina 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Armenia 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Australia 100 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100
Azerbaijan 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Bahrain 50 / 100 25 / 100 NA
Bangladesh 75 / 100 100 / 100 NEI
Belgium 100 / 100 100 / 100 NA
Bosnia and Herzegovina 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Botswana 100 / 100 100 / 100 NEI
Brazil 100 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Burkina Faso 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Cameroon 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Canada 75 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Chile 50 / 100 75 / 100 NEI
China 75 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Colombia 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Cote d'Ivoire 100 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Denmark 100 / 100 100 / 100 NA
Egypt 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Estonia 100 / 100 100 / 100 NA
Finland 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
France 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Germany 75 / 100 100 / 100 NA
Ghana 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Greece 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Hungary 100 / 100 100 / 100 NA
India 100 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100
Indonesia 100 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100
Iran 25 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Iraq 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Israel 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Italy 100 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100
Japan 100 / 100 100 / 100 NA
Jordan 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Kenya 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Kosovo 100 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Kuwait 0 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Latvia 100 / 100 100 / 100 NA
Lebanon 50 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Lithuania 100 / 100 100 / 100 NA
Malaysia 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Mali 100 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Mexico 100 / 100 50 / 100 NA
Montenegro 100 / 100 100 / 100 25 / 100
Morocco 0 / 100 0 / 100 NA
Myanmar 0 / 100 0 / 100 NEI
Netherlands 100 / 100 100 / 100 NA
New Zealand 100 / 100 100 / 100 NA
Niger 100 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Nigeria 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
North Macedonia 100 / 100 75 / 100 NA
Norway 100 / 100 100 / 100 NA
Oman 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Palestine 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Philippines 100 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Poland 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Portugal 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Qatar 50 / 100 100 / 100 NEI
Russia 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Saudi Arabia 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Serbia 100 / 100 100 / 100 NEI
Singapore 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
South Africa 100 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100
South Korea 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
South Sudan 50 / 100 75 / 100 NEI
Spain 100 / 100 100 / 100 NA
Sudan 75 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Sweden 50 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Switzerland 100 / 100 100 / 100 NA
Taiwan 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Tanzania 100 / 100 100 / 100 NEI
Thailand 100 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Tunisia 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Turkey 100 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Uganda 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Ukraine 100 / 100 100 / 100 NA
United Arab Emirates 100 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
United Kingdom 100 / 100 100 / 100 NA
United States 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Venezuela NEI 100 / 100 NA
Zimbabwe 75 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 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