Skip to sidebar Skip to main

Q50.

Are there effective measures in place to discourage facilitation payments (which are illegal in almost all countries)?

50a. Legal framework

Score

SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

50b. Enforcement

Score

SCORE: NA/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

50c. Prevalence

Score

SCORE: 100/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

Compare scores by country

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

Relevant comparisons

Facilitation payments are strictly illegal. 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 three months to five years of imprisonment for persons employed in the private sector and with penalties that range from six months to three years of imprisonment for persons employed in the public sector [1].

The cases prosecuted involving defence and security are available but due to lack of data on the investigations conducted by MoD investigation bodies, it is not possible to assess how many investigations have been initiated and by confronting them with the number of prosecutions and trials.
However, overall, Albania lags behind with the effective investigation and prosecution of corruption. The lack of appropriate action may be caused by undue influence in the decision-making process, affecting thus the enforcement outcomes. As the EU Commission highlights “the establishment of a solid track record of proactive investigations, prosecutions and convictions in the fight against corruption remain a long-term objective that continues to require further structured and consistent efforts” [1]. Only 10-20% of the corruption cases investigated by the prosecution are sent to courts for trial in recent years [2].

There is not enough information to score this indicator. Survey evidence suggests the presence of undue influence in the relations between businesses and public authorities. A UNODC survey report found in 2013 that one out of six businesses in the five economic sectors surveyed paid a bribe to a public official [1]. Even more recent surveys show that firms commonly have to pay some irregular “additional payments/gifts” to “get things done” [2]. However, there is a lack of evidence from the defence sector in particular.

The Anti-Corruption Law of 2006 provides clear evidence that facilitation payments are illegal. Art. 25 prohibits the act of promising to offer or grant an official an undue advantage for him to perform or refrain from performing any act in the performance of the official’s duties. Moreover, Art. 38 stipulates that gifts or any undue advantage from a person likely to influence the processing of a procedure or transaction related to his duties are punishable by law (1). The articles in the Penal Code on corruption (2) refer to the Anti-Corruption Law and no further regulations were found.

No investigations or prosecutions of cases in the defence institutions involving facilitation payments could be found in articles or reports, making it difficult to assess this question. Freedom House notes that there is political influence in the judiciary (1). Moreover, there are corruption cases, for example, linked to the state hydrocarbon company Sonatrach that have been prosecuted (2), while the former head of the company and Minister of Energy has not been prosecuted although there had been evidence that he received bribes (3).

According to the Business Anti-Corruption Portal, bribery and facilitation payments are common in Algeria; although, they are illegal (1). A report from the US Department of State notes that some companies follow their internal controls against the bribery of government officials, while others supposedly offer bribes (2).

Facilitation payments are illegal in Angola, as stated in the 2010 Public Probity Law, the Criminal Code and the 2014 Money Laundering Law (1), (2).

Even though facilitation payments are illegal, they are widespread; in recent years very few cases have been prosecuted. There is no evidence that several prosecution cases of foreign officials in other jurisdictions for bribery and illegal facilitation payments have been followed up in Angola. Under President João Lourenço, there have generally been new calls to end impunity to address corruption, but it remains to be seen how this plays out in practice (1), (2), (3).

For instance, in the last few years employees of foreign companies have been prosecuted in Brazil, Spain, and the United Kingdom on charges of bribery and illegal facilitation payments in Angola; however, no prosecution cases were opened in Angola against Angolan officials allegedly involved (1).

The practice of facilitation payments to accelerate delivery of or simply to gain access to public services, as well as for doing business is widespread and part of the commonly known “gasosa” culture in Angolan society (1).

Articles 311, 311.1, 311.2, 312, 312.1 and 313 on taking a bribe, giving a bribe and mediating bribe accordingly apply to any case of bribery. If a high official takes a bribe and is sanctioned they pay three hundred or five hundred times the minimum wage penalty or up to ten years in prison depending on the circumstances and seriousness of the offence [1].

Cases of corruption, bribery, misconduct or any other type of related misbehaviour are carefully investigated in an attempt to eliminate those erroneous patterns in the armed forces. A range of cases through media outlets are publicized to make the public aware of situations and to be alert and whistleblow if anything comes to their attention [1, 2, 3, 4]. In this regard, both the former government officials and the new ones are unanimous in their public speeches to condemn corruption in the armed forces [5, 6]. However, after the Velvet Revolution, new revelations showed that there were numerous instances of corruption and bribery in the armed forces. These cases were revealed and investigated only after a change of power in the government [7, 8].

There is not enough evidence to score this indicator. It is worth noting that there are no official statistics publicly available on the prevalence of facilitation payments, which are prohibited by the Law on Special Public Service [1], the Law on Military Service [2], and sanctions are envisaged by the Criminal Code [3]. Once a case on facilitation payment is revealed, media outlets actively highlight it in the news.

Although bribery in the country is a common practice, the legislation prohibits it (1). According to the Criminal Code payments are strictly illegal (1). Article 312 states, 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 up to eight years. According to Article 311 of the Criminal Code, receiving a bribe is called “passive bribery”. Bribe committed by an official for illegal actions (inaction) shall be punished by imprisonment for the term from five to ten years, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for up to three years.
There should be safeguard provisions in the legislation to make bribery charges more effective. All such commissions are sanctioned by just tow articles – Articles 311 and 312 of the Criminal Code. There are no separate articles on facilitation payments or the provision within the said articles addressing that. Generally, all bribery crimes are sanctioned with just two articles.

There is no information on the continuing investigation and prosecution of the incidents. In most cases, events are kept secret from the public. According to reports published in the press, a large number of sick soldiers were sent to military service, because they refused to pay a bribe (1), No investigations took place. In the process of the Baku Court on Grave Crimes (September 2018), Colonel Rasul Guliyev, the head of the Gazakh region department of the State Service for Mobilization and Conscription of Military Service testified. He said that he paid 180,000 manats for his new job. “At that time I worked in the Defense Ministry, and I gave 180 thousand for [a] job at the Military Commissariat. Then I could no get the job, they returned my money. Rasul Guliyev was dismissed after this statement (3). Recently, articles from May 2019, were published on the demand for bribes from those wishing to enter the military course. Citizens facing bribery demanded a protest in front of the Armed Forces Training and Training Center (TTM). No official information on this incident has been given (2).

Facilitation payments in the military and security spheres are widespread. Military conscription facilitation payments/bribery cases have three main manifestations:
Young people give a bribe 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).
According to the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017 United States Department of State, in 2017 “there 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” and “citizens also reported military personnel could buy assignments to easier military duties for a smaller bribe” (4).

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 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].

Although carefully researched, this indicator has not been scored due to insufficient evidence/ lack of information to support enforcement or the lack of it. This is possibly also due to the difficulty in proving that someone asked for payments, as well as the fact the person making the facilitation payment could be prosecuted.

Although carefully researched, this indicator has not been scored due to insufficient evidence/ lack of information that supports the prevalence of facilitation payment.This is possibly also due to the difficulty in proving that someone asked for payments, as well as the fact the person making the facilitation payment could be prosecuted.

Article 31 of the Law N° 004 (2015) stipulates that “it is prohibited for public agents mentioned in Article 3, in the case of their function, to accept donations, presents and other or in-kind except conventional hospitality and minor presents, with monetary value less than the maximum authorized in Council of Minister.” Article 32 (1) makes it clear that if the monetary value of the present is higher than the maximum authorized, and the receiving public agent can not refuse due to protocol reasons, they should declare it, by informing his her hierarchy and the ASCE-LC. Article 23 (2) states that “the present in question is sent back to the national asset office, to the local governance office for which the beneficiary works for, or any other recognized institution.” The present is then recorded and the reference number is sent to the ASCE-LC. Additionally, the sanction of facilitation payments lies under Article 33. Burkina Faso has made significant progress in the battle against corruption through the adoption of Law N° 004 (2015). However, the BTI report states that its enforcement is weak because of a lack of information, a tradition of impunity and the weakness of institutions (1), (2).

According to the Business Anti-Corruption Portal, enforcement of the law is weak (1), and institutions responsible for enforcing the law are ill-equiped (1), which makes it difficult to find and investigate corruption. The ASCE-LC (2) was provided with the constitutional right to both investigate and prosecute corruption. There is no evidence of the existence of a case that the ASCE-LC or any other oversight institution, has successfully investigated and prosecuted. Facilitation payments are still widespread in the country (3).

As mentioned before facilitation payments are somehow imbedded in social behaviours throughout the country. The 2018 BTI report made it clear, by stating that “corruption, including, facilitation payments, is widespread in all sections of the economy.” However, as opposed to other types of corruption, I must agree that eradicating facilitation payments would require both time and resources, as the practice is deeply embedded in cultural behaviours in most communities. Fortunately, the Law N°-004 is already ahead of schedule, as Article 32 (1) indicates institutions at the national and local level, where facilitation payments with a value above the maximum authorized, must be declared and kept (1), (2).

The Penal Code Law No. 65-LF-24 of 12 November 1965 and Law No. 67-LF-1 of 12 June 1967) as amended by LAW No. 2016/007 of 12 July 2016 [1] criminalises and punishes facilitation payments. Article 312 says, “Corruption of the employee is punished with imprisonment for one to three years and a fine of 50,000 to 500,000 francs or either of these two penalties only if any paid employee, without the authorisation of his boss, receives donations in any form whatsoever for agreeing or promising to carry out or refrain from carrying out his responsibilities” [1].

The Penal Code specifically addresses the issue of facilitation payments. Article 312 of the Penal Code prohibits any employee, without the permission of his or her boss, from receiving funds to carry out or refrain from carrying out a service [1]. This is, however, hardly enforced when it comes to the defence and security institutions [2] [3]. There has been widespread corruption among senior military officials including the alleged involvement of the former Minister of Defence in a corruption scandal [4].

According to Business Anti-Corruption Portal, “Facilitation payments and gifts are also addressed in Cameroon’s legislation, yet insufficient implementation of anti-corruption legislation coupled with impunity among public officials has exacerbated the levels of corruption in the country” [5].

Transparency International Helpdesk reports that “According to Freedom House (2015), ‘Bribery is commonplace in all sectors, from gaining school admission to fixing traffic infractions’ (Freedom House, 2015)… and is common practice at all levels of the Cameroon state and business sector” [6].

According to the 2017 US State Department Human Rights Report, “The law provides criminal penalties for corruption by officials, although these were seldom enforced.” The report also noted that “individuals reportedly paid bribes to police and the judiciary to secure their freedom. Police demanded bribes at checkpoints, and influential citizens reportedly paid police to make arrests or abuse individuals with whom they had personal disputes. There were reports some police associated with the issuance of emigration and identification documents collected additional fees from applicants.” The report added that “Some officers convicted of corruption were relieved of their duties but continued to be paid due to weak oversight, accountability, and enforcement mechanisms for internal disciplining” [7].

According to the 2017 Investment Climate Statement, “In some extreme instances, civil servants blatantly violate laws and then offer bribes to State inspectors so that they are not investigated and prosecuted… [bribery] continues to plague the civil service at almost every level (government procurement, award of licenses or concessions, transfers, performance requirements, dispute settlement, regulatory system, customs or taxation)” [8].

There is also a report on the details of an ongoing investigation in France concerning suspicions of corrruption and bribery between the former defence minister and MagForce regarding defence contracts [4].

Corruption and the practice of facilitation payments is widespread in the country [1]. Almost every sector and ministerial department has been affected by this practice. It ranges from being admitted into a professional institution including the police and the miltary, to giving bribes to police at checkpoints [2]. There have been reports of police issuing identification papers who were paid high sums of money that went into their own pockets [3]. When dealing with customs officials, companies usually evade taxes by giving bribes to these officials [4]. Companies have to agree to give a certain percentage (usually 30%). [3].

Transparency International Helpdesk states that “According to Freedom House (2015), ‘Bribery is commonplace in all sectors, from gaining school admission to fixing traffic infractions’ (Freedom House, 2015)… and is common practice at all levels of the Cameroon state and business sector” [1].

According to the 2017 US State Department Human Rights Report, “Individuals reportedly paid bribes to police and the judiciary to secure their freedom. Police demanded bribes at checkpoints, and influential citizens reportedly paid police to make arrests or abuse individuals with whom they had personal disputes. There were reports some police associated with the issuance of emigration and identification documents collected additional fees from applicants” [3].

According to the 2017 Investment Climate Statement, “In some extreme instances, civil servants blatantly violate laws and then offer bribes to State inspectors so that they are not investigated and prosecuted… [bribery] continues to plague the civil service at almost every level (government procurement, award of licenses or concessions, transfers, performance requirements, dispute settlement, regulatory system, customs or taxation” [5].

The Criminal Code and in Order No. 2013-660, 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. As per the Criminal Code (Law No. 81-640, Instituant le Code Pénal), 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. This type of petty corruption is addressed in Section 4 (Avantage illégitime), Articles 231-235, of the Criminal Code. For example, Articles 233 and 234 consider the act of soliciting or paying a public official to perform an official function is codified as a crime (1) :

“Art. 233 – 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.
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” (1).

Order No. 2013-660 (Relative à la prévention et à la lutte contre la corruption et les infractions assimilées) of 20 September 2013 includes bribery as a criminal offence along with influence peddling, embezzlement and other acts of corruption. The articles on facilitation payments are contained in Title IV (Suppression of acts of corruption and related offences), Chapter 1, Sub-section 1 (Corruption d’Agents Publics Nationaux), Articles 28-30. For example, Article 30 stipulates terms of jail and monetary penalties for public officials who accept facilitation payments (2). Article 30 states:

“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).

The clarity of the language in Articles 231-235 of the Criminal Code and the inclusion of bribery among the acts of corruption in Articles 28-30 of Order No. 2013-660 are justified.

IIvorian authorities have successfully initiated and prosecuted roadblock racketeers that demanded facilitation of payments, particularly the cases investigated by the military prosecutor in Abidjan in 2018. However, there is not enough evidence of a total absence of undue political influence since the anti-racketeering campaign has been a longstanding policy priority likely handed down by the executive. According to a March 2016 report by TI’s Anti-Corruption Helpdesk, there are doubts about the effectiveness of the Anti-Corruption Brigade (Brigade de Lutte contre la Corruption, BLC), launched in 2012, and the Anti-Racketeering Unit (Unité de Lutte contre le Racket, ULR), set up in 2012. The ULR has been tasked with ending the facilitation payments demanded by police agents (and their higher-ranking officers) at roadblocks in isolated areas of Côte d’Ivoire (1). However, in November 2018, Ange Kessi was widely reported to have ordered the dismantling of 33 illegal roadblocks operated by corrupt members of the police forces. Several higher-ranking brigade commanders were also successfully prosecuted in these cases at the Military Court of Abidjan (Tribunal Militaire d’Abidjan, TMA). This proves that both the investigation and the prosecution were effective in dismantling roadblocks that had been set up in the aftermath of the post-election crisis of 2010-2011 (2).

The consistent investigations, backed by the political will of the Executive, has allowed the Military Prosecutor to successfully pursue the anti-racketeering campaign. A biographical article on Ange Kessi published in Jeune Afrique (May 2016) explained how he was able to prosecute cases involving petty corruption. Kessi has also gained iconic status for his prosecution of crimes by defence personnel, including former military commanders such as Wattao and Chérif Ousmane, both of whom supported President Ouattara during the post-election crisis of 2010-2011. The article characterizes Kessi as an activist prosecutor stating:

“From his offices in Tower A of Plateau Administrative City in Abidjan, Colonel Kessi goes through his files every day. They include cases involving the abuse of power, racketeering, murders … On his table he has piled up the proceedings against soldiers, gendarmes, policemen. During trial proceedings and in the field, he has relentlessly tracked the evidence and inconsistencies” (3).

The reality in Côte d’Ivoire, where so-called facilitation payments are highly prevalent. At the same time, some progress has been made putting an end to racketeering at roadblocks, which symbolized corruption for many Ivorians. Facilitation payments, known in French as ‘backchichs’, ‘pots de vin’ or ‘commissions officieuses’, are conveyed by the generic catch-all term of ‘racket’. This is the kind of petty corruption (petite corruption) that has been taking place at roadblocks, particularly in rural districts.

The 2018 Bertelsmann’s Foundation report on Côte d’Ivoire (BTI 2018) characterizes the prevalence of facilitation payments as follows:

“The severe economic downturn during the many years of political-military conflict led to higher levels of generalized corruption (i.e. petty and bureaucratic) and venality at all levels of public administration, especially in the case of judicial proceedings, contract awards, and customs and tax issues” (1).

In its Human Rights Report from 2017, the US State Department characterized corruption in Côte d’Ivoire in the following terms:

“There were also numerous reports of judicial corruption, and bribes often influenced rulings. By September 20, no magistrate or clerk had been disciplined or dismissed for corruption. On the other hand, magistrates who advocated independence or acted in a manner consistent with judicial independence were sometimes disciplined” (2).

An article published by Le Monde in October 2017 cited a recent Afro barometer study showing that 47% of Ivorians polled (out of a total of 1,200 individuals) had made a facilitation payment to a police agent in the 12 months preceding the study. Another 31% of pollsters had made a facilitation payment to a public official to obtain a document. The most prevalent cases involved the security forces, Customs officials and tax collectors. The situation was described by those polled as ‘endemic’ (3).

Although facilitation payments are not named explicitly in the law, the Illicit Gains Law no. 62 (1975) has a broad definition of “illicit profiteering” that includes any money obtained as a result of abuse of public position (see the assessors’ comments section for a full translation of the article). This definition very broadly covers facilitation payments, and military personnel are subject to this law and its provisions under Law no. 45 (2011) (1) which gives military courts exclusive jurisdiction for prosecuting officers and personnel of illicit gains crimes as stipulated in the Illicit Gains Law no. 62 (1975) (2).

Although the law does criminalize all forms of profiteering that stem from the abuse of a public position, military personnel and officers can only be prosecuted by military courts and prosecutors, which lack the needed independence to effectively prosecute these cases, even in the face of strong evidence. All the military justice institutions are subordinate to the Defence Ministry, including military intelligence, military courts and the Military Police, and they are considered “administrative units” of the ministry (1). Accordingly, its independence is largely compromised, and it would then naturally come under the influence of top military executives as the minister of defence must be a military officer (4). However, the Illicit Gains Law no. 62 is not enforced, and there can be widespread facilitation payments (2).

According to our sources, facilitation payments are widespread at many levels and in almost every unit, mainly contracts and the industrial sector of the MoD (1), (2), (3). There are several cases from before this reporting period, such as the Mercedes Benz case and the military aircraft depot case, which suggest that facilitation payments are prevalent in the defence sector. The lack of independence and transparency of the military justice system and the increased political power of the military since 2013 does not allude to the fact that facilitation payments are currently less prevalent than they were before.

It is illegal for officials to receive and to be offered any types of perks and benefits, whether it is appropriate or not. This is stipulated by the Anti-Corruption Act. [1] Only benefits which cannot be associated with official duties or which are unambiguously understood as common courtesy, are not deemed to be corruptive. [2] Facilitation payments were equated with bribery in Estonia’s Penal Code from 1st January 2015. [3] The reason for this is that bribery and facilitation payments are often difficult to distinguish and the punishments didn’t differ much before when they were distinguished by law. [4]

There is no evidence of unfair investigations or prosecutions concerning facilitation payments. [1] There is an external oversight of the defence sector and risks are evaluated by various institutions. [2] An external entity, the Estonian Internal Security Service, as well as the Central Criminal Police, investigate corruption instances in the defence sector. [3] However, many experts have expressed concerns over the defence sector being quite a closed sector. There is no clear public overview of what is happening inside the sector. However, independent experts who have been interviewed have not highlighted any political influence being an issue when it comes to facilitation payments. [1,2]

Based on media reports, there are not many cases of facilitation payments. The cases that are uncovered are extensively reported by journalists, as they are very rare and this makes them newsworthy. For example, the most recent case involving a facilitation payment involved an investigation by the Estonian Internal Security Service and lasted for three years. It was one of the most prominent stories at the time of publication and all the main Estonian outlets covered it. [1] According to this case, an entrepreneur bribed an official who worked at the Defence Forces between 2011 and 2013. Facilitation payment and bribery are used as synonyms in Estonia’s legislation from 1st January 2015, therefore, the men were accused of bribery. [2] The bribery receiver was punished with 1,5 years in prison on parole and the person who gave bribes was fined 14,700 euros. [3]

The legal framework of prevention and investigation of facilitation payments is based on the Law On State Service, the Law On Conflict of Interest and Corruption in State Service, the Criminal Code, the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2017 and the Anti-Corruption Action Plan 2017-2018. Criminal codes apply in these cases too. For example, the head of the monitoring divisions of the Military Police (MP) was arrested by the State Security Service (SA) in 2018; the arrest was made in line with Article 338.1 of the Criminal Code [1], which states a sentence of six to nine years in prison.

There were few publicly known cases of facilitation payments investigated during 2015-2017, but there was no evidence of undue political influence [1, 2]. The Criminal Code applies and therefore sanctions defined by the Criminal Code. For example, the head of the monitoring divisions of the Military Police (MP) was arrested by the State Security Service (SA) in 2018; the arrest was made in line with Article 338.1 of the Criminal Code [3], which states a sentence of six to nine years in prison.

There is publicly available information on the investigation and prosecution of few cases of facilitation payments. Cases of facilitation payments are rare. (1,2,3,4,5,6,7)

Section 240 of the Criminal Offences Act states that an officer is guilty of corruption if he is influenced by a “gift, promise, or prospect of any valuable consideration to be received by him, or by any other person, from any person whosoever” (1). Similarly, sections 244 and 245 criminalise the acceptance or offering of a bribe (defined as “any valuable consideration”). Despite not being explicitly mentioned, the facilitation of payments is illegal by the provisions of Section 240, 244, and 245 of the Criminal Offences Act.

Despite the judiciary being perceived as the second-most corrupt institution in Ghana (1), which leads to questions of its effectiveness, there have been cases of facilitation of payment successfully prosecuted. For instance, following the 2015 investigation of Anas Aremeyaw Anas, which exposed the corruption of the judicial system, 24 judges and magistrates were prosecuted and found guilty of bribery (2). Following another report by Anas in June 2018, the Ghanaian Football Association was dissolved for the facilitation of payments, the prosecution is currently ongoing (3).

The facilitation of payments is a widespread corruption practice in Ghana (1).

Facilitation payments are forbidden by the law, and the criminal law defines facilitation payments as a form of bribery which may be sanctioned by jail [1]. Ethical codices of civil servants and public officials also forbid facilitation payments. The Code of Ethics for the Military states that the soldiers should resist any attempt of bribery and “possibly should speak up against corruption” [2].

Facilitation payments are tolerated in some segments of the public and business, for example, in the health care sector (including the Military Hospital which is a big medical centre in Budapest) while intransigently pursued in other areas. Enforcement is selective, personal ties and political affiliations might matter. Tolerated forms of facilitation payments are among the most devastating forms of petty corruption. An example of a legal procedure came after a notable bribery case in the health care system; in 2018 a Budapest based doctor was sentenced for two years for bribery as he asked for money nine times for services which should have been free for patients [1].

Facilitation payments in the defence sector are not common. However, it is most widespread in the healthcare system also known as ‘money of gratitude’, including, but by far not limited to the Military Hospital in Budapest is one of Hungary’s largest medical centre [1]. The hospital is also the most advanced in the country in many aspects. Facilitation payments are tolerated in the healthcare area with very few exemptions. It provides services for government officials, police, military personnel and a large number of civilians. Thus, the facilitation payments in the Hungarian health care system, in general, affects the military hospital that has a crucial role in Hungary. Prohibitions on facilitation payments are better enforced if they fall outside of the healthcare system. According to the Global Corruption Barometer (GCB) 2016’s survey, the bribery and facilitation payment outside the healthcare sector decreased significantly compared to the previous GCB survey in 2013. However, 22% of Hungarians said that they had paid facilitation payments in the healthcare system, which is more than double the EU average (10%). The facilitation payment specifically in the defence sector was not asked in this survey and we have no survey evidence on that [2].

As Transparency International’s 2015 findings (1) disclose, existing provisions with Iraq’s Penal Code of 1969, is the closest Iraq comes to an anti-facilitation payment framework, stipulating that officials that accept “a gift, benefit, honour or promise thereof” can serve a maximum of ten years in jail, and they are subject to pay a fine no more than the money the individual is found guilty of taking (Article 38, Iraqi Penal Code) (2). The Penal Code, as one article notes is very broad, and extends beyond administrative and institutional corruption (3) [363] [Article 2/19, Iraqi Penal Code], noting that “not a single institution [in Iraq] has not been implicated in bribery allegations” (3).

While provisions of the Civil Penal Code (1), on paper, criminalise engagement in bribery and encourage culprits to come forward in exchange of court leniency, the implementation of these is weak against the backdrop of weak anti-bribery legal measures (2). The Penal Code does not specifically name ‘facilitation payments’ as an act deemed to be a form of bribery but prohibits personnel and officers from receiving or exchanging a “gift, benefit, honour [sic] or promise thereof”. As the news coverage shows, bribery associated with the police and security forces is commonplace (3). The most prevalent include temporary employment contracts, to secure a specific rank/position, financial benefits, and bribes in exchange for permission to remain absent from military service.

Facilitation payments, otherwise known as grease payments, are not permissible as the rule of law dictates; however, according to an Iraqi political advisor that TI spoke with “while it’s prohibited under Iraqi laws, facilitation payments are widely used; particularly across security and defence institutions”. Transactions or services under which this practice has flourished “differ and can range from the delivery of armoured vehicles or their parts to large construction deals and transport infrastructure” (1). Inflated service fees is another common form, the source explains, of facilitation payments. A deeper look into the subject reveals that the matter, even across local Iraqi media outlets, is not reported and commented on. This, the source interviewed explains further, “is a result of the vaguity [sic] of definitions across existing legislature over what constitutes a facilitation payment and whether it is or isn’t permissible”. One case which brings forth credible evidence of prevalence is the ASIC case in which senior officials were found guilty of paying for trucking and inland fees to the government “through [the] inflated process via intermediaries” without UN authorisation (2). Attempts to accept, give or issue bribes, is outlawed beneath the sixth section of the Iraqi Penal Code. No further information could be unearthed to provide finer details regarding the frequency of such payments. One source underlines the seriousness of these crimes, which can land officials up to ten years in prison. Another case involved Petrofac and efforts to corrupt offers to influence the awarding of government contracts concerning Badra operations (oil field) (3). Contracts awarded to Petrofac between 2012 and 2015 in Iraq, amounted to $730 mn (4). No further evidence corroborates the claim of frequent enforcement of these sentences.

Bribery, including facilitation payments, is clearly prohibited by 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 [1]. In addition to that specific legislation that relates to the armed forces, Jordan has numerous legislations and regulations that prohibit bribery including facilitation payments. 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 facilitation payments are clearly prohibited according to Article 30 of Law No. 35 of the year 1966, there are no sanctions defined by the Military Penal Code [3]. However, sanctions do exist within the Jordanian Penal Code. The Jordanian Penal Code’s definition of bribery clearly covers facilitation payments, as the code distinguishes between gifts or payments made for legitimate and illegitimate services. Therefore, facilitation payments would fall under the gifts or payments made in return of a legitimate service. Facilitation payments are strictly and clearly illegal.

The armed forces do not make the outcomes of their prosecutions public; there is in fact, no evidence of prosecutions within the armed forces at all. As explained previously, accusations levelled against the chief of the army were neither investigated nor prosecuted [1]. The corruption accusations by the association of retired military personnel against the armed forces [2] were not investigated or prosecuted. It is important to note here that corruption accusations were not related to either bribery or facilitation payments, instead most of them were related to embezzlement. Interestingly, cases of corruption often reported in the media are relevant to embezzlement, rather than bribery or facilitation payments. This could also be an indicator that bribery and facilitation payments are not as socially frowned upon as embezzlement. The fact that there were no cases of facilitation payments publicly discussed shows that there are clear failures to investigate or prosecute cases, even in light of strong evidence. The scoring also took into consideration the fact that Jordan is a country where Wasta and nepotism are rife [3].

In the armed forces, facilitation payments might happen and according to our sources, have happened before, but they are still very rare. They only happen at a very senior level and all news and rumors are speculations about possible facilitation payments across borders [1,2].

The facilitation payments are not addressed by the current legal framework in Kosovo [1].

The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that no cases of facilitation payments have occurred in the Ministry of Defence or the Kosovo Security Forces [1]. No other sources are available.

The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that no cases of facilitation payments have occurred in the Ministry of Defence or the Kosovo Security Forces [1]. No other sources are available.

Facilitation payments are not explicitly outlawed in any of the laws related to Kuwait’s security agencies, but the security agencies must simply account for every dinar in the agreements they enter, including ones on intermediaries, according to Law no. 25 of 1996 (1, 2 and 3).

State auditors, a police official and an activist close to the Government say the security agencies often do make facilitation payments and that it is an open secret in the executive branch that does not scandalise anyone (1, 2, 3 and 4). No one is prosecuted or investigated for this. Because the practice is so accepted, no one appears to keep track of it and the officials could not give specific examples.

Auditors and an activist close to the Government say facilitation payments are effectively part of every arms procurement deal (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).

Faciltiation payments are strictly and clearly illegal according the the Law on On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials. [1] In addition, the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau of Latvia “Gift Acceptance Restrictions” explain what constitutes a gift within the meaning of the law and limit the acceptance of gifts in the performance of duties to avoid potential conflicts of interest. [2]

There is not enough evidence to score this indicator. No public information is available on enforcement as regards to facilitation payments, since such cases have not been recorded. If such cases were recorded, they would receive attention in the media and an investigation under the Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officals would be initiated. [1] [2]

There have not been cases of facilitation payments recorded. The issue has not been discussed in public.

Facilitation of Payment is illegal in Lebanon. The LPC criminalizes forms of bribery for public officials and lays down the provisions to regulate them (1). Punishments for acts of bribery include three-year imprisonment and a fine equal to three times the bribe (2).

It is not clear whether the investigated cases are regularly prosecuted because the LAF does not publish information about prosecutions (1). According to a source, the Military Police investigate and follow up on violations (2). Prosecutions and investigations of violations are pursued and enforced (2).

Facilitation payments are widespread in Lebanon due to ineffective bureaucratic procedures and lack of transparency and accountabilitiy. Bribery methods to speed up the process are percieved as a norm. Lebanon is among 20% worst countries in the world for corruption (1). Yet, LAF is percieved as the least corrupt institution by citizens (2).
In the defense sector, cases of bribery and corruption to enter the Military Academy have been present. However, the people linked to the bribery scandle were called for questioning in front of the Military Tribunal (3). Furthermore, facilitation payments at mid to senior levels are highly risky for officers, especially in positions with financial, budgetary, and procurment responsibilities. LAF Command has successively shown a willingness to penalize and punish officers who would do otherwise (4) (5).

By law, facilitation payments are strictly and clearly illegal, considered to be purely corrupt activity. One of the main ethical principles of duty in the civil service is propriety (a civil servant shall be flawless and incorruptible, refuse gifts, money or services, exceptional privileges and concessions from persons and organisations), which means that civil servants or government officials cannot accept money, other valuable things or services from persons or organisations that may exert influence on him or her while performing the duties of a state politician or other official duties [1]. Articles 225-229 of the Criminal Code of Lithuania, which regulate corruption-related offences, stipulate sanctions for civil servants and considers it a crime case when a civil servant accepts or agrees to bribes. This means that all types of payments (including facilitation payments) are illegal [2].

The Special Investigation Service issues its annual reports, stating the growth of investigated crimes and more convictions passed in court [1]. In 2017, the courts had 431 corruption-related cases, out of which 424 were thoroughly investigated. However, there is no evidence of how many of these cases were linked to bribery / facilitation payments [2]. Cases of any form of corruption are investigated by the Special Investigation Service. Petty corruption is also investigated by the police (mostly in the police sector) and the Customs (in the customs). Facilitation payments are considered bribery which is a criminal offence. The number of active bribery cases investigated by STT has been steadily increasing, 71 cases in 2016, 73 cases in 2017 and 144 cases in 2008 (3).

The Lithuanian Map of Corruption 2016 does not name the Ministry of Defence among those institutions where bribery/ facilitation payments would be widespread. However, citizens note that they would not trust the Department responsible for acquisitions (1).

The law is insufficiently clear on the issue of facilitation payments. The Penal Code specifically outlaws corruption and acts of bribery for all public servants, including military personnel. Article 121 states that “Anyone in either the performance or the obtaining of an act or benefits or favours, uses violence or threats, promises, offers, gifts or presents, or acts tending to corruption will be subject to the measures included in article 130, ‘five to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of twice the value of approved promises or things received or requested, without that fine be less than 100,000 francs”.¹ Curiously, the 2014 anticorruption law makes no mention of facilitation payments.²

Corruption is so widespread within the state administration that cases of abuse are only occasionally investigated. As noted above, in the 2011 investigation, public funds were recouped, but no prosecutions occurred. Citizens are accustomed to paying small bribes to public officials to obtain services that everyone has the right to obtain free of charge.¹ 2 3 Citizens remark that they frequently incur demands for bribes of between 1,000 CFA and 10,000 CFA from civil servants to accelerate services or to certify legal documents.¹ Police and custom officials are also known to exact payments from motorists and people importing or exporting goods. The sheer scale of abuse means that the vast majority of cases go uninvestigated.¹ 2 3 The IMF says that “economic agents involved in bribery are seldom prosecuted. Embezzlement in public procurements is sanctioned by the criminal code, but there again prosecutions remain the exception rather than the rule. Administrative sanctions against bidders and holders of public contracts exist for cases of incitement to corruption or the commission of fraudulent acts. However, in practice, they are seldom or never applied”.4

Corruption is so widespread within the state administration that cases of abuse are only occasionally investigated. As noted above in the 2011 investigation, public funds were recouped, but no prosecutions occurred. Citizens are accustomed to paying small bribes to public officials to obtain services that everyone has the right to obtain free of charge.1,2,3 Citizens remark that they frequently incur demands for bribes of between 1,000 CFA and 10,000 CFA from civil servants to accelerate services or to certify legal documents.¹ Police and custom officials are also known to exact payments from motorists and people importing or exporting goods.4 The sheer scale of abuse means that the vast majority of cases go uninvestigated.1,2,3
The GAN Anti-Corruption Portal notes that “corruption is a high risk for businesses acquiring public licenses, permits or utilities. Businesses report that irregular payments in relation to public utilities commonly occur..4 Indeed, 18% of Malian survey respondents have paid a bribe or provided a favour in order to obtain public services in the past 12 months.5
Corruption is a high risk in land administration. Property rights are well defined in principle, but corruption in the Malian bureaucracy negatively affects the implementation of property rights in practice.6 This includes corrupt practices raising the transaction costs connected to obtaining a legal title and diverging concepts of ownership between nomads and the sedentary population that leads to frequent clashes between these two groups.6

Facilitation payments are not criminalised: the Criminal Code criminalises a bribe only if it is given to an official with the aim of them not to performing a duty that has to be performed, of them performing a duty that should not be performed, but bribes to “speed up” the performance of an existing duty are not criminalised. [1]

Facilitation payments are not criminalised, hence this indicator is not applicable.

According to available public opinion surveys, more than 45% of businesses admit that they have given a bribe in order to speed up procedures in institutions [1]. Previous research also shows that the main purposes of paying bribes by the general population are to speed up a procedure (32%), to receive better treatment (18%) or to finalise a procedure (18%) [2]. There is no available information related particulary to defence and security sector, as such this indicator is scored Not Enough Information.

Corruption in public services and authorities is explicitly prohibited by the Public Market Code. However the Public Market Code does no provide specific legislation to discourage facilitation payment (1)(2). Interviewees argued that facilitation payments were wide spread in several fields of public service, such as the police, local authorities, health, education (3)(4).

No evidence of specific legislation to discourage facilitation payment in the armed forces was found (1)(2).

The general lack of transparency surrounding the armed forces’ budget and financial management, coupled with the latest publicly available reference to the clear existence of facilitation payments within the Moroccan armed forces (A cable to the State Department sent in 2008 by the then American ambassador to Morocco) shows a wide use of facilitation payments within the military, especially in the Western Sahara region where most of the Moroccan armed forces are stationed), support the view that specific legislation might not exist, and that if it does, it is not made public and is not respected (5)(6).

Corruption in public services and authorities is explicitly prohibited by the Public Market Code(1)(2). However the Public Market Code does not provide specific legislation to discourage facilitation payments. Interviewees argued that facilitation payments were widespread in several fields of public service, such as the police, local authorities, health and education (3)(4).

No evidence of specific legislation to discourage facilitation payment in the armed forces was found (1)(2).

The general lack of transparency surrounding the armed forces’ budget and financial management, coupled with the latest publicly available reference to the clear existence of facilitation payments within the Moroccan armed forces (A cable to the State Department sent in 2008 by the then American ambassador to Morocco) show a wide use of facilitation payments within the military, especially in the Western Sahara region where most of the Moroccan armed forces are stationed and support the view that specific legislation might not exist, and that if it does, it is not made public and is not respected (5).

No evidence of successful investigations or prosecutions was found, due to the lack of specific legislation on the subject. Interviewees confirmed that there were clear failures to investigate or prosecute cases, even in the face of strong evidence.

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

Corruption in public services and authorities is explicitly prohibited by the Public Market Code (1)(2). However the Public Market Code does not provide specific legislation to discourage facilitation payments. Interviewees argued that facilitation payments were widespread in several fields of public service, such as the police, local authorities, health and education(3)(4).

No evidence of specific legislation to discourage facilitation payment in the armed forces was found (1)(2).

The general lack of transparency surrounding the armed forces’ budget and financial management, coupled with the latest publicly available reference to the clear existence of facilitation payments within the Moroccan armed forces (A cable to the State Department sent in 2008 by the then American ambassador to Morocco) show a wide use of facilitation payments within the military, especially in the Western Sahara region where most of the Moroccan armed forces are stationed and support the view that specific legislation might not exist, and that if it does, it is not made public and is not respected (5).

Neither the 2003 Military Penal Code (1) nor the Public Penal Code (2) cover facilitation fees (paiement de faveur, paiement de facilitiation) explicitly (see question 35 for details on sanctions regarding corruption). Facilitation payments are therefore not criminalised. The law is not sufficiently clear on the issue of facilitation payments.

Since facilitation payments are not criminalised, this indicator has been marked Not Applicable.

It is difficult to evaluate with precision the extent of facilitation payments. However, some studies indicate that the practice is widespread, with some areas being affected more than others (1). For example, the police, who are public-facing in their roles, seems to be a particular concern (1). Moreover, paying an official to smoothen an administrative procedure is a widespread practice in Niger. The historical and traditional dimension of facilitation “gifts” is also to be taken into consideration and has been extensively analysed by researchers working on corruption (2).

Nigeria is a signatory to the United Nations International Convention Against Corruption (12.03). (UNCAC) (1). Nigeria is also a signatory to the African Union Anti-Corruption Convention. (16.12.03) (2). Both conventions have been ratified by Nigeria. Nigeria has no specific law regarding the bribery of “foreign officials” (1), (2). However, Nigeria has legislated against the soliciting or offering or receiving bribes of domestic officials. Apart from Section 98 of the Criminal Code, there is also the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC), which also investigates and prosecutes giving or receiving of bribes by officials or any person (3). Although there is no specific provision dealing with facilitation payments, the scope of the Criminal Code Section 98 and the ICPC Act are sufficiently wide to cover facilitation payments (4). The law states that payments to any person for corrupt purposes, whether directly or indirectly through third parties, are prohibited by law. Section 18 of the ICPC Act 2000 provides that any person who offers to any public official or being a public official solicits counsels or accepts any gratification as an inducement or reward is guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to five years imprisonment (3).

It is worth observing that despite the prohibition of such payments under the Criminal Code and other laws, there has not been a single conviction in 40 years with regards to the crime of facilitation (1).

The recent case of the MTN and the alleged payments made to public officials who are currently being investigated suggests that facilitation payments do happen in some areas where high-value contracts are at stake such as in the oil sector. Another recent example of this is the Malabo case (1), (2).

Corrupt payments are criminalised by the Criminal Code [1]. Articles 257 and 358 highlight the illegal nature of asking and receiving gifts in financial, commercial, service or other economic activities related to official responsibilities, and the Code prescribes penalties of 1-5 years of prison sentence. In the defence sector, the Law on Army Service [2] outlaws “receiving gifts or other benefits, in order to obtain unlawful proprietary benefits” (131/18) and penalises this with 10-30 % salary cuts, bans on promotion to higher ranks, demotion or dismissal from work (Article 132) [2]. The Ministry of Defence also operates following the Code of Ethics [3] which also prohibits receiving and asking for gifts (Article 10) [3].

There is not enough information to score this indicator. No evidence of corrupt payments by or to the Ministry of Defence or Army employees has been identified [1]. No media reports or investigations on private enterprise within the defence sector are publicly available.

There is no evidence of corrupt payments by or to Ministry of Defence or Army employees [1] It would seem, based on the above evidence, that corrupt payments are absent in the defence realm.

According to Omani law, bribery and facilitation payments are strictly forbidden and criminalized (1), (2), (3), (4).

Cases of payment facilitation could be investigated but not persecuted or taken seriously (1). This is a result of political influence in the process of decision making. There are no examples of investigations or failures to investigate or prosecute cases of facilitation payments in the defence or security sectors available for the public, which indicates that there is no media coverage for such cases (2). There are no media reports indicating failures to investigate or prosecute, neither are there any media reports of prosecution relating to facilitation payments in the defence or security sectors (3), (4), (5). No concerns by independent commentators over the lack of enforcement of the laws above were identified, however strict restrictions on Omani media and civil society undercut the existence of independent commentators (6), (7).

There is no evidence to suggest that facilitation payments are prevalent in Oman. According to our sources, there are very few cases which indicate it is rare, and not prevalent. This is because Omani society relies on tribal and familial connections rather than payments (4), (5). Anti-corruption portals advising international businesses on Oman emphasise the low corruption risk in Oman including within the security forces (1), (2). The Export.Gov website advises that “US businesses do not identify corruption as one of the top concerns of operating in Oman” (2). Media reports suggest corruption levels are decreasing, and commitments made by the sultan since the protests in 2011 have seen explicit commitments to combatting corruption, including facilitation payments (3). Although there is a lack of coverage on defence and security sectors, there is no indication that facilitation payments are prevalent.

Facilitation payments are strictly illegal in both civilian and military service laws. It is considered bribery and not a facilitation payment (1).

There has not been a case where an investigation or prosecution was conducted, even in the face of strong evidence of facilitation payments (1). Some payments can be in the form of gifts. Therefore, concerns have been expressed by a range of independent commentators and CSOs (2), (3).

Facilitation payments may happen (1), (2), but it is not a widespread practice. According to the ACC report, there have been some cases of illicit practices in the form of payments (22 cases in 2017) (3).

Facilitation payments are strictly and clearly illegal. The Polish Criminal Code art. 228, para. 1, penalises the acceptance, demand, or offering of any material of personal benefit or a promise thereof in connection with the performance of a public function [1]. The code do not specify the minimum value of undue benefit, consequently facilitation payments are treated as bribes.

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

No studies, nor media reports indicate cases of facilitation payments in the Polish defence sector.

Facilitation payments are strictly illegal in Qatar. Article 156 of the Penal Code stipulates that ‘a penalty of imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years shall apply to any public officer involved in collecting the fines, fees, taxes or the like, who asks for or takes non-due amounts or amounts exceeding the due payments with knowledge of the facts’. [1] This strict prohibition clearly sets out the legal framework for dealing with facilitation payments within the country, and that also applies to the defence sector. [2,3,4,5]

Despite the lack of information about facilitation payments, our sources confirm that cases may be investigated but are not often successfully prosecuted. [1] There is credible evidence to indicate undue influence in the decision-making process. [2] Qatar imposes harsh measures on public officers’ involvement in corruption, however, it is not possible to tell whether these measures are being enforced in all cases. [3]

Facilitation payments are very rare in the defence sector. There is no way of knowing whether such things happen at a senior level. [1] In general, no facilitation payments take place as most activities are done within closed circles and to known parties. [1,2]

According to our sources, facilitation of payments is prohibited by law, and the Code of Conduct of the military and civil personnel (1), (2). However, these laws are not very clear and do not specifically provide a mechanism of how to deal with the facilitation of payments (2). According to the Code of Conduct for civilian personnel, officials are prohibited from receiving gifts with relation to their public functions (3). However, the code does not specifically address the issue of facilitation payments.

There is a clear failure in investigating corruption cases of payment facilitation (1). One source claimed, “50% of procurements include facilitation payments” (2). Although the officials are aware of that, there are no measures taken. There is no publicly available information on procedures to investigate facilitation payments in Saudi Arabia, and they have been known to occur. In the past authorities have turned a blind eye to facilitation payments in the military; for example, in the case of GPT Special Project Management’s contract with SANG (3).

Traditionally, facilitation payments have been considered part and parcel in the local business environment (1), (2), (3). This includes the widespread use of middlemen and fixers in defence procurement, who have been known to receive kickbacks for facilitating deals between foreign defence companies and the Saudi government (4), (5). There are signs that the Saudi government wants to root out such practices, for instance, the establishment of the General Authority for Military Industries (GAMI). GAMI is an industry body created in August 2017, billed as a one-stop-shop for procurement (1).

Facilitation payments are recognised as a criminal offence by the Criminal Code (Art. 367 and 368) under bribery, which prohibits the acts of both accepting and giving bribes and specifies penalties for it [1]. Even though not defined separately from bribery, facilitation payments are criminalized and can lead to up to eight years of imprisonment for all public officials, including MoD and SAF members. The Anti-Corruption Agency Law (Art. 40-42) also bans the reception of gifts [2]. The Code of Honor of the SAF mentions that a SAF officer cannot “accept gifts apart from the protocol ones” [3].

There is not enough information to score this indicator, According to the MoD’s response to the BCSP questionnaire, there are no central records on criminal charges filed against MoD and SAF members. The human resources sector stated that within their own unit there were no criminal charges, and they do not have information on other organisational parts of the MoD and SAF [1]. As such, it is difficult to gain an overall picture of enforcing sanctions on offences related to bribery and facilitation payments. Moreover, since the law does not separate them from bribery, sanctions aimed precisely at tackling facilitation payments cannot be pinpointed.

According to the media reports, cases related to bribery seem to occur in the field of military medicine most often. In March 2018, there were two large MSA, MP and MoI joint actions aimed at tackling corruption cases in military medical facilities. One resulted in the arrest of five people for bribery and unlawful mediation in a military hospital in Niš; while in the other one, a Lt. Colonel in Military Medical Academy in Belgrade was imprisoned on suspicion of having committed the criminal offence of abuse of office [1, 2]. Nevertheless, without consolidated data on the entire system, the prevalence of bribery is hard to assess.

Facilitation payments are punished according to Articles 82 to 94 of the Penal Code, penalising the corrupter, the corrupted and the intermediary between the two. It punishes both positive and negative acts which include donations or promises of donations and gifts or advantages of any kind, whether for the purpose of active or passive corruption. Similarly, the Penal Code penalises acceptance of donations by corrupted individuals. This includes cases where officials are refusing to carry out an activity that is within the remit of their official duties, or to refrain from carrying out said duties (1). According to article 133 of the Military Justice Code, the provisions of the Penal Code are also applicable to the military (2).

According to our sources, there are political attempts to derail efforts on corruption cases related to facilitation payments. These efforts are sometimes faced strongly by INLUCC and senior commanders and sometimes are tolerated based on the power of the political figure (1,2). There is evidence that cases are investigated. The Anti-Corruption Authority (INLUCC) annual report for the year 2017 mentions that 7 cases of corruption have been transmitted to justice by the Ministry of Defence. Details of these cases are not publicly available and it is unclear if they include facilitation payments (3). There is no evidence of comments from independent commentators over undue political influence (4).

According to our sources, there are very rare facilitation payments that may happen in the MoD, but they are not prevalent. These cases may consist of fewer than a dozen in the last few years (1,2).

Bribes (facilitation payments) are prohibited by law. For instance, the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely Article 368 stipulates that “Accepting an offer, promise or receipt of improper advantage by [a] public official” can be punished with up to 12 years of imprisonment, deprivation of the right to occupy certain public positions and confiscation of property [1]. However, the Law allows the possibility for public officials to receive gifts “which meet generally accepted notions of hospitality, happen once and if the cost of such gifts does not exceed 1762 UAH or 63 USD” (as of April 2018) with regards to the limitations of Article 23 of the Law on Corruption Prevention [2].

The Law on Corruption Prevention [2] defines “unlawful benefits” as a part of the term “corruption”. Unlawful benefits themself are defined as – money or other kinds of property, benefits, preferences, services, intangible assets, any other benefits of immaterial or non-monetary nature that are promised, offered, granted or received without legal justification. There is no separate term for facilitation payments in the Ukrainian legislation bu the definition of the terms “corruption” and “unlawful benefits” are broad enough and incorporate facilitation payments. For example, there was a case when a State Migration Service civil servant was arrested for receiving a bribe for “speeding up the process of issuing [an] ID card”.

The General Prosecutor`s Office provides data on the prosecution of criminal and administrative corruption cases [1], and there is evidence that cases are investigated. However, there is evidence-backed concern that investigation and prosecution authorities, as well as the judiciary, might be unduly influenced by the legislature. For instance, there are reasons to doubt SAPO`s independence since its head was recently suspected of certain illegalities [2]. However, NABU is one of the effective authorities tasked to combat corruption; it is also one of the first public institutions to investigate high-level corruption cases with active MoD officials involved [3,4,5].
Moreover, the MoD website reports on cases illustrating that the Chief of Defence initiated an official investigation of an officer who was allegedly involved in bribery [6], deprived two corrupt officers of military ranks [7] and dismissed a commander of the military unit from the AFU [8].

The General Prosecutor`s Office provides data stating there were 2681 cases of bribery (in regards to Articles 368, 369, 370 of the CCU) recorded by law enforcement agencies in 2017 and 2031 cases in 2016. However, it is worth noting that there are clear methodological challenges in measuring corruption and the occurrence rate of facilitation payments, in particular. This is the case, although some recent polls indicate that facilitation payments are common in the social sphere such as schools and hospitals [2]. If we look at the defence and security sector, in particular, facilitation payments became a widespread practice with regards to crossing checkpoints in the East of Ukraine [3] and the illegal movement of goods to the temporarily occupied territories [4].

According to many sources, facilitation payments are prohibited in the UAE and are considered illegal under the laws that criminalise bribes (1), (2), (3). Bribery, including facilitation payments, is prohibited through Federal Law 3/1987, also known as the Penal Code, Articles 234 to 239, and Federal Decree-Law 11/2008 (also known as the Federal Human Resources Law) (4). However, there is no clear evidence that the Federal Human Resources Law applies to the defence sector. All evidence suggests that there are legal frameworks that strictly make facilitation payments illegal. It has also been noted that although the US under the FCPA allows for exceptions concerning facilitation payments, the UAE has no exceptions (1), (5), (6).

The UAE does not make information about the investigation and prosecution of cases of corruption in the defence sector and the armed forces accessible to the public. According to our sources from the armed forces, the enforcement of legal frameworks with regards to facilitation payments are strict, and people involved are prosecuted, and in cases where they are foreign, they will be deported (1), (2).

According to the assessor’s interviews with officers within the UAE armed forces, facilitation payments are very rare and not a common practice within the forces (1), (2).

Country Sort by Country 50a. Legal framework Sort By Subindicator 50b. Enforcement Sort By Subindicator 50c. Prevalence Sort By Subindicator
Albania 100 / 100 50 / 100 NEI
Algeria 100 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Angola 100 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Armenia 100 / 100 50 / 100 NEI
Azerbaijan 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Bosnia and Herzegovina 50 / 100 NEI NEI
Burkina Faso 100 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Cameroon 100 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Cote d'Ivoire 100 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Egypt 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Estonia 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Georgia 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Ghana 100 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Hungary 100 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Iraq 50 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Jordan 100 / 100 0 / 100 100 / 100
Kosovo 0 / 100 NA 100 / 100
Kuwait 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Latvia 100 / 100 NEI 100 / 100
Lebanon 100 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Lithuania 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Mali 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Montenegro 0 / 100 NA NEI
Morocco 0 / 100 0 / 100 NEI
Niger 0 / 100 NA 0 / 100
Nigeria 100 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100
North Macedonia 100 / 100 NEI 100 / 100
Oman 100 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Palestine 100 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100
Poland 100 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100
Qatar 100 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Saudi Arabia 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Serbia 100 / 100 NEI 50 / 100
Tunisia 100 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100
Ukraine 100 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
United Arab Emirates 100 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100

With thanks for support from the UK Department for International Development 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 2021