Global Policy, Corruption, Economic Crimes, Fronting, Whistleblowers

“(1) In its resolution 55/61 of 4 December 2000, the General Assembly recognized that an effective international legal instrument against corruption, independent of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (resolution 55/25, annex I) was desirable and decided to establish an ad hoc committee for the negotiation of such an instrument in Vienna at the headquarters of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). The text of the United Nations Convention against Corruption was negotiated during seven sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Negotiation of the Convention against Corruption, held between 21 January 2002 and 1 October 2003. The Convention approved by the Ad Hoc Committee was adopted by the General Assembly by resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003. The General Assembly, in its resolution 57/169 of 18 December 2002, accepted the offer of the Government of Mexico to host a high-level political signing conference in Merida for the purpose of signing the United Nations Convention against Corruption. In accordance with article 68 (1) of resolution 58/4, the United Nations Convention against Corruption entered into force on 14 December 2005. A Conference of the States Parties is established to review implementation and facilitate activities required by the Convention.

(2) First International Forum on Tax and Crime ∙ Oslo ∙ 21-23 March 2011. Issues related to greater inter-agency co-operation were discussed by more than 150 delegates from 54 delegations who participated in the first tax and crime forum on 21-23 March 2011 in Oslo hosted by the Norwegian government. The conference brought together representatives from a range of OECD and non-OECD governmental agencies, including Tax Administrations, Finance and Justice Ministries, Financial Intelligence Units, Central Banks, FATF, International Organisations, as well as business and NGOs. Second International Forum on Tax and Crime ∙ Rome ∙ 14-15 June 2012. This Forum brought together senior policy makers from different government agencies including the tax, anti-money laundering and anti-corruption communities, as well as private sector representatives, NGOs and other interested stakeholders. Participants examined best practice approaches to closer inter-agency co-operation at the domestic level and explore how to improve international cooperation. The conference also showcased specific key risks in the tax and crime area, allowing countries to target resources and learn from the experience of others. Building on previous events in Oslo and Rome, the Third Forum on Tax and Crime provided an opportunity for senior government officials from tax and customs administrations, anti-money laundering and anti‑corruption authorities, police and law enforcement, public prosecutors, financial regulators and government Ministries, as well as international organisations and NGOs, to discuss current issues and country experiences on key policy and operational topics in combating all forms of financial crime.

(3) The 4th Joint African Union Commission/United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (AUC/ECA) Conference of African Ministers of Finance, Planning and Economic Development was held in 2011. This Conference mandated ECA to establish the High Level Panel on Illicit Financial Flows from Africa. Illicit financial flows out of Africa have become a matter of major concern because of the scale and negative impact of such flows on Africa’s development and governance agenda.  By some estimates, illicit flows from Africa could be as much as US $50 billion per annum. This is approximately double the official development assistance (ODA) that Africa receives and, indeed, the estimate may well be short of reality as accurate data does not exist for all transactions and for all African countries.

Fronting means a deliberate circumvention or attempted circumvention of the South African B-BBEE Act and the Codes. Fronting commonly involves reliance on data or claims of compliance based on misrepresentations of facts, whether made by the party claiming compliance or by any other person. Verification agencies, and /or procurement officers and relevant decision-makers may come across fronting indicators through their interactions with measured entities. The B-BBEE Commission may also approach a court of law to restrain any breach or for any appropriate remedial relief, which may include setting aside the transaction or initiative. The B-BBEE Commission will not discuss the merit or the details of its investigative process, but the findings will be published as required in the B-BBEE Act.