draining development.pdf - Khazar University

The Kleptocrat’s Portfolio Decisions 449end. 37 Bringing kleptocrats to justice is only one small part of the fight,but an important one not only in effecting recoveries, but also in testingthe political will of the states involved. International sanctions for failureto act should become an increasingly recognized option. 38 A number ofthose engaged in this area have opined on a need for a supranationaljurisdiction. In this regard, thoughts turn to the jurisdiction of the InternationalCriminal Court. There is surely a strong argument to be madethat the enduring effects of corruption at the highest levels is at least asdevastating, in terms of loss of life through lack of clean water and disease,as any genocidal conflict. A court that is internationally objective,addressed by independently funded lawyers, and able to deliver internationallyrecognized judgments that can be registered and that areenforceable in domestic jurisdictions is, as Hamlet said, “a consummationdevoutly to be wished.” 39Notes1. Ministry of Justice, 2010, “Launch of UK Foreign Anti-bribery Strategy,” Speechby Jack Straw, Justice Secretary, London, January 19, http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/speech190110a.htm.2. The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which cameinto effect on December 14, 2005; the OECD Convention on Combating Briberyof Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, 1977; and theStolen Asset Recovery Initiative, launched jointly by the United Nations Officeon Drugs and Crime and the World Bank in 2007.3. The quotations are taken from “Investigations Subcommittee Holds Hearing onKeeping Foreign Corruption out of the United States: Four Case Histories,” PermanentSubcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Securityand Government Affairs, U.S. Senate, February 4, 2010, http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Press.MajorityNews&ContentRecord_id=9a9a2e09-5056-8059-76f6-1b9eb33b29b2&Region_id=&Issue_id=.4. These proceedings were separate from the recovery proceedings, involving theAbachas selling a US$150 million debt that they had purchased through offshoreentities back to the Nigerian government for US$300 million. The debtwas originally incurred in the construction of a steel plant at Ajaokuta. As aresult of the judgment, Nigeria recovered the US$150 million profit the Abachashad hoped to make from the deal.5. This took place in August 2003 after Bagudu was extradited from Houston bythe authorities in Jersey, where he would have stood trial had a settlement notbeen reached.