Author
Abstract
Corruption is a major inhibitor to economic growth, discouraging to domestic and foreign investment and destabilizing of governments. Unsurprisingly, international attention has intensified in recent years with global initiatives to counter corruption and address the proceeds of corruption. These have placed requirements upon national governments to increase transparency, reducing opportunities for use of the legitimate legal and financial infrastructure to disguise and move the proceeds of corruption. This paper reviews the boundaries at national and agency level that can create challenges for those agencies tasked with investigating and returning the proceeds of corruption to the countries from which they came. The paper considers the mechanisms that the agencies in a returning country—the UK—have at their disposal and whether national policy changes can affect their focus and operation. Specifically it reviews the role and future of the International Corruption Unit of the National Crime Agency.Following from the highly publicised anti-corruption summit hosted by the Cameron government in 2016, the UK has positioned itself at the forefront of anti-corruption initiatives. Recognizing that corruption is as much an issue for the UK as for victim countries, the UK initiated a unique response model in its International Corruption Unit. However, the proceeds of corruption continue to find their way into the London property market, hence recent initiatives to open up ownership registries. The need to ‘respond’, shortens timeframes, driving resource allocation towards ‘quick wins’. Tracking and recovering the proceeds of corruption that may have moved across multiple jurisdictions is a slow business. The failure to evidence ‘hard results’ creates an uncertain future for the International Corruption Unit. Yet, its unique contribution is one that should be widely supported by policy makers.
Suggested Citation
Jackie Harvey, 2020.
"Tracking the international proceeds of corruption and the challenges of national boundaries and national agencies: the UK example,"
Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(5), pages 360-368, July.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:pubmmg:v:40:y:2020:i:5:p:360-368
DOI: 10.1080/09540962.2020.1714211
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:pubmmg:v:40:y:2020:i:5:p:360-368. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPMM20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.