What are cookies?
Cookies are small pieces of information that are stored on your hard drive to allow the British Institute of International and Comparative Law to recognise you when you visit. They can remember your preferences by gathering and storing information. They do not identify you as an individual user, just the computer used. Cookies cannot be used to run programs or create viruses on your computer. Cookies do not give the British Institute of International and Comparative Law access to your computer.
What types of essential cookies does BIICL use?
We also use some third party cookies to help us improve your user experience.
If you don't want to receive cookies.
If you would prefer not to receive cookies while browsing our site, you can set your browser so that it will not download cookies onto your computer. Doing so will still allow you to navigate through the majority of our site but possibly not all of it. If you wish to access the password protected areas of our website you will need to allow "per-session" cookies. These are temporarily used while you are visiting the site but deleted when you close your browser or log out.
Mercosur's New Framework Agreement Is an Asset Recovery Landmark, But Significant Flaws Remain
This comment piece was first published in the Global Anti-Corruption Blog (GAB) - see here .
In asset recovery, international collaboration is key. In December 2018, four Mercosur countries—Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay—adopted a new kind of landmark framework agreement to collaborate in investigations and sharing of forfeited assets resulting from transnational organized crime, corruption, and illicit drug trafficking. The agreement's provisions on law enforcement collaboration are important but not groundbreaking, as many countries collaborate in investigations, including through Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) agreements. This framework agreement can be seen as a direct application of Article 57(5) of the UN Convention Against Corruption , which calls on state parties to "give consideration to concluding agreements or mutually acceptable arrangements, on a case-by-case basis, for the final disposal of confiscated property."
Where the new framework agreement is particularly novel and innovative is in its provisions on asset return. While there are a number of technical details, the big picture is that any of the four countries may lay claim to a portion of the assets, so long as that country played a role in its forfeiture, irrespective of where the assets are located. The framework agreement provides (in Articles 7 and 8 in particular), that the asset shares will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, with each country's share to be based principally on that country's role in the investigation, prosecution, and forfeiture of the assets. Other factors that may be considered include the nature of the forfeited assets, the complexity and significance of international cooperation, and the extent to which cooperation led to the forfeiture.
To the best of my knowledge, this sort of framework agreement is rare, the only other recent example is the "Framework for Return of Assets from Corruption and Crime in Kenya (FRACCK)", a multilateral non-binding initiative for the return of assets between the Governments of Kenya, Jersey, Switzerland and the UK. There had been calls to establish a similar initiative in Latin America going back several years (see here and here). The framework agreement has the potential to set a precedent by institutionalizing the return of assets across borders, not only improving the asset recovery and return process in Latin America, but also serving as an example for other regional collaboration agreements in Africa, Latin America, or Asia. Indeed, the 3rd African Anti-Corruption Day (held last week, on July 11th) was organized on the theme of finding a "Common African Position on Asset Recovery." According to the African Union, the purpose of this is to advocate for Africa's unity in demanding the recovery and return of stolen assets, and making the return process transparent and accountable.
While the approach and ambition of the agreement is laudable, the framework agreement has three important shortcomings:
Because this framework agreement is so recent and isn't even yet in force (as parliamentary approval is required in countries like Argentina), it remains to be seen whether or how the agreement improves the asset recovery process. On the whole, the agreement is an encouraging step forward, but these countries, and others, can and should go further in future multilateral agreements if international asset recovery is to reach its full potential as a mechanism to repair some of the harm done my grand corruption and other transnational crimes.
Repatriating stolen assets in a responsible manner: how do we get there?
Mat Tromme | 23rd October 2019
Toward a Meaningful “Common African Position on Asset Recovery”
Mat Tromme | 27th September 2019
France’s New Asset Recovery Bill Is an Important Step Toward Achieving Victim Compensation
Mat Tromme | 21st May 2019
Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre announces its first research pre-calls
11th May 2020