Colombia
News and blog
Colombia–Guernsey cooperation leads to successful non-conviction based forfeiture of illicit assets
Guernsey has confiscated nearly half a million dollars in criminal proceeds on behalf of Colombia in the Latin American country’s first successful international asset recovery case using its non-conviction based forfeiture law. On 17 September 2024, the Royal Court of Guernsey ordered the forfeiture of GBP 360,000 USD 479,000 or COP 2 billion that was found to be the proceeds of drug trafficking. The money was held on trust with a Guernsey financial institution for the benefit of a Colombian national Maria Camacho, whose deceased husband was the leader of a notorious drug trafficking cartel during the 1990s. This is Colombia’s first international asset recovery based on its non-conviction based forfeiture law, Extinción de dominio . Oscar Solórzano, who leads the work of the Basel Institute’s International Centre for Asset Recovery in Latin America, commented: This case shows the importance of proactive and creative international collaboration between two states that want to meet the objectives of justice, including asset recovery. It is a clear success story that should be an incentive and a model for other countries to follow – both as victims seeking to recover assets and as financial centres cooperating with victim states. We congratulate all parties on the effective and proactive collaboration that led to this decision and look forward to continuing our support to all parties as they negotiate the finer details of the asset return. “Don Efra”, drug money and a Guernsey trust Maria Camacho is the former wife of Efrain Antonio Hernandez-Ramirez. Known as “Don Efra”, this man was the leader of the Cartel del Valle criminal organisation involved in drug trafficking and other serious crimes during the 1990s. Camacho was criminally prosecuted in Colombia in 2004 and convicted of illicit enrichment. Following the conviction, funds beneficially owned by Camacho were identified in a Guernsey trust in the name of “The Dasman Settlement”. Guernsey shared this information spontaneously with Colombia, initially via the financial intelligence units of both countries and subsequently through formal mutual legal assistance between the central authorities. Using this information Colombia’s specialised prosecutors for Extinción de dominio were able to obtain a court order for the forfeiture of the Guernsey funds on the basis that they were proceeds of criminal conduct. This order was subsequently homologated, registered and enforced in Guernsey following the applicable rules for the international enforcement of foreign civil non-criminal confiscation orders. Success based on trust and collaboration Colombia’s Attorney General Luz Adriana Camargo said: We would like to express our gratitude to the Guernsey authorities for their prompt and effective cooperation in this case. Thanks to this successful experience, both authorities have strengthened ties of trust. This shall allow us to continue working in the future with the aim of combating the use of profits and assets arising from organised crime. This case is a clear manifestation of the importance of international legal cooperation through information sharing and mutual legal assistance. It demonstrates that the action of Extinción de dominio in Colombia, a constitutional mechanism aligned with the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force, is a powerful tool in the fight to deprive individuals of their illicit gains and profits. We would also like to acknowledge the role played by the Basel Institute on Governance through its International Centre for Asset Recovery, taking into consideration that its contribution and experience facilitated the rapprochement and communication between the Colombian Attorney General’s Office and His Majesty’s Procureur’s Office in Guernsey. This has been an excellent example of how judicial authorities can work together to ensure the recovery of the proceeds derived from criminal activities. A boost for non-conviction based forfeiture Comments by His Majesty’s Procureur of Guernsey, Megan Pullum KC, are a positive signal for the use of non-conviction based forfeiture mechanisms to recover illicit funds from foreign jurisdictions – even though, like many financial centres, Guernsey has a different legal system to Colombia and no direct equivalent of Extinción de dominio. She stated: We would like to thank the Colombian authorities for their professionalism and dedication in this matter. This case has laid strong foundations for future collaboration, and it recognises the commitment of both jurisdictions to combat the laundering of the proceeds of crime. The case highlights the importance of international co-operation, through intelligence sharing and mutual legal assistance, and demonstrates that non-conviction-based asset forfeiture is a powerful tool in the fight to deprive individuals of their ill-gotten gains. The Procureur also highlighted the assistance of our International Centre for Asset Recovery specialists in bringing the case to a successful conclusion, including in coordinating communications, clarifying legal aspects and facilitating both informal and formal cooperation. Our Senior Asset Recovery Specialist Shane Nainappan, who served as Head of Operations at the newly established Economic & Financial Crime Bureau of Guernsey from 2021–2023, also worked with Oscar Solórzano to support the joint effort to kickstart international collaboration on asset recovery cases. The Procureur said: Their support has been invaluable, and the success of this case owes a lot to their expertise and their commitment to support the global effort to recover illicit funds. We hope this case will open the door to greater collaboration between financial centres and victim states seeking to recover proceeds of corruption and crime, as well as greater openness to the direct execution of forfeiture orders based on non-conviction based forfeiture laws. Learn more See the press releases issued by Guernsey’s Law Officers of the Crown and by Colombia's Attorney General's Office. Read more about Extinción de dominio in Working Paper 54 by Oscar Solórzano, titled Targeting illicit wealth through non-conviction based forfeiture: Identifying human rights and other standards for Latin America. Learn more about our International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR , which supports asset recovery capacity, practice and policy with countries and financial centres around the world.
New GAFILAT guide: Why asset recovery laws need to align with human rights and other international standards
A new guide to non-conviction based forfeiture published by GAFILAT, the Latin American body of the Financial Action Task Force FATF sets out good practices for this powerful but under-used form of asset recovery legislation. It also emphasises the need for laws to align with both domestic constitutions and international human rights standards. The GAFILAT guide was drafted by Oscar Solórzano in collaboration with the region’s Asset Recovery Network RRAG . Oscar is Head of Latin America at the Basel Institute on Governance and a Senior Asset Recovery Specialist with many years of experience supporting government partners across Latin America in high-profile, complex cases of corruption and asset recovery. In this Q&A, he explains the approach, relevance and impact of the Guía de Buenas Prácticas sobre Extinción de Dominio y Decomiso no Basado en Condena , which was published by GAFILAT in 2024 and financed by EU member states through the COPOLAD III cooperation programme. COPOLAD III is a consortium led by the Italo-Latin American Association IILA and FIIAPP of the Spanish Cooperation. 1\. What is the guide about and who is it for? This is a guide to good practices in non-conviction based forfeiture for Latin America. It analyses the existence and implementation of non-conviction based forfeiture mechanisms in the 18 GAFILAT countries, which provided useful data during the drafting process and very detailed comments during the review. The guide contains an analysis of economic criminality in Latin America and the public policy response. It also addresses the essential concepts and standards applicable to non-conviction based forfeiture, presents case studies and explores available data from GAFILAT countries. Policymakers, legislators, law enforcement and judicial practitioners, law students and civil society – including journalists who report on these complex topics – will benefit from the guidance. 2\. Why is there a need for guidance? The expansion of non-conviction based forfeiture legislation has accelerated in Latin America in recent years, and not necessarily in the most coordinated or harmonised way. In line with the updated FATF standards relating to asset recovery, it is expected that it will continue to expand in the region. In effect, the FATF’s updated Recommendations 4 and 38 make the adoption of non-conviction based forfeiture laws mandatory and seek to ensure that decisions based on these laws can be enforced internationally. The guide therefore appears at an ideal time. It proposes a way to harmonise this type of law while respecting the legislative diversity that exists in the region. 3\. The idea is that non-conviction based forfeiture can reduce economic and organised crime – even without the threat of criminal convictions. Can you justify that? Economic crimes are perpetrated for the purpose of obtaining illicit economic advantages. Laws that reduce such economic advantages are a concrete step forward. And jurisdictions with more powerful and varied legal tools are more likely to see their crime rates decrease, simply because there is a concrete societal response to the criminal phenomenon. Without comprehensive asset recovery laws and an effective judicial apparatus to implement them, various incentives for engaging in profitable criminal activity arise. Some studies show that the lack of effective legal mechanisms targeting criminal assets has, among other things, allowed an explosion of organised and economic crime in Latin America in all its manifestations. The same goes for the growth of public-sector corruption. Assets stolen through corruption have rarely been confiscated in the past, when asset recovery was only possible in the context of criminal proceedings. It is naïve to think that a legislative instrument alone can change the reality of crime in Latin America, where the most fearsome drug cartels operate and, according to all international indices, corruption is rampant from north to south. However, the empirical experience I have gathered while working for almost 15 years in this part of the world indicates that there is a positive difference in the criminal situation of countries that effectively implement asset recovery mechanisms. A robust legal toolkit for asset recovery also alters the behaviour of criminal organisations, which have to bear higher costs to develop more sophistication in their criminal activities or simply relocate their activity to jurisdictions less equipped with legal tools and the ability to wield them. In Peru, to take a positive example, non-conviction based forfeiture is proving a powerful way to get at numerous politicians who have been accused of corruption, but where criminal proceedings seem to be never-ending. The independence of Peru’s non-conviction based forfeiture law from criminal procedures allows prosecutors to target assets even if their owners inevitably slip through the nets of justice. 4\. What does the guide show about the prevalence and success of different forms of non-conviction based forfeiture in the region? On paper, there has been a lot of progress in the adoption of non-conviction based forfeiture in Latin America. Only two countries in the region do not have any form of non-conviction based forfeiture law. The most predominant form is arguably Extinción de dominio, which has existed for 13 years. Ten out of the 18 countries have incorporated it into their legal arsenals and apply it in various forms and degrees. Extinción de dominio is a flexible law that can operate in civil, criminal or administrative matters, or even completely independently. It has developed specific concepts that make it possible to broaden the grounds for asset forfeiture. It lists an extensive catalogue of rights of the defence which, as stated in the Guide, seem to go far beyond the internationally established standard. In practice, however, recovery rates remain modest in relation to the volume of criminal assets generated in and flowing through the region. The best practices guide argues that a lack of effective implementation of existing laws partially explains the poor performance. The quality of implementation is influenced by political, economic and social interests. These are not necessarily addressed in the guide, which limits itself to technical and legal issues. However, the guide proposes some concepts and comparative practices that have the modest objective of guiding national authorities in applying this indispensable tool. 5\. What are success factors and challenges? In many Latin American countries, non-conviction based forfeiture is only taking its first baby steps. But from a Darwinian perspective of law – i.e. survival of the fittest – I observe that the laws that thrive are those that align with international standards and the constitutional rights of the countries that adopt them. In other words, those laws that develop around recognised global standards and practices but that are also designed to work in specific local contexts. Since 2020, together with my colleagues and many passionate and competent local partners, I have implemented programmes promoting non-conviction based forfeiture laws in the region. That experience has helped me to see that there is a group of countries that have what we can call a “European” approach to the issue, and whose laws apply only in a narrow set of scenarios. Others have more hard-hitting practices that evoke the laws used in countries such as the United States, and have transposed common law practices and principles into civil law frameworks without further reflection. Despite an increase in asset recovery rates, in many cases this has led to distortions and challenges, which are partially explored in the guide. 6\. What does the guide tell us about non-conviction based forfeiture in international cases? International asset recovery is a very different animal from domestic asset recovery and has political implications. That said, since 2014 several Latin American countries have tried to pierce the once impenetrable veil of the European financial system with non-conviction based forfeiture procedures. Switzerland and then Luxembourg were the first European countries to accept these laws as valid, in particular in relation to decisions based on Extinción de dominio. Today, almost all countries accept provisional measures based on these laws and some can directly enforce the resulting decisions. Even if the practice of enforcing non-conviction based forfeiture judgments is not abundant, we hope that the new standards adopted by the FATF on this matter will help to accelerate international asset recovery. 7\. The guide emphasises the need to align laws with international human rights standards. Why? In my opinion, this is fundamental. It is inconceivable that the ideals of justice can be achieved to the detriment of human rights. Rather than a random matter left to the discretion of states, respecting human rights in the adoption of non-conviction based forfeiture laws is an international treaty obligation. Most countries adhere to the so-called control of conventionality doctrine, i.e. the obligation to align any domestic legal instrument or practice with binding rules arising from international treaties such as the American Convention of Human Rights. This presupposes that the adoption of any domestic rule and practice on non-conviction based forfeiture must respect human rights and the practice of human rights courts. This is a condition sine qua non of any asset recovery law. The guide cites two examples of setbacks to the use of non-conviction based forfeiture laws in the region on the basis of human rights deficits. We can agree or disagree with the premises used by the countries’ High Courts to reach their conclusions. But what is clear is that a lack of consideration for human rights can also play a paralysing role. This challenge is vividly illustrated in Peru right now, where the Ombudsman has filed a claim against the use of non-conviction based forfeiture with the Constitutional Tribunal on the grounds that it could violate the right to property and the principle of the presumption of innocence. On a more positive note, a human rights lens can enhance the application of this type of law, especially in the context of international cooperation. On the one hand, more attention to human rights brings more legitimacy and acceptance to laws and therefore better recovery rates. On the other hand, a human rights lens also offers national legislators the ability to adopt more incisive standards when there are, for example, elements of organised crime or other exceptional conditions that make the application of some human rights more flexible. 8\. How does the guide help navigate the human rights topic in practice? As the guide explains through a study of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the issue is constantly evolving. The guide provides Latin American legislators and practitioners with examples of how to develop the human rights approach in a clearer way and enables them to critically review concrete non-conviction based forfeiture cases in various parts of the world. It emphasises two human rights that are central to non-conviction based forfeiture: the right to property and the right to a fair trial. This will be enormously beneficial in ensuring that new or revised non-conviction based forfeiture laws in Latin America are in line with the updated FATF Recommendations. The guide advocates for the adoption of laws that are in harmony with human rights principles and specifies that their international enforcement is a recognised standard. Similarly, the interpretative notes to the revised FATF Recommendations 4 and 38 – and the very coherence of the FATF system – indicate that the respect for human rights is fundamental to the adoption and application of these laws. The human rights perspective is likely to be an important element in the forthcoming fifth round of FATF Mutual Evaluations in GAFILAT countries, where the technical compliance and effectiveness of these laws with FATF standards will be under the microscope. Learn more See the Guía de Buenas Prácticas sobre Extinción de Dominio y Decomiso no Basado en Condena . Read a related blog by Oscar Solórzano: FATF seeks to change the landscape of international asset recovery: what this means for Latin America.
FATF seeks to change the landscape of international asset recovery: what this means for Latin America
At a recent meeting of the Asset Recovery Network of GAFILAT – the Latin America body of the Financial Action Task Force or FATF – Oscar Solórzano explored what the latest changes to the FATF standards could mean for asset recovery practice in Latin America. Through our International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR , we are an observer member of the GAFILAT Asset Recovery Network or Red de Recuperación de Activos RRAG and regularly provide training and technical input to the group’s deliberations. The meeting took place in Bogotá, Colombia, on 25–26 June 2024. In November last year, new global rules on international asset recovery came into force which are intended to change the prevailing global judicial practice. These new rules clarify and complement currently applicable international standards. The revisions to FATF Recommendation 4 introduce, among other things, the obligation for FATF member states to implement non-conviction based confiscation mechanisms to complete the arsenal of legal tools used to combat economic crime. The standards of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption UNCAC do not contain such an obligation to legislate on non-conviction based confiscation Article 31 UNCAC . As a result, until now the global adoption and implementation of such tools has been erratic. The updated FATF Recommendation 38 establishes an obligation to cooperate internationally in non-conviction based confiscation cases. Not only are countries obliged to implement such mechanisms themselves. They are, first and foremost, obliged to provide mutual legal assistance to countries seeking to recover assets internationally through non-conviction based confiscation. The new recommendation clarifies the rule in Article 54 1 c UNCAC Mechanisms for asset recovery and international cooperation that left it to the discretion of the requested state whether or not to cooperate when a victim state seeks to recover assets via non-conviction based confiscation. The UNCAC standard in this regard is also limited to corruption offences, while the FATF standards have a broader scope. More cases, more requests? More than 20 years after UNCAC introduced what were then considered revolutionary asset recovery standards, the FATF has taken a decisive step aimed at changing the global asset recovery landscape. In fact, many developing countries have already enacted these innovative asset recovery tools. In Latin America, for example, only two countries do not possess any form of non-conviction based confiscation law. Thus, it is to be expected that Latin American states that have suffered from rampant economic crime will seek to recover more assets internationally. Cases will be stimulated by the possibility of seeing requests for information, seizures and non-conviction based confiscation judgments enforced in the financial centres holding those assets. Recommendation 38 codifies some recent judicial practice in GAFILAT countries, such as Peru or Colombia, which have been successful in their efforts to recover illicit assets from Switzerland, Guernsey, Luxembourg and other European financial centres based on non-conviction based confiscation mechanisms. In these cases, efficient international cooperation has been provided based merely on national legislation and the understanding that international asset recovery is a shared responsibility which cannot be obtained without the cooperation of both the victim state and the state where the assets are located. Urgent need to align with human rights standards From my experience, research and conversations with asset recovery professionals all over the world, however, non-conviction based confiscation has raised concerns and is not globally and coherently applied. The lack of harmonisation and the great variety of applicable standards have contributed to the poor performance of this legal mechanism at the international level, particularly with regard to the international enforcement of judgments. Will the FATF’s updated standards be enough to foster international asset recovery via non-conviction based confiscation? The response to this question is not as clear as it seems. This is because international asset recovery procedures depend on the fulfilment of other standards. For example, the non-conviction based confiscation law used by the victim state should not contravene the fundamental principles of the requested state, particularly its domestic interpretation of human and other constitutional rights. This means that non-conviction based confiscation decisions in a victim state must comply with basic principles of the rule of law and internationally recognised standards of human rights – the right to property and to a fair trial, to name just two. The adoption and implementation of fair non-conviction based confiscation procedures, anchored in the rule of law, are the starting point for fruitful international cooperation. It is also a crucial part of the shared responsibility of victim states. The picture within Latin America In my speech at the RRAG meeting, I explained that judicial practice in GAFILAT countries has exposed shortcomings and a diverse practice in the enforcement of international non-conviction based confiscation judgments. Lack of clarity on channels of judicial cooperation Many Latin America states are still unclear about the judicial cooperation channel to be used in the execution of non-conviction based confiscation decisions, given their quasi-civil nature and the arguments regularly made to distance these legal devices from criminal proceedings. Indeed, some question why a law of a civil nature would seek international cooperation in criminal matters. The simplest answer is probably that, despite the civil standards used in non-conviction based confiscation, the purpose is to confiscate criminal assets, which is a matter dealt with by international cooperation in criminal matters. Moreover, cooperation in criminal matters provides more and better judicial safeguards, is mostly free of charge for the requesting state and is regulated by bilateral treaties and binding international law. Direct enforcement of foreign judgements not always possible Some Latin American states can execute foreign decisions through exequatur mechanisms in criminal matters, enabling the judicial enforcement of judgments in the terms and extension as expressed in the foreign decision. The exequatur procedure is a form of judicial cooperation in criminal matters which exists in civil law countries. It has been used by Latin American countries to enforce non-conviction based confiscation final and enforceable decisions in European financial centres. In this model of execution the requested state the financial centre only verifies that the foreign confiscation decision respects internationally recognised standards of due process for example, if the asset holder or other affected persons has had effective access to defence mechanisms in the foreign procedure or if the notification has been properly served, among others . Once this verification is carried out, the decision is generally enforced following the exact terms ordered by the foreign authority. The exequatur procedure generally involves sometimes lengthy judicial proceedings in the requested state where the defence can make again its case before a judge of the requested state with limited power of cognition. That is to say, the judge of the exequatur does not rule on the merits of the case. His or her powers are limited to verifying the respect of due process and judicial guarantees in the foreign procedure. The requested judicial authority enforcing the foreign non-conviction based confiscation decision is bound by the factual findings made by the requesting authority. This is the so-called direct enforcement model. The drawbacks of indirect enforcement Other Latin American states cannot directly enforce foreign conviction- or non-conviction based confiscation judgments. Instead, their domestic law regularly compels their judicial authorities to initiate domestic proceedings with a view to obtaining a domestic confiscation order. This indirect enforcement of foreign judgements usually involves re-litigation, new evidentiary requirements, appeals processes, etc., and can lead to catastrophic delays and failures of cases. A concrete example of the drawbacks of this model of enforcement has emerged in a recent case of international asset recovery between Peru and Mexico. Since 2021, Peru has sought the enforcement of a final and enforceable judgment under its Extinción de dominio law – the local form of non-conviction based confiscation law – through judicial cooperation in criminal matters in relation to a Peruvian politically exposed person’s corrupt account sitting in the Mexican financial system. Despite the efforts of both Mexican and Peruvian authorities to advance this case, it is noteworthy that the enforcement stage is taking longer than the whole recovery process in the Peruvian Extinción de dominio procedure. Progress visible In some countries, mainly in Central America, a form of international judicial cooperation for the homologation of foreign civil judgements has been used to enforce non-conviction based forfeiture judgements. For example, Honduras recently executed an Extinción de dominio judgment obtained in Guatemala through a civil procedure aimed at homologating foreign civil decisions. This successful cooperation between the two countries actively enforcing Extinción de dominio allowed the recovery of a property that had been corruptly acquired by a Guatemalan politically exposed person. Despite the complexity described above, most Latin American states use the channels of judicial cooperation used in criminal cases in cases of non-conviction based confiscation. Although the practice is not abundant, the cases mentioned above may well represent the beginning of real good practice in judicial cooperation, leading to better results in the fight against corruption and other scourges that plague this part of the world. The updated interpretative notes to the FATF’s Recommendation 38 encourage the “direct enforcement” of foreign confiscation orders to make these international processes more efficient. In many cases, the implementation of the new standards will therefore require changes in both legislation and judicial practices. A positive step but a long path ahead We believe the FATF new standards are a move in the right direction towards solving some of the challenges I identify above. Still, much remains to be done by the international community and by domestic authorities to ensure that we see concrete judicial successes, smooth international cooperation and the return of far greater quantities of stolen assets to victim states.
Fighting corruption in Latin America: Can Collective Action help close the gaps?
As we expand our efforts to support Collective Action against corruption in Latin America, Private Sector Specialist Andrea Prieto takes stock of existing initiatives in the region. She and representatives from some of the initiatives discussed the Collective Action approach to fighting corruption in Lima, Peru at the Eighth Integrity Week organised by Alliance for Integrity. También disponible en español. Changing the status quo Covid-19, inflation and social unrest have sent Latin America into economic stagnation. Corruption exacerbates the region’s economic woes. It is estimated to cost the region’s economies a staggering USD 220 billion annually and is responsible for about 50% of the total effect of the economic slowdown. Nobody but the corrupt benefits from corruption. It inhibits economic development, discourages investment, hinders innovation, distorts markets and increases the cost of doing business. But there is good news. There is a growing understanding that action on corruption is a collective responsibility that requires the cooperation of the public, private and also civil society sectors. This shift has led to: New regulations for the private sector; a greater emphasis on corporate accountability; demand for corruption prevention programmes and strategies at the corporate level. In parallel, businesses in Latin America are increasingly developing sustainable business strategies. These look beyond short-term profits towards sustainable long-term growth that not only benefits the company, but strengthens economic stability and competitive markets. As a result, the private sector in Latin America has become more engaged in the fight against corruption. Building trust through Collective Action A lack of trust between private-sector actors and other stakeholders is a critical hurdle to advancing the anti-corruption agenda. Collective Action offers a tried-and-tested methodology to build trust and develop collaborative approaches across stakeholder divides. These collaborative approaches support the design and implementation of corruption prevention measures and initiatives that are effective even in challenging contexts. The B20 Collective Action Hub by the Basel Institute on Governance has mapped more than 60 Collective Action initiatives operating across a range of sectors in 12 countries in Central and South America. These initiatives range from joint declarations to anti-corruption certification schemes. We also see tools to safeguard public procurement, like Integrity Pacts and High Level Reporting Mechanisms. The following initiatives give a taster of different types of initiatives and their impact: Collective Action leading to regulatory reform One successful example of how Collective Action can lead to legal or regulatory reform is the Maritime Anti-Corruption Network MACN . The MACN is a global business-led network that aims for a maritime industry free of corruption. In Argentina in 2014, the MACN detected, through its anonymous incident reporting system, reports of irregular demands for money for routine inspections in bulk carriers in Argentina. The bribery was estimated at approximately USD 30 million a year. It affected not only those forced to pay bribes to get the paperwork they needed, but also the overall international trade of Argentine agricultural products. The higher costs and the increased legal risk had begun to discourage foreign companies from continuing to trade in the country. The MACN worked with trade unions and chambers of commerce to identify corruption risks, gather relevant actors, build trust and find ways to solve the issue. Thanks to this action and by collective agreement, the Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria National Agri-food Health and Quality Service reformed the regulatory framework in November 2017. This resulted in the adoption of a modern control system that digitises the management of inspections and establishes a system of cross controls. The Collective Action process was expanded to include the training and monitoring of all public and private actors in the new system. It is estimated that bribes decreased by more than 90 percent, significantly reducing the cost per ship of entering Argentina harbours. Integrity as aspirational: Collective Action to recognise companies Companies increasingly see the value of publicly demonstrating their integrity credentials. In 2010, the Instituto Ethos of Brazil a civil society organisation collaborated with the country’s Comptroller General to develop the Pro-Ética “Pro-Ethics seal Pro-Ethics Seal. This is a system to publicly recognise companies that implement effective integrity and compliance programmes and that are committed to the integrity agenda. The concept was later adopted by the Brazilian Ministry of Infrastructure. It gained even more prominence in the wake of the Lava Jato scandal, which forced both the government and businesses to recognise the importance of corruption prevention measures. The mechanism continues to have impact. In 2020–21, more than 327 companies applied for recognition. Of these, 195 met the eligibility requirements and were evaluated, and 67 were approved. In 2022-23, 84 companies gained approval. The tool has been recognised as a good example of Collective Action since the deliberations on the approval of the companies are carried out by the Pro-Ethics Committee. This is made up of institutions from the public and private sectors, with national representation and committed to the promotion of corporate integrity. The success led Paraguay to implement a similar "Integrity Seal" programme Integrity Seal, demonstrating the potential for replication of such initiatives. In 2023, Paraguay’s government publicly recognised 30 companies, of which 17 were large companies and 13 small/mid-sized enterprises SMEs . Collective Action for cross-sector learning Collective Action can bring people together to learn how to improve business integrity. One example is the Red para la Formación Etica y Ciudadana Network for Ethics and Citizenship Education in Colombia, which provides spaces for reflection and training on ethics in business environments. Through its flagship programme “The Integrity Chair” Colombian Chair on Citizenship, Integrity and Anti-Corruption, implemented with the National University of Colombia, the network has brought together more than 15 partner organisations from the public sector, civil society, academia, business and professional sectors in ethics trainings. Since its creation, the Chair has trained more than 5,500 students and more than 1,600 citizens. The network also runs mentoring programmes for the design and implementation of anti-corruption Collective Action initiatives. Collective Action to level the playing field Collective Action initiatives can also help to level the playing field for businesses, including SMEs. One example is the Empresarios por la Integridad Entrepreneurs for Integrity initiative in Peru. This business-led network provides anti-bribery certification as well as integrity training for SMEs. At the time of writing, 49 companies had achieved certification and a project to promote integrity among SMEs in the construction sector is underway in several regions of the country. Fertile ground for new initiatives – we are here to help The growth and impact of Collective Action initiatives in Latin America show that the region is fertile ground for multi-stakeholder collaboration against corruption. In the context of growing awareness of corruption, and where corruption scandals are frequent, Collective Action has an opportunity to gain greater legitimacy as an effective way to promote integrity. And importantly for Latin America’s current economic situation – to build a more competitive and transparent playing field for doing business. As shown in the examples above, Collective Action initiatives can influence the way business is done, either at the sectoral level, extending their impact to new actors such as SMEs in the Peruvian case, or broadening initiatives to expand at the regional level as in the case of the "Sello de Integridad" Integrity Seal . At the Basel Institute, we are actively supporting this approach and the next generation of Collective Action initiatives. Our Collective Action mentoring programme provides tailored and context-specific support to organisations that promote business-led and multi-stakeholder initiatives for anti-corruption. We also contribute to ongoing efforts to build a regional community of practice that allows the exchange of good practices and the potential for cross-regional collaboration.
La lucha contra la corrupción en América Latina: ¿Puede la Acción Colectiva ayudar a cerrar las brechas?
A medida que ampliamos nuestros esfuerzos para apoyar la Acción Colectiva contra la corrupción en América Latina, Andrea Prieto, especialista en el sector privado, hace un balance de las iniciativas existentes en la región. Ella y representantes de algunas de las iniciativas discutieron el enfoque de Acción Colectiva para combatir la corrupción en Lima, Perú, en la Octava Semana de la Integridad organizada por Alliance for Integrity. View English version. Cambiar el statu quo La pandemia de Covid-19, la inflación y el malestar social han sumido a América Latina en un estancamiento económico. Al mismo tiempo la corrupción sigue agravando los problemas económicos de la región. Se calcula que le cuesta a las economías de la región la asombrosa cifra de 220.000 millones de dólares anuales y se le atribuye alrededor del 50% del efecto total de la desaceleración económica. Sólo los corruptos se benefician de la corrupción. Inhibe el desarrollo económico, desalienta la inversión, obstaculiza la innovación, distorsiona los mercados y aumenta el coste de los negocios. Pero hay buenas noticias. Cada vez se comprende mejor que la lucha contra la corrupción es una responsabilidad colectiva que requiere la cooperación de los sectores público, privado y también de la sociedad civil. Este cambio ha dado lugar a: Nueva normativa para el sector privado; un mayor énfasis en la responsabilidad de las empresas y; la demanda de programas y estrategias de prevención de la corrupción a nivel empresarial. Paralelamente, las empresas de América Latina desarrollan cada vez más estrategias empresariales de carácter sostenible. Éstas miran más allá de los beneficios a corto plazo, hacia un crecimiento sostenible a largo plazo que no sólo beneficia a la empresa, sino que refuerza la estabilidad económica y la competitividad de los mercados. En consecuencia, el sector privado de América Latina se ha comprometido más en la lucha contra la corrupción. Generar confianza mediante la acción colectiva La falta de confianza entre los actores del sector privado y otras partes interesadas es un obstáculo crítico para avanzar en la agenda anticorrupción. La Acción Colectiva ofrece una metodología de probada eficacia para generar confianza y desarrollar enfoques de colaboración entre las partes. Estos enfoques colaborativos apoyan el diseño y la implementación de medidas e iniciativas de prevención de la corrupción que son eficaces incluso en contextos difíciles. El B20 Collective Action Hub del Basel Institute on Governance ha identificado más de 60 iniciativas de Acción Colectiva que operan en diversos sectores en 12 países de América Central y del Sur. Estas iniciativas van desde declaraciones conjuntas hasta sistemas de certificación anticorrupción. También vemos herramientas para salvaguardar la contratación pública, como los Pactos de Integridad y los Mecanismos de Denuncia de Alto Nivel. Las siguientes iniciativas ofrecen una muestra de los distintos tipos de iniciativas y su impacto: Acción colectiva para reformar la normatividad Un ejemplo de éxito de cómo la Acción Colectiva puede conducir a una reforma legal o normativa es la Red Marítima Anticorrupción MACN . La MACN es una red mundial dirigida por empresas que aspira a una industria marítima libre de corrupción. En Argentina, en 2014, la MACN detectó, a través de su sistema anónimo de notificación de incidentes, denuncias de exigencias irregulares de dinero por inspecciones rutinarias en buques graneleros en Argentina. El soborno se estimó en aproximadamente 30 millones de USD al año. Afectaba no sólo a quienes se veían obligados a pagar sobornos para obtener la documentación que necesitaban, sino también al comercio internacional global de productos agrícolas argentinos. Los costes más elevados y el mayor riesgo legal habían empezado a disuadir a las empresas extranjeras de seguir comerciando en el país. La MACN trabajó con gremios y cámaras de comercio para identificar los riesgos de corrupción, reunir a los actores relevantes, generar confianza y encontrar formas de resolver el problema. Gracias a esta acción y por convenio colectivo, el Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria reformó el marco normativo en noviembre de 2017. El resultado fue la adopción de un moderno sistema de control que digitaliza la gestión de las inspecciones y establece un sistema de controles cruzados. El proceso de Acción Colectiva se amplió para incluir la formación y el seguimiento de todos los agentes públicos y privados del nuevo sistema. Se calcula que los sobornos disminuyeron en más de un 90%, lo que redujo significativamente el coste por barco de entrar en los puertos argentinos. La integridad como aspiración: Acción colectiva para reconocer a las empresas Las empresas ven cada vez más el valor de demostrar públicamente sus credenciales de integridad. En 2010, el Instituto Ethos de Brasil una organización de la sociedad civil colaboró con la Contraloría General del país para desarrollar el sello Pro-Ética. Se trata de un sistema para reconocer públicamente a las empresas que implementan programas eficaces de integridad y cumplimiento y que están comprometidas con la agenda de la integridad. El concepto fue adoptado posteriormente por el Ministerio de Infraestructuras brasileño. Ganó aún más importancia a raíz del escándalo Lava Jato , que obligó tanto al gobierno como a las empresas a reconocer la importancia de las medidas de prevención de la corrupción. El mecanismo sigue teniendo impacto. En 2020-21, más de 327 empresas solicitaron el reconocimiento. De ellas, 195 cumplían los requisitos de elegibilidad y fueron evaluadas, y 67 fueron aprobadas. En 2022-23, 84 empresas obtuvieron la aprobación. La herramienta ha sido reconocida como una buena experiencia de Acción Colectiva, ya que las deliberaciones sobre la aprobación de las empresas son llevadas a cabo por el Comité Pro Ética, conformado por instituciones de los sectores público y privado, con representación nacional y comprometidas con la promoción de la integridad corporativa. El éxito llevó a Paraguay a implantar un programa similar de "Sello de Integridad" Integrity Seal, lo que demuestra el potencial de reproducción de este tipo de iniciativas. En 2023, el gobierno de Paraguay reconoció públicamente a 30 empresas, de las cuales 17 eran grandes empresas y 13 pequeñas y medianas empresas PYME . Acción colectiva para el aprendizaje intersectorial La Acción Colectiva puede reunir a las personas para que aprendan a mejorar la integridad empresarial. Un ejemplo es la Red para la Formación Ética y Ciudadana de Colombia, que ofrece espacios de reflexión y formación sobre la ética en los entornos empresariales. A través de su programa insignia "La Cátedra de Integridad" Cátedra Colombiana de Ciudadanía, Integridad y Anticorrupción, ejecutado por la Universidad Nacional de Colombia, la red ha reunido a más de 15 organizaciones asociadas del sector público, la sociedad civil, el mundo académico, las empresas y sectores profesionales en formaciones sobre ética. Desde su creación, la Cátedra ha formado a más de 5.500 estudiantes y a más de 1.600 ciudadanos. La red también dirige programas de tutoría para el diseño y la aplicación de iniciativas de Acción Colectiva contra la corrupción. Acción colectiva para igualar las condiciones Las iniciativas de Acción Colectiva también pueden contribuir a nivelar el terreno de juego para las empresas, incluidas las PYME. Un ejemplo es la iniciativa Empresarios por la Integridad en Perú. Esta red dirigida por empresas ofrece certificación contra el soborno, así como formación en integridad para PYME. En el momento de redactar este informe, 49 empresas habían obtenido la certificación y en varias regiones de país está en marcha un proyecto para promover la integridad entre las PYME del sector de la construcción. Terreno fértil para nuevas iniciativas: estamos aquí para ayudar El crecimiento y el impacto de las iniciativas de Acción Colectiva en América Latina demuestran que la región es un terreno fértil para la colaboración de múltiples partes interesadas contra la corrupción. En un contexto de creciente concienciación sobre la corrupción, y en el que los escándalos de corrupción son frecuentes, la Acción Colectiva tiene la oportunidad de ganar mayor legitimidad como forma eficaz de promover la integridad. Y, lo que es más importante para la situación económica actual de América Latina, de crear unas condiciones más competitivas y transparentes para hacer negocios. Como se muestra en los ejemplos anteriores, las iniciativas de Acción Colectiva pueden influir en la forma de hacer negocios, ya sea a nivel sectorial, ampliando su impacto a nuevos actores como las PYME en el caso peruano, o ampliando las iniciativas para expandirse a nivel regional como en el caso del "Sello de Integridad". En el Instituto de Basilea apoyamos activamente este enfoque y la próxima generación de iniciativas de Acción Colectiva. Nuestro programa de tutoría de Acción Colectiva ofrece apoyo adaptado y específico al contexto a organizaciones que promueven iniciativas de lucha contra la corrupción lideradas por empresas y múltiples partes interesadas. También contribuimos a los esfuerzos en curso para construir una comunidad regional de prácticas que permita el intercambio de buenas prácticas y el potencial de colaboración interregional.
Publications
Case Study 13: The Beauty Queen case: non-conviction based forfeiture across borders
This Case Study analyses how Colombian authorities recovered assets linked to drug trafficking and held in a trust in Guernsey. It sets out the legal tools and procedures in Colombia and in Guernsey that enabled Colombia’s first international recovery under its non-conviction based forfeiture model Extinción de dominio. The Case Study highlights lessons for international cooperation between jurisdictions with different forfeiture systems or even legal traditions.
The International Centre for Asset Recovery (ICAR) at the Basel Institute on Governance provided technical assistance as part of a Memorandum of Understanding with the General Prosecutor’s Office of Colombia.
On 30 November 2023, the Fourth Court of the Specialised Extinción de Dominio Circuit of Colombia ordered the non-conviction based forfeiture of a Guernsey trust account issued by Northern Trust Fiduciary Services (Guernsey) Limited. The beneficiary was María Marcela Serrano Camacho, a Colombian model and former beauty queen.
The Colombian forfeiture order extinguished property rights over the account – amounting to GBP 361,146 – on the grounds that the funds were the proceeds of drug trafficking offences committed by Efraín Antonio Hernández Ramírez (“Don Efra”), a well-known Colombian drug trafficker, and his former spouse María Serrano in the 1990s.
On 30 January 2025, following successful mutual legal assistance proceedings between Colombia and the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the two jurisdictions concluded an asset sharing agreement for the repatriation of the confiscated assets.
This marked Colombia’s first successful international recovery through non-conviction based forfeiture.
This Case Study examines how early and effective coordination between Colombia and Guernsey enabled the identification, freezing, forfeiture and repatriation of the assets. It analyses the legal framework underpinning Colombia’s Extinción de dominio regime and how it was applied, leading to the forfeiture of the Guernsey acccount. It also describes the procedural mechanisms used in Guernsey to execute foreign non-conviction based forfeiture orders.
The interaction between the authorities in both jurisdictions offers valuable lessons and examples of good practices.
Main takeaways of the case:
- Early and trust-based international cooperation is decisive
- Non-conviction based forfeiture is indispensable when criminal routes are closed
- Identifying beneficial ownership is central to effective asset recovery
- Direct enforcement of foreign forfeiture orders increases efficiency and legal certainty
- Asset sharing agreements strengthen cooperation incentives
The Case Study can be read alongside Policy Brief 16: “Enforcing foreign non-conviction based forfeiture orders: FATF standards and asset recovery practice in Latin America and financial centres”.
About this Case Study
This publication is part of the Basel Institute on Governance Case Study series, ISSN 2813-3900. It is licensed for sharing under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BYNC-ND 4.0).
The Case Study series offers practitioners insights into interesting and precedent-setting cases involving corruption and asset recovery.
This is a publication of the International Centre for Asset Recovery (ICAR) at the Basel Institute on Governance. ICAR receives core funding from the Governments of Jersey, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and the UK.
Disclaimer: This Case Study is intended for general informational purposes and does not constitute and/or substitute legal or other professional advice. The contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the Basel Institute on Governance, its donors and partners, or the University of Basel.
Buenas Prácticas en Anticorrupción: Innovando en Integridad Empresarial en Colombia - Segunda Edición
This is the second edition of a publication, jointly published by the Global Compact Network Colombia, Alliance for Integrity and UNODC. It presents best practices that demonstrate the commitments of Colombian companies under the Global Compact to contribute to transparency and integrity in the country.
The best practices are focused on different anti-corruption issues including reporting channels, culture of integrity, conflicts of interest and risk management. The success of the measures is designed to act as an example for other companies to join forces in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals and building a better country for all.
The Basel Institute was pleased to contribute to the evaluation of the good practices as part of the jury.
La capacidad de Colombia para recuperar activos ilícitos: Un diagnóstico conforme a los 9 principios de la recuperación de activos
Este diagnóstico tiene el propósito de contribuir a la mejora continua de las capacidades de los Estados beneficiarios en la recuperación de activos ilícitos originados en la perpetración de crímenes graves como la corrupción, el lavado de activos, el tráfico ilícito de drogas, entre otros.
De manera secuencial, este diagnóstico valora la capacidad de respuesta institucional y legislativa que los Estados implementan para enfrentar el fenómeno de la delincuencia financiera y el flujo de activos ilícitos. En ese sentido, se examina la cadena de valor de la recuperación de activos implementada en Colombia, sobre la base de las reglas adoptadas por las organizaciones encargadas de determinar los estándares internacionales.
No obstante, este diagnóstico no pretende ser exhaustivo. Por el contrario, se presenta como un documento de trabajo que ofrece un panorama general de la problemática de la recuperación de activos en Colombia.
El diagnóstico está dividido en dos capítulos principales.
- El primero describe el marco institucional y las principales prerrogativas que Colombia prevé en el marco del proceso de recuperación de activos.
- El segundo capítulo valora el marco jurídico e institucional en función de los nueve principios relativos al proceso de recuperación de activos y los estándares internacionales en la materia.
Este diagnóstico ha sido desarrollado en el marco del Programa “Apoyando a las partes interesadas en la adopción del decomiso sin condena como herramienta para la recuperación de activos”, financiado por la Oficina de Asuntos Internacionales de Narcóticos y Aplicación de la Ley (INL) del Departamento de Estado de EE. UU.
Publicación de buenas prácticas en anticorrupción en Colombia
This publication, jointly published by the Global Compact Network Colombia, Alliance for Integrity and UNODC, presents 11 best practices that demonstrate the commitments of Colombian companies under the Global Compact to contribute to transparency and integrity in the country.
The best practices are focused on different anti-corruption issues including reporting channels, culture of integrity, conflicts of interest and risk management. The success of the measures is designed to act as an example for other companies to join forces in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals and building a better country for all.
The publication is in Spanish, ISBN: 978-958-52379-1-9
Tackling Bribe Solicitation Using the High-Level Reporting Mechanism for Preventing Bribery
This study by the OECD focuses on the ingredients for a successful High-Level Reporting Mechanism (HLRM) to tackle bribery solicitation and other reports of unfair business practices in public tenders.
It covers the methodology and scope of HLRMs, explores its use cases and looks at case studies in Colombia, Argentina, Ukraine and Peru. It then covers 9 key ingredients to the successful implementation of a HLRM.