“Corporate political donations often come with strings attached”

‘This can create a system where policy decisions are influenced by financial contributions rather than the public interest’

By Lex

In Mauritius, the primary legal framework to combat corruption and money laundering is the Financial CrimesCommission (FCC) Act. Although the Act contains provisions to punish corruptors, enforcement appears rare. Onenotable exception is the St Louis Gate scandal, which surfaced after a public communiqué from the AfricanDevelopment Bank (ADB) on 8 June 2020. The ADB’s Office of Integrity and Anti-Corruption concluded that Burmeister & Wain Scandinavian Contractor (BWSC) had financially rewarded members of the Mauritian administration and others for providing access to confidential tender-related information. This misconduct led to BWSC winning the Rs4.3 billion contract for the redevelopment of the CEB’s St Louis power plant in 2015.

This case illustrates how corruption thrives not just through complicit officials but also through corporationswilling to bend the rules for financial gain. Strengthening legal frameworks to track and penalize both corrupt and corruptor, alongside reforms in electoral financing transparency, could play a decisive role in breaking this destructive cycle. A more rigorous application of existing laws, paired with new investigative mechanisms, might finally bring both sides of corruption to justice.

* Beyond the St. Louis Gate scandal, are there documented cases in Mauritius where corruptors (not just public officials) have been successfully prosecuted? What were the typical charges and penalties?

No information is available on this. The corrupt rarely disclose the names of their corruptors. During the Covid-19 pandemic, several contracts were awarded to friends and supporters of the former regime. There remains a perception that kickbacks were given to those responsible for awarding the contracts. However, no proof is available. The FCC Act stipulates that any public official who solicits, accepts, or obtains a gratification from another person, for themselves or for any other person, commits an offence.

* What specific provisions within the FCC Act address the actions of the corruptor (e.g., bribery, offering undue advantage, collusion)? Are these provisions strong enough, or are there loopholes that allow corruptors to escape prosecution?

The FCC Act contains several provisions addressing financial crimes, which are broadly defined. Both the offense of a public official accepting a bribe and the offense of offering a bribe are punishable. The Act also addresses conflicts of interest where an official participates in discussions or decision-making in which they have, or reasonably should know they have, a personal interest.

The MedPoint case against Pravind Jugnauth involved allegations of conflict of interest, though he was ultimately acquitted due to a specific interpretation of the law. Proving that an official has a personal interest is often challenging. In the MedPoint case, both the Supreme Court and the Privy Council emphasized the need to analyze and assess each specific decision individually to determine whether the official, a relation, or an associate had a personal interest in that decision.

* What are the challenges in proving the guilt of a corruptor, especially when they are often sophisticated entities with legal and financial resources at their disposal?

Proving the guilt of a corruptor presents significant challenges, particularly when dealing with sophisticated entities possessing substantial legal and financial resources. Prosecutions under the FCC Act are criminal proceedings, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt – a high legal standard. Given the complex nature of financial crimes, investigators must meticulously gather and analyze all relevant details, both factual and technical, before establishing the guilt of the accused.

The legal system rightly affords every accused person ample opportunity to defend themselves, further adding to the complexity of these cases.

* How does the FCC Act address the issue of corporate criminal liability? Can companies be held directly responsible for the corrupt actions of their employees or agents? Are the penalties for corporate corruption sufficiently deterrent?

The FCC Act addresses corruption within private entities. A “private entity” is defined broadly, encompassing associations, companies, foundations, limited liability partnerships, partnerships, sociétés, trusts, and other prescribed entities incorporated or registered in Mauritius.

Any employee or member of a private entity who solicits, accepts, or obtains gratification from another person, either for themselves or for another, in exchange for performing or abstaining from performing an act related to their functions, duties, the entity’s affairs, or its business commits an offense. Upon conviction, they are liable to a fine not exceeding 20 million rupees and penal servitude for a term not exceeding 10 years.

Similarly, any person who gives, agrees to give, or offers a gratification to an employee or member of a private entity for such an act commits an offense. Upon conviction, they are subject to the same penalties.

Furthermore, a legal person (such as a corporation) may also be held liable and subject to the same penalties if any of its directors, senior managers, or other management personnel, officers, agents, or authorized representatives commit an offense under the Act for the benefit of the legal person.

* Beyond criminal penalties, are there provisions for debarment of corrupt companies from participating in future public contracts?

If a company is found guilty of corruption, it may be blacklisted. The Registrar of Companies may also impose sanctions, including striking the company off the register. Companies engaging in corruption can face a range of penalties, including substantial fines, imprisonment for individuals involved, revocation of business licenses, and confiscation of assets.

* As regards electoral financing, there is the issue of quid pro quo arrangements between corporations making campaign contributions and politicians who later hold office. What are your thoughts on this matter?

The issue of quid pro quo arrangements between corporations making campaign contributions and politicians who later hold office raises serious concerns about corruption and conflicts of interest. Donations to political parties by corporations or other entities are often made with the expectation of reciprocal benefits. This can create a system where policy decisions are influenced by financial contributions rather than public interest. The potential for such quid pro quo arrangements undermines the integrity of the democratic process and erodes public trust in government.

* How can the influence of large corporations on political decision-making be made more transparent and accountable? Should there be stricter regulations on lobbying activities?

Making the influence of large corporations on political decision-making more transparent and accountable requires a multi-pronged approach. A key element is comprehensive legislation on political financing. Such legislation could include stricter regulations on campaign contributions, including limits on corporate donations and enhanced disclosure requirements. Transparency is crucial, so all contributions, including their source and amount, should be publicly available in a timely and accessible manner.

* Are there typical investigative techniques used to uncover corruption involving both public officials and corruptors?

To prevent and detect offenses under the FCC Act or the Declaration of Assets Act, the Director of the Investigation Division of the FCC, with the approval of the Director-General, may use the following investigative techniques as needed to gather intelligence or evidence: controlled remittances and surveillance. The FCC may also obtain a judge’s order to authorize intrusive surveillance, the use of covert human intelligence sources, and equipment interception.

* What specific legislative reforms could be considered to strengthen the fight against corruption, particularly focusing on the corruptor’s role?

The FCC Act and other legislation provides for a number of offences. The penalties, ranging from heavy fines to imprisonment and asset seizure, are severe enough. It is up to those in charge of the institutions to do their duty. Ultimately, the effectiveness of these laws depends on those responsible for their enforcement diligently performing their duties.

* What lessons can be learned from other countries that have been successful in combating corruption, both in terms of legislation and enforcement?

There is no single lesson to be learned, except perhaps that the culture of some countries fosters a corruption-free environment. Until we educate people, and until our leaders set a positive example, there is little that can be done. Legislation exists, but until the culture changes, the fight against corruption will remain an uphill battle.

* Beyond the ADB’s findings, we are to date not aware what actions have been taken in Mauritius to hold both the public officials and the company (BWSC) accountable for their roles in the St. Louis Gate scandal. That is not surprising, isn’t it?

With the FCC now under new leadership, it falls to this body to pursue the case.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 21 February 2025