Who Guards the Reward Money?

“Confidentiality need not come at the cost of accountability”

Qs & As

By Lex 

The recent revelations surrounding the alleged misappropriation of reward money by members of the Mauritian police force have raised serious questions about transparency, accountability, and legal safeguards in the management of confidential public funds. At the heart of the controversy is a system that operates largely on internal discretion and mutual trust, with limited external oversight. The unfolding investigation — potentially involving charges of money laundering and abuse of public office — has brought renewed scrutiny to the legal framework governing the disbursement of reward money to informants. This Q&A seeks to examine the legal and procedural gaps that may have enabled these alleged abuses, while also drawing on international best practices to explore how Mauritius might reform its approach to ensure greater integrity, transparency, and public trust.

* Are there specific laws and regulations that govern the allocation, management, and disbursement of “Reward Money” funds to law enforcement agencies in Mauritius?

There are no specific rules regarding the disbursement of these funds; it’s based on mutual trust between the State and the Commissioner of Police. The Standing Order of the Police Regulations outlines a procedure for paying informants and for returns made to the Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner has sole discretion on how to manage the government-allocated funds intended for rewards.

Under Standing Order 122 of the Standing Orders of the Police Force, the officer receiving the funds must certify on a specific voucher that they have received the requested payment and remitted the money to the informer. The officer must certify as follows: “I certify that the informer has been paid by me.” That voucher is then returned to the Manager, Financial Operations.

 *What are the potential criminal charges police officers under investigation by the Financial Crimes Commission could face based on the current accusations of money laundering and possession of funds suspected to be from the Reward Money Fund?

Cashing reward money, or any part of it, by a police officer constitutes illegally obtaining funds. Therefore, any money misappropriated by the police in this manner is a criminal act. Money laundering is a separate criminal offense where the proceeds of illicit activities, such as fraud or bribery, are disguised or converted into assets that appear to have a legitimate origin.

* In light of one Deputy Commissioner of Police’s (DCP) reported denial of involvement in financial dealings related to reward money, what legal burden of proof rests on the prosecution to substantiate the allegations of the police officer under investigation?

In any criminal offence, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused rests on the prosecution. The prosecution will have to prove that the money is the proceeds of a crime and that the offender attempted to use it and make it appear as legitimate funds. In money laundering cases, proving a prior prosecution for the underlying crime that generated the funds is not required.

* What are the legal implications of the fact that the officer currently under investigation was not assigned to ADSU at the time of the major drug seizure (May 2021), yet allegedly had Rs 4.587 million from that Reward Money in his account?

It is clear that the Counter Terrorism Unit within the Prime Minister’s office had no involvement in drug offence investigations unless specifically detailed to do so by the Commissioner. Therefore, by claiming money for informants on an alleged drug case without proper authority, the officer obtained funds illegally. The critical question then becomes: why did the Commissioner disburse the money to him, knowing full well he had no connection to drug offense investigations?

* Can the Financial Crimes Commission (FCC) compel the former Police Commissioner to provide an explanation or documentation regarding his approval of the memo for the controversial payment to the ACP? What are his potential legal liabilities?

Yes and no. The FCC can compel the Commissioner, following a judge’s order, to reveal the name of the investigating officer who requested the reward money, the amount, and the reason for the disbursement, by providing details of the ongoing investigation. However, the FCC cannot compel the Commissioner to reveal the name of the informant. This presents a vicious circle: while the identity of the informant must remain secret, we remain in the dark about the true nature of the transaction.

* If informants were indeed short-changed, do they have any legal recourse to claim the promised amounts, and against whom would such a claim be directed (e.g., the individual officers, the police force, or the government)?

An informant would rarely dare pursue legal action, even if they received no money or less than the promised amount. Going to court would blow their cover, exposing them to significant risk from those they denounced. This represents a major weakness in the system.

* What are the legal ramifications if it is proven that police officers, potentially with the complicity of informants, have been illicitly profiting from reward money?

The police officers will be investigated for illegally obtaining money and may be liable for money laundering.

* Based on the information that has come out so far in the press, where do you identify the most significant legal and procedural loopholes in the current system of managing reward money that allowed for alleged misappropriation?

It is precisely because of these loopholes that the reward saga has persisted for so long, involving millions of taxpayers’ money, as revealed by Prime Minister Ramgoolam in Parliament.

The first loophole lies in the absence of any strict rule requiring the Commissioner to thoroughly scrutinise the request for disbursement. Since the Commissioner has discretion in authorising these payments, it is questionable whether there is any proper screening of such requests.

Secondly, once the investigating officer obtains the funds, they are remitted to the informant in the presence of the Commissioner and the officer himself. The identity of the informant must, understandably, remain confidential. However, this raises a serious concern: what if there were collusion with the informant regarding the actual amount being handed over? In the absence of any trustworthy and independent witness, the abuse has continued unchecked.

* What are the legal obligations of the Commissioner of Police to ensure adherence to Standing Orders regarding reward money, and what are the legal consequences for failing to uphold these obligations?

In Mauritius, the Commissioner of Police is legally obligated to manage reward money with transparency and accountability. This responsibility includes establishing clear procedures for awarding and disbursing rewards, maintaining proper documentation, and ensuring that funds are not misused. The Commissioner must also oversee the entire process to prevent corruption or any form of dishonest practice.

* Is there a legal requirement for regular, independent audits of reward money funds? If not, what legislative changes would be necessary to mandate such audits?

Since reward money constitutes public funds, its management must be subject to audit, with a report submitted to the Ministry of Finance or another relevant public authority. But is this actually being done?

In the context of a report by the Director of Audit, “reward money” typically refers to payments made to individuals who provide information leading to the detection of serious offences or the arrest of offenders. This practice is commonly associated with law enforcement agencies and institutions such as the FCC. The Director of Audit’s report may examine how these funds are managed and allocated, ensuring they are used in line with established rules and regulations.
Accountability in the use of public funds is paramount. There is nothing wrong with the Commissioner submitting regular audit reports to the State, without necessarily disclosing the identities of informants.

* Could you explain the legal principles behind an “overriding public interest” that might compel the disclosure of information, even if it pertains to confidential informant identities, as seen in the 2021 ICAC case?

“Overriding public interest” refers to a situation where a particular action or disclosure is considered so beneficial to the public good that it outweighs other considerations, including potential negative impacts. It essentially means that the societal benefits are significant enough to justify overriding certain concerns, regulations, or even individual rights.

But can public interest justify endangering the life of an informant by revealing their identity in the course of an investigation into police malpractice?

As Vinod Boolell explained in L’Express on 30 June, the judge ordered the Commissioner of Police to submit to the Director-General of ICAC:

* the recommendation for the reward payment;

* a voucher signed by the Manager of Financial Operations, including a final certificate from the police;

* the written approval of the Police Commissioner;

* acquittances signed by officers acknowledging receipt of funds intended for informants; and

* secret receipts signed by informants upon receiving the reward money.

* Apparently, no acquittances were available.

* What are the best international legal practices for managing and auditing confidential funds like reward money in law enforcement, particularly concerning accountability and preventing corruption?

Examining specific examples can be instructive. Take the United Kingdom, for instance. In the area of whistleblowing — particularly in relation to tax and financial crimes — there has been a discernible shift towards a more structured and transparent system, though it remains a work in progress.

Historically, reward payments in the UK were discretionary, often handled informally within law enforcement or tax bodies. However, the system is gradually evolving toward a more formalised framework. There is growing advocacy for a model similar to that of the United States, where substantial rewards may be offered for credible information that leads to successful enforcement actions or tax recovery.

The emerging best practices in jurisdictions like the UK include:

– Clear eligibility criteria for rewards;
– Independent oversight mechanisms to prevent abuse;
– Auditable procedures that maintain confidentiality, especially where the identity of informants must be protected;
– Reporting to parliamentary or oversight bodies, even if anonymised, to ensure transparency in the use of public funds.

These developments highlight the growing consensus that confidentiality need not come at the cost of accountability. The two can — and must — coexist, particularly where public money is involved and where misuse could erode public trust in law enforcement institutions.

* Are there any legal mechanisms to recover funds that have been allegedly misappropriated from the Reward Money Fund?

Should the police officers be found guilty of money laundering, their assets are liable to seizure. Furthermore, assets may be frozen pending the outcome of the investigation.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 18 July 2025