I NTRODUCTION : T HE E VOLUTION OF P RACTICE

International recovery of the proceeds of corruption is a complicated business. Even without the
strategies used by criminals to conceal the proceeds of their crime, asset recovery practitioners
face formidable obstacles. Investigating and prosecuting the underlying crimes - bribery,
embezzlement, abuse of office and illicit enrichment - is inherently difficult. Cooperating on an
international basis to secure the restraint, confiscation and return of the stolen assets adds myriad
layers of complexity.
However, such cooperation does happen and is becoming ever more frequent, ever more timely
and ever more effective. Cooperation has led to successful outcomes in a number of high-profile,
landmark asset recovery cases which have demonstrated that, while extremely challenging, asset
recovery is possible. These cases led to global recognition of the importance of this issue,
culminating in 2003 with UN Member States recognizing asset recovery as ‘a fundamental
principle’ of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).
Three cases are outlined here: Ferdinand Marcos; Vladimir Montesinos; and Diepreye
Alamieyeseigha. The cases have been selected to represent, in broad terms, an evolution in asset
recovery practice. Starting twenty four years ago, efforts to recover assets stolen by Marcos and
his associates encountered numerous legal obstacles, notwithstanding the interest of executive
authorities to expedite the recovery process, taking decades to secure recoveries. We see much
faster resolution of the Montesinos and Alamieyeseigha cases.
The three cases illustrate characteristics of successful asset recovery proceedings and the factors
– in addition to adequate legal frameworks- that have expedited the asset recovery process in
recent years: first and foremost, an effective partnership between requesting and requested
jurisdictions; second, understanding, flexibility and creativity on the part of both authorities;
and third, the willingness of each of the partners to take the initiative where they have the
opportunity.
Parties agreeing to work together on asset recovery enter into a “marriage” of sorts. The first -
and often greatest - challenge to the practitioner lies in identifying the right partner and
developing an effective working relationship: “who do I speak to in the country where proceeds
have been hidden and how do I get them to trust me?” The parties must learn to communicate
and trust each other first. They must commit to provide support, share confidential and sensitive
information, and work together over the extended period (often several years) that it takes to
bring a case to fruition. Significant progress has been made in recent years: the cumulative
experience gained in undertaking successful asset recovery cases provides a foundation on which
countries can build more effective partnerships.
The second challenge for practitioners is to gain an understanding of how their partner’s legal
system work, what courses of action are available, where they have flexibility to expedite the
asset recovery process and where there is opportunity to overcome constraints through
innovation. UNCAC provides tools box of procedures to aid asset recovery - conviction-based,
confiscation, non-conviction based, civil claim-based and the execution of foreign judgments
through mutual legal assistance- each suited to a particular circumstance. The Alamieyeseigha
case shows how the Nigerian, British, and South African authorities used all of these methods in
pursuit of the assets in one asset recovery case. Where practitioners do not have the appropriate
tools at hand, willing legislators can put them in place. The Montesinos case illustrates how
innovations in legal procedures approved by the Peruvian authorities provided prosecutors with
3



 the tools - notably plea bargaining - to secure the return of assets without even taking cases to
court.
The third and final point is that, for partnerships to be effective, all of the partners have to take
the initiative. Here, it is important to note the role played by financial institutions and suspicious
transaction reports in alerting the authorities to the proceeds of corruption. In all three cases the
authorities of the financial centers took the initiative to freeze the assets and initiating
proceedings in their own jurisdiction. Similarly, initiatives taken by the requesting jurisdiction
have been critical in generating the evidence and legal proceedings needed to support
cooperation with the requested jurisdictions. The cases demonstrate that the means to step up the
pace of asset recovery are in our hands, where there is a will asset recovery can be an effective
tool in the fight against corruption.

This report is intended for general information purposes only. The case studies and other data contained in
the report are provided solely for illustrative purposes. The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development and its affiliated organizations (the World Bank Group) does not guarantee the accuracy of the
data included in this work. Neither the World Bank Group nor its officers or employees shall be liable for
any losses that may result directly or indirectly from the use of or reliance upon such information.

4