VZCZCXYZ0007
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0049/01 0361202
ZNR UUUUU ZZH CCY CAPTION (ADX28D7E8 MSI2114) 431
R 051202Z FEB 09 ZEL
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8978
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1470

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000049 
 
C O R R E C T E D  C O P Y (CAPTION) 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV UN KCRM UNODC
 
SUBJECT: SECOND UNCAC WORKSHOP ON BRIBERY IN INTERNATIONAL 
ORGANIZATIONS 
 
--------- 
SUMMARY 
--------- 
 
¶1. On January 28-29, 2009, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) 
hosted the second open-ended experts workshop on International 
Cooperation between Public International Organizations and States 
Parties to the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC).  Workshop 
participants discussed ways to improve cooperation between 
government authorities and international organizations (IO's) in 
addressing bribery and other corruption cases involving IO 
officials.  Delegates from 40 countries and 20 IO's ultimately 
adopted recommendations based largely on conclusions drafted by the 
U.S. delegation.  These include a call for written guidelines for 
cooperation, regular meetings between the organizations and 
appropriate law enforcement authorities to ensure proper 
communication, and early notification to those authorities of 
credible allegations of corruption. 
 
2 SUMMARY CONTINUED: UNODC hosted a second meeting during the 
afternoon of January 29 of the members of the UN Chief Executive 
Board (CEB) representing most of the international organizations in 
the UN system.  Member State experts were allowed to observe.  At 
this meeting, IO representatives discussed progress in implementing 
UNODC's Integrity Initiative, a voluntary effort by the IO's to 
integrate UNCAC principles into operational practices.  UNODC 
discussed efforts to collect information on the work being done by 
IO's involved and post them on a website accessible by other IO's. 
With only two thirds of the organizations reporting, progress has 
been slow, and UNODC urged participants to show more progress when 
the issue is revisited during the Third UNCAC Conference of States 
Parties (COSP), currently scheduled for November in Doha. END 
SUMMARY 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
BACKGROUND: GETTING TOGETHER MEMBER STATES AND IOs 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶3. The current workshop resulted from the 2003 UN General Assembly 
resolution adopting the text of the UNCAC, which also mandates that 
the UNCAC COSP consider ways to strengthen action against bribery 
and corruption in international organizations, taking into account 
privileges and immunities and jurisdiction.  The first COSP, held in 
Jordan in December 2005, directed the establishment of an open-ended 
dialogue bringing together Member States and interested 
international organizations to consider these issues.  UNODC 
subsequently hosted its first workshop on the topic in Vienna from 
September 27-28, 2007.  The issue was revisited again at the second 
COSP in Bali, Indonesia in January-February 2008.  The second COSP 
ultimately recommended the continuation of the open-ended dialogue, 
with a main purpose to exchange best practices and to address the 
technical issues highlighted during the first workshop, namely 
cooperation between international organizations and Member States, 
the exchange of information on on-going investigations, and issues 
related to jurisdiction.  The U.S. played a major role in drafting 
both COSP pronouncements on this subject and has provided 
significant expertise to both workshops. 
 
------------------------ 
U.S. DELEGATION AND GOALS 
------------------------ 
 
¶4. The U.S. delegation (USDEL) to the January 27-28 workshops 
consisted of Patt Prugh, Office of the Legal Adviser, Law 
Enforcement & Intelligence, Department of State; James Gresser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, Diplomatic Law, Department of State; 
Mark Mendelsohn, Fraud Section, Criminal Division, Department of 
Justice; and John Brandolino, INL Senior Advisor to UNVIE.  The 
purpose of the U.S. participation in the workshop was to provide 
expert information on U.S. practices, to guide the workshop 
discussions to avoid a result that would be inconsistent with U.S. 
policies or laws, to learn from other delegations, and to assist 
both international organizations and the COSP in their efforts to 
deter and detect corruption and fraud. 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
CRIMINALIZING PASSIVE BRIBERY OF IO OFFICIALS 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶5. The French delegation commenced substantive discussions with an 
intervention highlighting the importance of criminalizing "passive 
bribery" - the acceptance of a bribe by a member of the IO staff. 
UNCAC obligates States Parties to criminalize the active bribery of 
officials (offering a bribe to an official of a public international 
organization), but not the criminalization of passive bribery of 
officials of public international organizations.  In a private 
conservation, a UNODC official noted that the U.S. does not 
expressly criminalize passive bribery, and asked USDEL whether we 
wished to discuss the U.S. position.  We declined to discuss the 
matter on the floor but explained to UNODC staff that although 
passive bribery is not an offense under the FCPA, there are other 
statutory offenses that may cover this conduct, for example, federal 
wire fraud.  (COMMENT: Although not required under the UNCAC, the 
 
Department of Justice may wish to consider whether there would be 
merit to criminalizing passive bribery. END COMMENT) 
 
----------------------------------------- 
INTERFACE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES AND IO'S 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. Subsequent discussions concerned the interface between IO's and 
the prosecutorial authorities of the Member States having 
jurisdiction over an act of corruption.  USDEL and other delegations 
expressed the view that early notification to national authorities 
was important in all criminal cases, but particularly in bribery and 
corruption cases which frequently are complex and involve rapid and 
multiple movements of funds.  A number of IO representatives 
cautioned that early notification would require a waiver of 
privileges and immunities.  It was noted by the USDEL that 
notification and waiver were distinct, and that even in those cases 
where waiver was necessary, waivers could be limited.  The UN's 
Office of Investigative Oversight Services (OIOS) in Vienna noted 
that under current UN regulations, an employee can be sanctioned for 
divulging information outside the IO.  The USDEL intervened to say 
that such policies clearly run contrary to the interests of the 
organization to detect and deter corruption, and that IO's need to 
reverse the culture of protectionism that uses immunity to shield 
internal corruption.  The interests of justice should take 
precedence over an IO's desire to investigate and take personnel 
actions for misconduct.  (COMMENT: This issue may be fertile field 
for a future decision by the third COSP in November.  END COMMENT) 
 
------------------------------------ 
DEALING WITH MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶7. During the workshop, it was noted that in addition to the state 
with territorial jurisdiction, other states could also conceivably 
have a jurisdictional basis to try individuals who would abuse their 
positions of trust and confidence in an IO for corrupt purposes. 
One example would be the state having active personality 
jurisdiction when one of its nationals commits the offense.  The 
USDEL internally discussed whether an IO should be encouraged to 
notify all states with the potential to assert jurisdiction, and, if 
so, whether a preference should be given to the Member State with 
territorial jurisdiction (the offense was committed within its 
territory).  We decided not to raise these issues without first 
bringing these matters to the attention of USUN and other interested 
U.S. entities.  Neither U.S. domestic law nor customary 
international law imposes a priority regime among states having 
bases to prosecute for the same offense.  In the afternoon 
discussions, UNODC posed a number of questions for the workshop to 
consider.  Among them was whether there were adequate provisions for 
IO's to recover assets lost as a result of internal bribery or 
corruption.  USDEL explained the process available to IO's in the 
U.S. that permits them to recover through the government's 
prosecution under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). 
Following this intervention it was noted that the potential for 
asset recovery provided an added incentive for IO's to promptly 
inform national authorities when the IO learns of credible evidence 
that an IO has been the victim of bribery or corruption. 
 
----------------------------- 
USDEL PUSHES RECOMMENDATIONS 
----------------------------- 
 
¶8. UNODC sought to end the workshop by offering the participants a 
number of "conclusions" to be adopted by consensus.  Very lively 
discussion ensued, with a number of delegations objecting that the 
workshop had not been asked to reach conclusions and the 
participants had not been authorized by their authorities to take 
such action.  USDEL specifically objected to the first proposed 
recommendation, which stated that Member States should revise their 
domestic laws to ensure the admissibility of evidence gathered by 
international organizations.  UNODC agreed to withdraw the 
recommendation.  The representative of the UN Office of the Legal 
Adviser questioned the meaning of the term consensus, and also 
questioned whether any agreement could be reached.  At this point, 
the discussions rapidly deteriorated and it appeared we would not 
have any agreement on the content of the workshop report. 
 
¶9. USDEL then requested an opportunity to share several points for 
inclusion in the report that the group would prepare for the third 
COSP in Doha.  Other delegations supported the U.S. intervention and 
requested that the U.S. summary of the discussion replace the 
"conclusions" proposed by UNODC.  The workshop participants reviewed 
each of the points noted by USDEL and supplemented only a few of the 
points raised, particularly in the area of preventive measures.  The 
points raised by the US delegation are attached at Para 13. 
 
------------------------------------ 
CHIEF EXECUTIVE BOARD (CEB) MEETING 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶10. On the afternoon of January 28, UNODC hosted its annual CEB 
meeting, attended by representatives of UN international 
 
organizations and with a number of Member States participating as 
observers.  UNODC explained the goal was to establish an integrity 
protocol between CEB members highlighting desirable practices and 
standards to achieve goal of fighting corruption.  This "Integrity 
Initiative" reflects the commitment of Secretary General to hold UN 
organizations and staff to the highest integrity standards. 
Participation is voluntary and one organization (IMF) has decided 
not to join the effort.  Participating entities are asked to utilize 
the principles embodied in the UNCAC to upgrade their existing 
integrity standards and, thus, move to some common level of 
convergence in their individual agency standards 
 
¶11. UNODC noted during the meeting that the Integrity Initiative had 
yet to achieve full compliance by all the agencies that had 
voluntarily agreed to participate, and warned that if this goal is 
not realized by the next COSP, then IO's will appear to be less than 
committed to fighting corruption.  Much of the discussion centered 
somewhat distractingly around the posting of IO questionnaires and 
other documents relating to the initiative to a website maintained 
by UNODC.  The fact that the website was determined to be accessible 
to those outside the participating IO's caused at least one IO to 
request the removal of its information.  The CEB discussed making 
the integrity initiative a permanent agenda item for the UN High 
Level Committee on Management (HLCM), but no decision was taken. 
From the discussions, it emerged that there may be merit at the 
third COSP to a decision calling upon Secretaries General of IO's to 
fully embrace the UNCAC principles, encourage all CEB members to 
participate in the voluntary Integrity Initiative, and urge all 
participants to provide UNODC proper information on their efforts 
for posting at the UNODC website. 
 
¶12. COMMENT: Several factors contributed to the success of the 
workshop on international cooperation.  The breadth and depth of 
experience of a number of delegations, including USDEL, resulted in 
lively and meaningful exchanges.  But as expected, some Member 
States sent only their Vienna representatives, who lacked subject 
matter expertise.  USDEL literally saved the international 
cooperation workshop by pushing for the group to adopt a summary of 
discussion in the face of general reluctance to do so.  The 
resulting recommendations, based largely on the USDEL proposals, 
will now form the basis for further action and dialogue on these 
issues, particularly during the third COSP to be held in Doha in 
November.  END COMMENT 
 
¶13. Begin text of USDEL proposal: 
 
Many member states and IOs expressed a positive opinion supporting 
the workshop and the hope that this open-ended dialogue will 
continue; 
 
Member states should continue to use their voices and votes in those 
IOs in which they participate to ensure that those organizations 
embrace the UNCAC principles; 
 
Reiterate the consensus that the existing international legal regime 
with respect to the privileges and immunities of IOs, including the 
right and duty of IOs to waive immunity when the interests of 
justice so require and the immunity can be waived without prejudice 
to the interests of the organization, [needs no modification.]; 
 
In light of the alignment of interests of the public international 
organizations and the member states of the CAC, and continuing to 
respond to the mandate of the General Assembly in Resolution 58(4), 
paragraph 6, participants in the workshop recommend that IOs and 
member states take the following actions: 
A Establish contact points in both the states and the organizations 
to facilitate the exchange of information regarding the bribery of 
officials of the international organizations. 
¶B. Those points of contact should meet regularly, first to establish 
lines of communication and thereafter to address relevant issues of 
common concern as they arise. 
¶C. As a preliminary matter, these discussions should include (1) 
local practice with respect to recovery of assets; (2) collection of 
evidence; and (3) chain of custody. 
 
Those organizations that don't already have a written policy with 
respect to cooperation with national authorities in corruption cases 
should adopt such a policy consistent with the principles set forth 
in the Convention. 
 
The policies of all international organizations should include: 
¶A. Recognition of the organization's obligation to facilitate the 
proper administration of justice and therefore to notify the 
competent national authorities of credible allegations of corruption 
as early as possible. 
¶B. A uniform and principled approach to notification and 
cooperation. 
¶C.  A recognition that in certain case more than a single state may 
be competent to exercise jurisdiction over the alleged offense, and 
that there may be limits on the capacity of any one such state to 
respond effectively. 
 
Public international organizations should explore ways to develop 
 
 
common approaches in cooperating with national authorities in member 
states. 
 
Take note of the importance of implementing preventive measures in 
the international organizations in combating corruption. These 
include: (1) creation and application of an internal audit function; 
(2) establishment of an independent investigative body; and (3) 
contractual audit rights.  END TEXT 
 
PYATT