Daily Independent Online.
*
Tuesday, June 29, 2004.
US set to freeze assets of corrupt Nigerian officials
By Chukwudi Abiandu
Night
Editor (Lagos)
and Chinedu Offor
Correspondent
(Washington DC)
America has put in
place a facility that Nigerian anti-corruption crusaders may wish to explore in
the fight against corrupt officials who may have kept their stolen assets in
banks in the United States.
The US Government has
established the Department of Asset Forfeiture, through its attorney’s
office, that would ferret out and confiscate ill-gotten wealth stashed away in
that country.
A statement by Darren Kew, Assistant Professor
(Dispute Resolution Programme) University of Massachusetts, Boston, said using
the Patriotic Act and other US criminal forfeiture statutes, the office is
designed to seize assets accumulated through criminal acts that either put the
safety and lives of a population at risk or act unethically in government or
business.
These acts include,
but not limited to: terrorism or supporting terrorist acts, narcotics
trafficking, corruption (such as theft, extortion, fraud, and money laundering)
and violence.
It was learnt that
Abuja is already taking advantage of the
new agency by compiling a list of suspected officials who may have questionable fat accounts in American
banks.
Sources said the list
is being put together by the
Economic and Fiancial Crimes Commission (EFCC) headed by Nuhu Ribadu.
They confirmed that
previous requests by Nigeria to
investigate or recover suspected funds lodged in US banks were not
successful because there was no enabling agency or law specifically dealing with recovery of funds from foreign
nationals or from American citizens who have not been convicted of crime.
The agency will
co-operate with countries to recover funds either looted from government
treasury or made through suspected activities such as terrorist acts, drugs, theft, embezzlement, inflated
contracts or other acts considered capable of putting at risk the lives of people or unethical acts in government
or business.
Nigeria may, however,
have a difficult time proving its
case going by the conditions
attached to any petition
requesting for recovery of funds.
The petitioner must
prove the existence of such funds,
the accounts and the suspected source of the money.
Nigerian embassy
officials in the US are said to be working on locating some of the banks and property allegedly purchased by
several prominent Nigerians
through questionable sources of wealth.
Kew explained that
while it may be difficult to press direct charges against international
criminals, the US Government is capable of seizing any assets used
instrumentally in the crime itself.
Besides, American
definition of an “asset used instrumentally in a crime” is
purposefully left flexible, but some examples might include: businesses through
which money is laundered, assets acquired internationally in order to hide
stolen funds, property in which narcotics are held or distributed, automobiles
or other modes of transportation used directly to traffic narcotics, as well as
scales or other items used directly to assist in the crime. They government is
also capable of seizing assets that were the result of criminal acts, such as
homes, automobiles, or other valuables.
It stresses the
individuality of each case and the specificity of any investigation towards these
criminal acts. While pointing out that it is difficult to provide a set of
guidelines in response to the recognition of these crimes, Kew said, however,
that it is possible to alert the attorney’s office to any specific acts
worthy of investigation, charges, and the search for punitive measures over to
them.
He also made the point
that since an investigation takes time and resources, it is necessary to
convince the attorney of the existence of a crime through evidence.
According to Kew, the
department acknowledges that the greatest difficulty lies in the burden of
proof provided.
He added: “While
it is possible to hand a case over for investigation through the US
attorney’s office, it is necessary to convince them that a criminal act
has taken place and that it is worthy of an investigation. Obviously, the more
evidence to be brought to their attention, the more convincing one can be to
ask them to begin an investigation.
“The most
important point to gather as much pertinent and relevant information and
evidence in order to convince the department of asset forfeiture that a crime
has been committed and an investigation must take place. Once the office has
taken over the investigation, all possible attempts to seize any assets
acquired through criminal acts will be taken. They will then make any and all
efforts to return moneys or property directly stolen from any individual or
groups.”
Kew, however,
cautioned that the most important evidence to focus on, as well as possibly the
most difficult to find, lies in the origin of the funds. “If a group can
prove where laundered or stolen money came from, it is that much more possible
to begin an investigation, freeze assets, and return money to the victims of
the crime. Once all resources for proof and evidence have been exhausted, it is
then possible to present said evidence to this office.
“Evidence and a
request for further investigation may be presented directly to the Department
of Asset Forfeiture in the US attorney’s office through Dan Claman at
(202) 514-6340 or [email protected]”.
Also, the Department of Asset Forfeiture acknowledged that
in certain cases, it might also be possible for a specific injured party to
bring a private suit against a particular criminal and can handle the
investigation and suit themselves.
