“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.Read More… Become a Subscriber

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 21 February 2025