The authors explain that corruption is a uniquely difficult crime to prove, with no clear victim who may complain to police. Moreover, everyone involved in corruption is a beneficiary of the activity, therefore it is in the best interests of those involved to keep the secret. Indeed, much of the evidence surrounding corruption cases is circumstantial, such as the expensive car of a junior associate. As such, the authors argue that easing the burden of proof in corruption cases would make their policing and prosecution much more feasible. Circumstantial evidence in corruption cases should be acceptable, so long as international human rights norms and the principle of the presumption of innocence are upheld. The authors then turn to a discussion of two main strategies that are focused on the results of the criminal act rather than trying to show where the roots of the criminal act begin; these two strategies involve criminalizing unexplained wealth and facilitating the confiscation of unexplained wealth. In conclusion, the authors assert that easing the burden of proof should be viewed as striking the right balance between individual rights and the rights of the community at large. References