skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 201046 Find in a Library
Title: Legal Provisions to Facilitate the Gathering of Evidence in Corruption Cases: Easing the Burden of Proof
Journal: Forum On Crime and Society  Volume:2  Issue:1  Dated:December 2002  Pages:23-31
Author(s): Nihal Jayawickrama; Jeremy Pope; Oliver Stolpe
Date Published: December 2002
Page Count: 9
Publisher: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/Forum-on-Crime-and-Society.html 
Type: Research (Theoretical)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: Austria
Annotation: This article explores how to identify police corruption through a legal framework that allows for the easing of the burden of proof.
Abstract: 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
Main Term(s): Burden of proof; Corporate crimes; Police corruption
Index Term(s): Circumstantial evidence; Corporate criminal liability; Courts; Human rights; Presumption of innocence
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=201046

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.