For procedural reasons, the expiration of a limitation period that bars money laundering proceedings or prevents other forms of MLA in the requested country could be viewed as unacceptable in large-scale corruption cases involving regimes or officials who amassed stolen assets to the detriment of the security or the health of their population. Grand corruption cases not only damage public finances in the developing world but, by diverting public resources, also endanger the lives of people threatened by starvation, deprive others of the aid they need to fight poverty, and deny still others access to health services they need to survive. In addition, those spoliations are sometimes committed to strengthen dictatorships and finance political violence or illegal wars. As such, they could be considered violations of basic human rights. Officials who use or betray their mandate to commit these crimes should be held to higher standards of accountability. For these reasons, jurisdictions should consider passing or amending legislation to eliminate the limitation period for large-scale or egregious corruptionrelated offenses that endanger the lives of entire populations. If eliminating limitation periods appears difficult to realize given the traditional principles that justify them, jurisdictions could at least lengthen the prescription periods for corruption and the laundering of proceeds of corruption. Authorities should also look closely at the circumstances involved to determine whether the limitation period was suspended or interrupted for a period of time, or whether the offense involved is continuous. In most jurisdictions, the “clock� can be stopped (suspended) or even restarted by certain legal events, including investigations by law enforcement agencies or prosecutors or when the individual has fled the jurisdiction. Where international immunities prevent prosecution, the clock should not begin to run until the immunity is waived or no longer applies and prosecution is possible. Even at that point, the limitation period should not begin to run until the offense is complete or discovered. This principle is already applied in many jurisdictions. For example, in one country, the limitation period in cases of breach of trust or embezzlement of public funds starts to run only when the offense is discovered by law enforcement agencies or prosecutors. In another jurisdiction, the five-year time limitation for money laundering offenses begins on the date when the offense is complete. If an offense is continuous, however, the statute of limitations is extended beyond its stated term. As an example, where an overt act is required for a conspiracy, the statute of limitations on a continuing conspiracy does not begin to run until the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is committed. Where the limitation period on a criminal offense has expired, authorities should consider whether there are related offenses that can be prosecuted or any civil action that can be taken. Criminal investigations into a crime with an expired limitation period may lead to the discovery of other, fresher offenses. As an example, prosecuting a bribery offense may be impossible if the time limitation has expired. However, if fictitious invoices recorded in accounting books have concealed bribes paid to an intermediary, the starting point of the limitation period may be delayed until the actual discovery of the publication of false accounting statements, indicating fraud or embezzlement.
Legal Barriers and Requirements that Delay Assistance
Book 1.indb 75
I
75
5/11/11 4:20:53 PM