’23년 제2차 G20 반부패실무협의단 회의 참석 결과 보고서

2023. 6.

	국민권익위원회 국제교류담당관실

1		2023년 제2차 G20반부패실무협의단 회의 참석 결과

□ 회의 개요

ㅇ 회의명 : 2023년 제2차 G20 반부패실무협의단 회의

ㅇ 일시/장소 : ’23. 5. 25.(목)~27.(토)/ 인도 리시케시

ㅇ 주관기관 : 2023년  G20 반부패실무협의단 의장국(인도)

ㅇ 참석자 : G20 회원국 대표, 싱가포르, 모리셔스 등 초청국 대표, OECD, UNODC, Interpol 등 국제기구 대표

※ 우리측 : (권익위) 임채수 신고자보호과장, 이승은 국제교류담당관실 주무관

(법무부) 전성환 국제형사과 검사

□ G20 반부패실무협의단 회의 주요 결과

ㅇ 2023 제2차 G20 반부패실무협의단 회의를 통해 ‘반부패 기관의 청렴성 및 효율성 증진’, ‘법집행 기관간 협력 및 정보공유 증진’, ‘자산회복 메커니즘 강화’에 대한 고위급 원칙 최종문안 합의 도출

- 반부패 기관 청렴성 증진 원칙에 우리측이 사전에 제안한 ‘부패위험 평가와 분석에 기반한 정기적 반부패 계획 또는 전략 채택’에 관한 문안 반영

ㅇ 2023년 제2차 반부패 장관급 공동선언문 문안 논의 지속

- 금년 8월(8.12.) 개최 예정인 반부패 장관급 회의에서 채택될 공동선언문안에 대한 논의 실시 및 최종안 도출을 위해 6월말 경 온라인 추가 세션 개최 예정

ㅇ 또한, ‘부패예방·척결에 있어 감사역할 증진’에 대한 사례집 작성 계획과 ‘사법공조(Mutual Legal Assistance)’에 대한 이행보고서 작성 일정에 대해서 안내함.

ㅇ 한편, ‘성(性)과 부패’를 주제로 한 부대행사가 개최되었으며, 인도 Womaniya 이니셔티브 대표 및 기업 대표 등을 비롯하여 이탈리아 국립행정대학원 교수, 남아공 공공행정부 인사 등이 연사로 나와 인도의 경험 및 성과 부패에 대한 관점을 공유함.

□ 정부 대표단 활동

ㅇ 이번 회의를 통해 도출된  ‘반부패 기관의 청렴성 및 효율성 증진’ 고위급 원칙 문안 관련, ‘부패위험 평가와 분석에 기반한 정기적 반부패 계획 또는 전략 채택’에 대한 문안을 제시하여 반영될 수 있도록 함.

ㅇ 8월 개최 예정인 반부패 장관급 회의 준비 관련, 의장국인 인도를 접촉하여 회의 일정, 양자면담 등 관련 사항을 협의함.

ㅇ 우리 대표단은 또한 금번 회의 기간 중 인도네시아 대표단과 양자면담을 별도로 개최하였으며, 한(국민권익위)-인니(부패방지위원회) 간 반부패 MOU 재체결과 청렴도 평가 및 반부패 교육 등과 관련한 기술지원 워크샵 개최 등에 대해 논의함.

□ 관찰 및 평가

ㅇ 회의 기간 중 ‘반부패 기관 청렴성 및 효과성 증진’, ‘법집행 및 정보공유 강화’, ‘자산회복 메커니즘 강화’에 대한 3개 고위급 원칙 문안이 합의에 이르렀으며, 회의 종료 후 침묵기간을 거쳐 6월 중 최종 확정될 것으로 보임.

ㅇ 반부패 장관급 선언문 관련, 금번 회의에서 문안 합의 도출이 되지 못함에 따라 인도측에서 6월말 경 화상 회의를 추가로 개최할 것으로 예상됨.

□ 향후 계획

ㅇ 제3차 반부패실무협의단 회의(8.9.-11.) 및 반부패 장관급 회의(8.12.)는 인도 콜카타에서 개최 예정이며, 장관급 회의 관련 6월 초 인도측에서 아젠다 회람할 것으로 예상

- 동 회의 참석을 위한 대표단 명단 확정‧제출, 장관급 공동선언문안 작성 등 대응 필요

2		세부 회의 결과

□ 개회

ㅇ  2023년 반부패실무협의단 의장국인 인도 Raul Singh 의장과 공동의장국인 이탈리아 Giovanni Tartaglia 공동의장의 개회사를 시작으로  Ajay Bhatt 인도 국방부 장관의 기조연설이 있었음.

- Singh 의장은 이번 2차 회의를 통해 현재 진행중인 고위급 원칙 문안 논의가 마무리되길 바라며, ‘성(性)과 부패’에 관한 주제로 부대행사가 예정되어 있다고 소개함.

- Tartaglia 공동의장은 반부패실무협의단의 가장 큰 목표는 국제협력을 강화하고 반부패 의지를 재확인하는 데 있다고 하면서 특히 올해 집중 논의 중인 법집행과 자산회복 분야에 있어 국제협력의 중요성을 강조함.

- Bhatt 장관은 부패 척결에 있어 투명성, 포용성, 효용성 증진의 중요성에 대해 언급하며, 특히 올해 중점 논의되는 자산회복과 법집행 협력에 있어 적시 정보공유와 비공식 협력 강화의 필요성에 대해 강조함. 또한 이번 회의를 통해 국제 약속을 재확인하고, 선제적이고 포괄적 논의를 통해 국제사회 부패척결 노력을 더욱 강화해 나가는 계기가 되길 바란다고 언급함.

□ 반부패 기관의 청렴성 및 효과성 증진에 대한 고위급 원칙 문안 논의

ㅇ 사전 회람된 동 고위급 원칙 수정안에 대한 마무리 논의를 통해 최종 합의에 이름.

- 로비 투명성을 증진하는 문구 관련, 로비 자체가 불법인 국가도 있으므로 해당되는 문장에 ‘관련있고 적절한 경우’를 삽입

- 내부고발자를 위한 안전하고, 접근가능한 비밀의 신고채널 마련과 효과적 보호 보장에 대한 문단 추가

- 내부고발자를 의미하는 whistleblower를 reporting person으로 변경하자는 제안이 있었으나 이전 G20 문서에도 계속 사용돼 왔던 용어인 만큼, 기존 용어 사용 유지

- 우리측이 제시한 ‘부패위험 평가와 분석에 기반한 정기적 반부패 계획 또는 전략 채택’에 대한 내용이 원칙 6 반부패 기관의 준비성 향상 항목에 반영

ㅇ 고위급 원칙 주요 내용

- 원칙 1 : 반부패 기관의 명확하고 적절한 권한과 역량 보장

- 원칙 2 : 반부패 기관의 효율적 업무 수행에 필요한 독립성과 자원 제공

- 원칙 3 : 반부패 기관의 개방적이고 투명한 기능 수행과 이에 대한 책임성 유지

- 원칙 4 : 반부패 기관 직원의 높은 기준의 청렴성 보장과 포용성 촉진

- 원칙 5 : 반부패 기관 간 효과적 협력 증진

-  원칙 6 : 새로운 도전요인 대응을 위한 반부패 기관의 준비성 향상

□ 부패 관련 자산회복 체계 강화에 대한 고위급 원칙 문안 논의

ㅇ 사전 회람된 고위급 원칙 수정안에 대한 마무리 논의를 통해서 회원국들은 전체 문안에 대한 최종 합의에 이름.

- 비공식 요청에 따른 범죄수익 동결‧압수 처분, 동결 처분 받을 시간적 여유가 없는 경우 임시조치 필요성에 대해 명시한 조항 등에 대해 회원국별 상이한 국내법적 상황에 맞추어 유동적으로 적용될 수 있도록 단서 조항 삽입 등 전체적인 문안 조정

ㅇ 고위급 원칙 주요 내용

- 원칙 1 : 범죄수익 환수를 반부패 정책 목적으로 설정

- 원칙 2 : 범죄수익 적시적 효과적 식별을 위한 절차, 도구, 제도를 확보하여 국내 기관이 활용할 수 있도록 하고, 자산추적과 식별을 위한 효과적 국제협력이 이루어질 수 있도록 보장

- 원칙 3 : 범죄수익의 관할권 이동 및 소실 방지를 위해 적시 규제, 동결, 압류 보장

- 원칙 4 : G20 회원국의 효과적 자산회복을 위한 광범위한 법률 권한, 도구, 조치 제공 보장

- 원칙 5 : 교차 관할권을 갖는 자산회복의 적시 실행을 위해 관할 당국 간 적시적‧효율적 협업과 소통 보장

- 원칙 6 : 성공적인 자산회복을 위한 개방 정보의 효율적 활용

□ 부패 척결을 위한 국제협력과 정보 공유 관련 법집행 협력 강화

ㅇ 기존 정보공유 증진과 법집행 협력 강화에 대한 2개의 고위급 원칙을 문안을 통합하였으며, 이에 대한 협상을 거쳐 최종 문안 합의에 이름.

- 사법공조 절차 간소화를 위한 ICT 활용에 대한 문단이 추가

- 시민사회, NGO 등 민간단체 참여를 담은 내용의 문단 추가가 제안됐지만, 동 고위급 원칙 주제와는 맞지 않는다는 의견에 따라 차기 의장국에서 동 내용을 담은 주제에 대해 검토해 볼 것을 제안

ㅇ 고위급 원칙 주요내용

- 원칙 1 : 국제 법집행 협력을 가능케 하는 효과적 프레임워크 수립 또는 유지

- 원칙 2 : 지원을 제공하는 관련 당국 간 협력 채널 활용

- 원칙 3 : 실소유자 정보 보전 및 공유를 위한 효과적 제도 확보

- 원칙 4 : 부패 척결에 있어 자발적 정보 공유 강화

- 원칙 5 : 새로운 기술에 관련된 문제에 대응하는 것을 포함하여 법집행 당국이 상대 기관과 협력할 수 있는 역량 향상

- 원칙 6 : 양자 조약, 다자 협약 등을 통한 더 나은 정보 활용과 법집행 협력 절차 간소화 방안 모색

□ 사법공조(MLA)에 대한 이행보고서 작성

ㅇ 의장국은 사법공조 강조를 통한 국제협력 증진과 회원국들로부터 받은 데이터 분석을 통해 사법공조 요청의 계류와 거부의 일반적 원인이 무엇인지 이해하는 것에 동 이행보고서 작성 목적이 있다고 하면서 회원국들의 적극적 참여를 요청함.

- 또한 사법공조에 있어 우수사례와 어려움을 공유하고, 2013년 마련된 국제협력과 사법공조에 대한 고위급 원칙의 진전사항 파악 가능

ㅇ 의장국은 현재 이행보고서 작성에 기초가 되는 설문안 마무리 작업 중이며, 조만간 이에 대한 답변 제출을 요청할 것이라고 안내함.

□ 부패 예방과 척결에 있어 감사 역할 강화에 대한 우수사례집

ㅇ 유엔반부패협약에서 감사는 부패예방에 있어 필수 분야로 언급되어 있는 만큼, 감사 기관의 책임성을 강화하는 것이 매우 중요함. 2022-2024 행동계획 및 2022년 마련된 감사 역할 강화에 대한 6가지 고위급 원칙을 바탕으로 우수사례에 대해 작성코자 함.

- 동 사례집은 우수사례 공유, G20 회원국의 감사기관에 대한 권한과 규제적 틀 이해, 감사기관 및 관련 기관간 협력 분야 식별 목적

- 현재 사례집 작성을 위한 질문지 수정안을 작성 중이며, 조만간 이에 대한 회원국들의 답변을 요청할 예정

□ 자산회복, 사법공조에 대한 지침서 업데이트

ㅇ 과거 작성된 자산회복과 사법공조에 대한 4가지* 지침서에 대한 회원국별 업데이트를 요청함.

* 부패관련 민사/행정 절차 국제협력 요청에 대한 가이드(2017), 자산 추적 국가 프로필 (2017), 자산회복에 대한 국가 단계별 지침서(2014), 형사 사건에 있어 사법공조 요청 : G20 국가 단계별 지침서(2012)

ㅇ 인도측은 현행화 마감시한이 촉박하다는 회원국 요청에 따라 업데이트 완료 시기를 7월에서 금년 11.30.까지로 연장함.

□ 부대행사

ㅇ 인도측은 G20 2019-2021 반부패 행동계획에 규정된 젠더와 부패의 연관성에 대한 이해를 지속적으로 심화하고, 반부패 프로그램 및 정책에 성(性)에 대한 개념을 어떻게 연결할지에 대한 이해를 강화하기 위하여 ‘성(性)과 부패’를 주제로 부대행사를 개최함.

- 동 행사에서는 인도 외무‧문화부 장관, 이탈리아 국립행정대학원 교수, 남아공 공공서비스 및 행정부 최고책임자 대행자, 인도 전자시장정부 이니셔티브 대표 등이 나와 여성과 반부패 정책에 대한 인도와 자국의 경험과 전문가적 시각을 공유

- 특히 공공 및 민간 부문 정책 입안자들이 부패가 성별에 따라 미치는 차별적 영향을 이해할 필요성, 반부패 정책과 거버넌스에서 여성 권한을 강화하기 위한 노력, 부패에 관한 성별 분석 및 데이터 수집 등에 관해 논의

□ 장관급 공동선언문안 작성 논의

ㅇ 당초 이번 2차 실무회의시 선언문안 논의를 마무리할 예정이었으나, 추가적인 검토가 필요하다는 일부 회원국들 의견에 따라 6월 중 선언문 최종안 도출을 위한 온라인 추가 세션을 개최키로 함.

- 선언문 초안은 주로 유엔반부패협약, OECD 뇌물방지협약 등 기존 국제협약과 G20에서 채택된 문서의 이행 중요성을 비롯하여 올해 도출될 성과물들에 대한 지지를 나타내는 문단으로 구성

붙임 1		회의 일정

Agenda for Second G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group Meeting 2023

25th to 28th May 2023, The Westin Hotel, Tehri, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India

Day 1: 25th May 2023: Thursday: 9 AM to 7 PM

Time	Agenda
9.00 – 9.30 30 min	Opening remarks Mr. Rahul Singh, G20 ACWG Chair, India Mr. Giovanni Tartaglia Polcini, Co-chair, Italy Mr. Ajay Bhatt, Minister of State for Defence, Minister of State for Tourism, Government of India
9.30 – 11.15 1 hour 45 min	Session 1: HLP 4: Discussion on Draft of High-Level Principles on Promoting Integrity and effectiveness of Public Bodies responsible for Preventing and Combating Corruption
11.15 – 11.30 15 min	Coffee Break
11.30 – 13.00 1 hour 30 min	Session 1 continued: HLP 4: Discussion on Draft of High-Level Principles on Promoting Integrity and effectiveness of Public Bodies responsible for Preventing and Combating Corruption
13.00 – 14:00 1 hour	Lunch Break
14:00 – 15.30 1 hour 30 min	Session 2: HLP 2: Discussion on Draft High-Level Principles on strengthening Asset Recovery Mechanisms related to Corruption
15.30 – 15.45 15 min	Coffee Break
15.45 – 17.15 1 hour 30 min	Session 2 continued: HLP 2: Discussion on Draft High-Level Principles on strengthening Asset Recovery Mechanisms related to Corruption
17.15 – 17.30 15 min	Session 3: Accountability Report on Mutual Legal Assistance Update by Presidency
17.30 - 19.00 1 hour 30 min	Side event on Gender and Corruption (Annotated agenda will be shared soon)
20.00-22.00 2 hours	Ratri Bhoj par Samvaad (Conversation over Dinner)

Day 2: 26th May 2023: Friday: 9 AM to 6 PM

Time	Agenda
9.00 – 11.00 2 hours	Session 2 continued: HLP 2: Discussion on Draft High-Level Principles on strengthening Asset Recovery Mechanisms related to Corruption
11.00 – 11.15 15 min	Coffee Break
11.15 – 13.00 1 hour 45 min	Session 4: Merged HLP 1 and 3: Discussion on HLP on Strengthening Law Enforcement Cooperation for Combating Corruption
13.00 – 14:00 1 hour	Lunch Break
14:00 – 15.30 1 hour 30 min	Session 4 continued: Merged HLP 1 and 3: Discussion on HLP on Strengthening Law Enforcement Cooperation for Combating Corruption
15.30 – 15.45 15 min	Session 5: Compendium of Good practices on role of Audit in preventing and combating corruption Update by Presidency
15.45 – 16.00 15 min	Coffee Break
16.00 - 18.00 2 hours	Session 4 continued: Merged HLP 1 and 3: Discussion on HLP on Strengthening Law Enforcement Cooperation for Combating Corruption
20.00-22.00 2 hours	Dinner

Day 3: 27th May 2023, Saturday -9 AM to 6 PM

Time	Agenda
9.00 – 11.00 2 hours	Session 6: Discussion on Anti-Corruption Ministerial Declaration
11.00 – 11.15 15 min	Coffee Break
11.15 – 13.00 1 hour 45 min	Session 6 continued: Discussion on Anti-Corruption Ministerial Declaration
13.00 – 14:00 1 hour	Lunch Break
14:00 – 15.30 1 hour 30 min	Session 6 continued: Discussion on Anti-Corruption Ministerial Declaration
15.30 – 15.45 15 min	Session 7: Updating Guides: 2017 G 20 Guide on Requesting international cooperation in Civil and Administrative Proceedings relating to corruption; 2017 updated Asset Tracing Country Profiles; 2014 Country Step by Step Guides on Asset Recovery; 2012 Requesting Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters from G20 Countries: A Step-by-step Guide Update by Presidency
15.45 – 16.00 15 min	Coffee Break
16.00 - 17.45 1 hour 45 min	Session 6 continued: Discussion on Anti-Corruption Ministerial Declaration
17.45 – 18.00 15 min	Closing remarks Mr. Rahul Singh, G20 ACWG Chair, India Mr. Giovanni Tartaglia Polcini, Co-chair, Italy
20.00 - 22.00 2 hours	Valedictory Dinner

붙임 2		부패예방과 척결에 책임있는 공공기관과 당국의 청렴성과 효과성 증진에 대한 고위급 원칙 최종안

Introduction

Strong anti-corruption institutions are required to implement anti-corruption laws, policies, and practices that strengthen integrity of the public sector. Effective anti-corruption measures are necessary to strengthen public trust. The anti-corruption institutional framework of a country may encompass a range of bodies or authorities that have a role in preventing and combatting corruption. Ensuring the integrity of these bodies or authorities is critical to effectively prevent and combat corruption.

The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) requires countries, in accordance with the fundamental principles of their legal systems, to ensure existence of a body or bodies, as appropriate, that prevent corruption, including by such means as implementing preventive anti-corruption policies and practices, and increasing and disseminating knowledge on corruption prevention. UNCAC also requires countries to ensure the existence and necessary independence of a body or bodies, or persons specialized in combatting corruption through law enforcement, in accordance with the fundamental principles of their legal systems, to carry out functions effectively and without any undue influence.

In 2021, in the political declaration adopted by the special session of the United Nations General Assembly against corruption, States pledged to grant anti-corruption bodies and specialized authorities with the necessary independence, in accordance with the fundamental principles of domestic law, as well as to strengthen their capacity and provide them with the necessary resources to carry out their oversight functions and to facilitate strong cooperation among them at all levels.

Acknowledging the contributions made in the past in this regard and in line with Goal 16 of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, the G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group has adopted these high-level principles to promote integrity and enhance the effectiveness of public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption, including by ensuring they operate with necessary independence, transparency, and accountability.

The 2012 G20 High-Level Principles on Asset Disclosure by Public Officials; the 2017 G20 High Level Principles on Organizing Against Corruption; the 2018 G20 High-Level Principles for Preventing and Managing ‘Conflict of Interest’ in the Public Sector; the 2018 G20 High-Level Principles for Preventing Corruption and Ensuring Integrity in State-Owned Enterprises; the 2019 G20 High-Level Principles for the Effective Protection of Whistleblowers; the 2020 G20 High-Level Principles for the Development and Implementation of National Anti-Corruption Strategies; the 2022 G20 High-Level Principles on Enhancing the Role of Auditing in Tackling Corruption. Other than the G20 outcomes, OECD has developed recommendations and other tools on public integrity (the 2017 OECD recommendation on Public Integrity, the OECD public integrity handbook, maturity models, indicators, etc.), UNODC has developed the Module Series on Integrity and Ethics (Module 13 of which is on Public Integrity and Ethics) as well as the 2020 Good Practices Guide on “Preventing and Managing Conflicts of Interest in the Public Sector (prepared by the World Bank, OECD and UNODC at the request of the G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group).

Scope and Applicability:

Article 6 of UNCAC requires that States parties shall, in accordance with the fundamental principles of their legal system, ensure the existence of a body or bodies that prevent corruption by, such means as, implementing, overseeing and coordinating the implementation of preventive anti-corruption policies, as well as increasing and disseminating knowledge about the prevention of corruption. Similarly, article 36 of UNCAC requires States parties, in accordance with the fundamental principles of their legal system, to ensure the existence of a body or bodies or persons specialized in combatting corruption through law enforcement. Countries may already have different existing bodies and authorities assigned with the responsibilities and functions envisaged under UNCAC articles 6 and 36. G20 countries may adopt diverse approaches consistent with domestic laws and anti-corruption strategies to achieve an effective institutional framework to prevent and combat corruption. Hence, the institutional framework may vary among G20 countries. Effective prevention and combatting of corruption require these bodies and authorities to be granted the necessary independence, in accordance with the fundamental principles of domestic legal systems, and resources to fulfill their mandate, along with ensuring strong internal integrity measures in such bodies and authorities. These High-Level Principles cover all relevant public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption, in accordance with the fundamental principles of domestic frameworks, legal systems and law.

These can include Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) and Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), in accordance with the domestic framework.

Principle 1: Take measures to ensure that public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption have clear and appropriate mandates and the capacity to prevent and combat corruption

Mandates and capacity of public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption can have a direct bearing on their effectiveness, thereby impacting their credibility and public perception. G20 countries should ensure that such bodies and authorities have clear and appropriate mandates and the capacity to effectively prevent and combat corruption.

G20 countries can achieve this by:

Providing constitutional, statutory, or other clear and enforceable mandates to public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption, while ensuring the necessary information on these mandates is publicly accessible.

Taking measures to ensure adequate powers, resources, and responsibilities for such bodies and authorities to achieve their mandates, including access to the required and accurate information to perform their functions, as appropriate.

Taking measures to ensure that such bodies and authorities have, in accordance with their corresponding mandates, the necessary powers to implement or oversee the implementation of their recommendations or directions. Clear and transparent follow-up and oversight mechanisms or processes should be available in relation to the implementation of such recommendations or directions, in accordance with the fundamental principles of domestic frameworks, legal systems and law.

Taking measures to ensure that an effective and comprehensive integrity framework which helps promote coherence between public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption, is in place.

Providing secure, accessible and confidential reporting channels for whistleblowers to report corruption to competent public bodies or authorities and further ensuring an effective framework for proper authorities to assess, investigate and take effective follow-up actions, while ensuring effective protection against any unjustified treatment.

Principle 2: Provide public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption with the necessary independence and resources to enable them to carry out their functions effectively and free from undue influence

Ensuring the necessary independence of the bodies and authorities, responsible for preventing and combatting corruption, in accordance with the fundamental principles of domestic frameworks, legal systems and law, is vital to enable their effective functioning. Necessary independence may be understood as enabling the bodies and authorities to perform their functions without undue influence in any respect.

G20 countries can achieve this, in accordance with the fundamental principles of domestic frameworks, legal systems and law, by:

Taking measures, where applicable, to ensure a transparent and merit-based selection process for the appointment of leadership positions in such bodies and authorities. The criteria for leadership appointments should be clear and objective based on qualifications, knowledge and experience.

This section applies to the highest level bureaucratic/technical positions filled in government. It does not extend to the system for political appointees in some G20 countries.

Safeguarding, where applicable, security of tenure for leadership positions in such bodies and authorities, and outlining criteria for dismissal, that are adequately detailed and related to serious issues.

Taking measures, where applicable, to ensure open, transparent, merit-based systems of recruitment, hiring, retention and promotion, along with just and fair processes and procedures for removal of public officials, and empowering bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption to hire and appoint sufficient and capable staff, including women, while upholding the principles of accountability and transparency.

Taking measures to safeguard such bodies and authorities from arbitrary budgetary changes that could prevent them from effectively fulfilling their responsibilities.

Empowering such bodies and authorities to establish and maintain their own policies, in accordance with their mandates, and procedures for managing their affairs, while upholding the principles of accountability and transparency.

Principle 3: Ensure that public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption are open and transparent and that they maintain accountability in the performance of their functions without affecting their necessary independence

Since public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption may be dealing with investigations and inquiries relating to complaints or reports of a varied nature involving public officials, it is essential to promote impartiality, openness, transparency, and accountability in their actions, as well as ensuring oversight of their functions while respecting and protecting their necessary independence, in accordance with the fundamental principles of domestic frameworks, legal systems and law. The bodies and authorities should operate transparently in the interest of their necessary independence, fairness, and effectiveness.

G20 countries can achieve this principle by:

Establishing standard operating procedures for the discharge of functions of such bodies and authorities such as in dealing with complaints, investigations, and inquiries, in order to better ensure fairness, objectivity, and timeliness in their functioning.

Taking measures to ensure that such bodies and authorities are subject to adequate oversight regarding their operational performance, in accordance with fundamental principles of domestic frameworks, legal systems and law.

In some national contexts this may include, but not be limited to, regular reporting to the national legislature or other elected, governing state bodies, and publication of regular reports on their performance.

Taking measures to ensure that the budget management of such bodies and authorities are subject to audits, in accordance with domestic frameworks, legal systems and law.

Encouraging transparency and openness through public release of reports and key decisions by such bodies and authorities, subject to operational and domestic legal considerations.

Principle 4: Ensure high standards of integrity for officials or other persons engaged by public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption and promote inclusiveness

Public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption should have internal measures and systems in place to promote the highest level of integrity and inclusiveness. This should apply not only to the officials and to employees of such bodies and authorities but also to other forms of employment or contractual relationships that assist in delivering the mandate of such bodies and authorities.

G20 countries can achieve this principle by:

Setting high standards of conduct for public officials of such bodies and authorities, including through codes of ethics or conduct with adequate guidance, internal reporting mechanisms and disciplinary measures.

Considering that such bodies and authorities develop detailed advice on common integrity risks and conflict of interest examples and options for avoiding or resolving those risks and conflicts of interest.

This builds on the G20 High-Level Principles for Preventing and Managing ‘Conflict of Interest’ in the Public Sector, under the G20 2018 Argentine Presidency.

Promoting that high-level management of such bodies and authorities demonstrate their personal commitment to integrity systems and high standard of propriety in the discharge of official duties, thus showcasing the commitment of high-level management to lead by example in clearly articulating that corruption in any form is not tolerated.

Assigning responsibility, where applicable, to such bodies and authorities to effectively manage the procedure to ensure integrity of their employees, including those under other forms of engagement or contractual relationships who assist in delivering the mandate of such bodies and authorities, in performance of their duties.

Providing sufficient and tailored information, induction and on-the-job training, guidance and timely advice for public officials and authorities at all levels to develop a culture of integrity and ethical values in the workplace.

Promoting the communication and dissemination of integrity standards within such bodies and authorities and also to a wide variety of external stakeholders, including the private sector, with the expectation that they respect these standards in their interactions with public officials of these bodies and authorities.

In accordance with fundamental principles of domestic legal systems, proactively identifying and managing conflicts of interest; strengthening the existing  system of asset and interest declarations; promoting integrity and transparency of lobbying activities, where relevant and applicable; enhancing safeguards against undue influence including by establishing or strengthening adequate policies on gifts and hospitality; appropriate risk-based post-employment restrictions, such as cooling off periods.

Providing secure, accessible and confidential reporting channels within these public bodies and authorities for whistleblowers and further ensuring an effective framework for competent authorities to assess, investigate and take effective follow-up actions, while ensuring effective protection against any unjustified treatment including retaliation.

G20 High Level Principles for the Effective Protection of Whistleblowers, 2019

Encouraging full and equitable participation of women, including in leadership roles in public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption.

Establishing applying and enforcing, in accordance with the fundamental principles of their domestic law, a range of timely and proportional remedial actions and/or proportionate and dissuasive sanctions in cases of breaches of integrity standards.

Principle 5: Enhance effective cooperation among public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption

Effective functioning of public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption requires cooperation among such bodies and authorities, both within the country, and among G20 countries. This also includes taking appropriate measures, within its means and in accordance with fundamental principles of its domestic law, to promote the active participation of individuals and groups outside the public sector such as civil society, non-governmental organizations, and community-based organizations, in the prevention of and the fight against corruption.

G20 countries can achieve this principle by:

Taking measures to ensure adequate coordination between relevant bodies and authorities, which could include SAIs and FIUs, involved directly or indirectly in preventing and combatting corruption, and their activities.

Facilitating cross-disciplinary learning and the identification and exchange of good practices and challenges among such bodies and authorities, including by way of training and capacity-building programmes within the country.

Taking measures to ensure that information regarding the structure and functions of such bodies and authorities is publicly available and easily accessible, including to foreign competent authorities to enhance cooperation and information-sharing among them, in accordance with the fundamental principles of domestic frameworks.

Facilitating, where appropriate, participation of such bodies and authorities in international policy discussions, training and capacity-building programmes to enhance mutual learning among bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption.

This includes fora such as the G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group, the Conference of the States Parties to the UN Convention against Corruption and its subsidiary bodies, and where applicable, the OECD Working Group on Bribery, the OECD Working Party of Senior Public Integrity Officials (SPIO) and other relevant fora.

Encouraging, as appropriate and in accordance with the fundamental principles of domestic law, engagement of stakeholders, including individuals and groups outside the public sector such as civil society, non-governmental organizations, and community-based organizations, with such bodies and authorities in the prevention and fight against corruption in order to improve the effectiveness of these bodies and in line with the principles of integrity, transparency and accountability.

Principle 6: Enhance the ability of public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption to face new or emerging challenges and risks

Public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption should effectively adapt to the circumstances and build their ability to fight emerging forms of commission of corruption offences.

G20 countries can achieve this principle by:

Establishing recurring processes for assessing corruption and integrity risks, analyzing trends; where applicable, adopting and implementing regular plans or strategies on the basis of such assessment and analysis; in accordance with the fundamental principles of domestic frameworks, legal systems and law to address new or emerging challenges.

Enhancing the use of information and communication technologies and digital approaches for analysis and capacity-building to enable better preparedness in addressing new and emerging challenges, in accordance with fundamental principles of domestic frameworks.

Encouraging the bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption to use research and knowledge-sharing mechanisms on anti-corruption and integrity from a broad range of stakeholders, in accordance with the fundamental principles of domestic frameworks.

Ensuring that the rules, regulations and/or guidance issued by public bodies and authorities responsible for preventing and combatting corruption are subject to effective review to keep up with emerging demands or scenarios.

붙임 3		부패 척결을 위한 자산회복 체계 강화에 대한 고위급 원칙 최종안

Asset recovery is a core component of the international anti-corruption regime and a stated purpose of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). A robust and effective framework for the recovery of proceeds of crime, including the proceeds located in foreign countries, is important for preventing and combatting corruption. Confiscation of proceeds of crime not only deprives corruption offenders from enjoying rewards of corruption but also prevents the laundering and re-investment of proceeds of crime.

UNCAC, particularly its chapters IV and V, while acknowledging the variation in the way that different legal systems carry out obligations domestically, sets out a broad framework for cooperation and assistance with regard to the recovery of proceeds derived from or used in corruption, through identification, freezing, seizure, confiscation, return and disposal of the same. Article 12 and 13 of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) also requires States parties to have the necessary legal framework for asset recovery and for international cooperation and assistance in the recovery of proceeds of crime or instrumentalities used in or intended to be used in transnational organized crimes. Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendation 4 provides that without prejudicing the rights of bona fide third parties, countries should have measures in place to identify, trace, freeze or seize and confiscate property which are proceeds from, or instrumentalities used in or intended for use in money laundering or predicate offences or the financing of terrorism or property of corresponding value. FATF Recommendation 38 provides that countries should ensure that they have the authority to take expeditious action in response to requests by foreign countries to identify, freeze, seize and confiscate such property.

Furthermore, the political declaration adopted by the special session of the UN General Assembly against corruption, focussed on strengthening domestic and international asset recovery, including by encouraging States parties to: “remove barriers to applying measures for the recovery of assets, in particular, by simplifying their legal procedures, where appropriate and in accordance with their domestic law, and by preventing the abuse of such procedures while safeguarding due process”. It also recognised the need for effective, efficient and responsive international cooperation in asset recovery and return and mutual legal assistance without undue delay and to continue to address challenges in our fight against corruption, including gaps in the implementation of UNCAC. It called on the strengthening of domestic efforts to adequately criminalize corruption offences and prosecuting those engaged in corruption and money-laundering, by taking domestic measures to investigate, trace, freeze, seize, confiscate and return such property as defined in the Convention, and by strengthening international cooperation in asset recovery. It also recognized that a strong and trusting partnership between requesting and requested States, with proactive measures taken by both, is key to successful asset recovery and return.

Paragraph 42 and 43 of the political declaration “Our common commitment to effectively addressing challenges and implementing measures to prevent and combat corruption and strengthen international cooperation”, adopted by the special session of the General Assembly against corruption, held from 2 to 4 June 2021 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

G20 countries have extensively deliberated upon ways to strengthen asset recovery mechanisms as reflected in several documents developed by the G20 ACWG over the years. G20 countries also reaffirmed their commitment to the implementation of Chapter V of UNCAC by endorsing the High-Level Principles on Cooperation on Persons Sought for Corruption and Asset Recovery (2016). In the 2018 G20 Leaders’ Declaration , a call was made to “explore the links between corruption and other economic crimes and ways to tackle them, including through co-operation on the return of persons sought for such offences and stolen assets, consistent with international obligations and domestic legal systems.”

The G20 Nine Key Principles on Asset Recovery (2011), the Nine Key Principles of Asset Recovery Benchmarking Survey (2013), the Country Step by Step Guides on Asset Recovery (2014), Good practices in asset disclosure systems in G20 countries (2014), Asset Tracing Country Profiles (2012), and the Updated Asset Tracing Country Profiles (2017).

Paragraph 29 of the 2018 G20 Leaders’ Declaration in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on 30 November - 1 December 2018

This was followed by the development of the Scoping Paper on International Cooperation dealing with Economic Crime, Offenders and Recovery of Stolen Assets in 2020 and building upon the issues addressed in this Scoping Paper, the G20 Presidency commissioned the five International Cooperation Think Pieces (2021), including the Think Piece on ‘Asset Recovery: Practical Enhancements for Mutual Legal Assistance’. In the Think Pieces and the Accountability Report 2020 the differences in legal traditions, laws and procedures, resources and capacities, substantial delays in the provision of informal and formal assistance and difficulties in enforcement of non-conviction-based (NCB) confiscation requests in corruption cases, were identified as potential challenges for streamlined and effective asset recovery. It was also recognized that the complexity of Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) processes in general, an increase in the volume of MLA requests due to increasing cross-border criminal activity and a corresponding varying degree of capacity to process requests, quality or procedural issues related to MLA requests, and the underutilization of open source information and informal networks are among the challenges that prevent an efficient transnational recovery of assets. To address these challenges, the Think Piece lays out several innovative proposals to increase the efficiency of MLA, such as improved domestic case management, increased reliance on open-source information, expert meetings between G20 competent authorities, and effective mechanisms for the provisional restraint of assets suspected to be proceeds of crime.

The Think-pieces were completed in March 2021 by UNODC, the World Bank, the OECD, the Financial Action Taskforce and the UNODC/World Bank Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative and presented at the first meeting of the Italian Presidency. While these Think Pieces were not negotiated by the group, and only represent the analysis of the drafting international organization, they can offer helpful insight.

With a view to overcoming these challenges, G20 countries have developed these High-Level Principles on ‘Strengthening Asset Recovery Mechanisms for combatting Corruption” aimed at increasing the efficiency of international cooperation and domestic mechanisms related to asset recovery while respecting the domestic legal systems of G20 countries. While implementing these principles, G20 members recognize that fighting corruption requires a strong foundation, which includes respect for international law, a commitment to respecting human rights and the rule of law as well as a commitment to respect the sovereignty of each country and their international commitments and domestic legal systems. Nothing in these principles should be interpreted as enabling a G20 member to undertake activities in the territory of another state. For the purpose of these high-level principles, “corruption” encompasses the offenses established under UNCAC”.

Principle 1: Making the recovery and return of proceeds of crime an anti-corruption policy objective

G20 countries can achieve this principle by

Enhancing asset recovery at domestic policy and operational levels, and promoting effective cooperation between relevant authorities.

Providing adequate and effective resources including economic, human, and technical resources, for effective pre-MLA cooperation and efficient formulation of outgoing and processing of incoming MLA requests, and where appropriate, considering internal processes to expedite high priority requests, which can help advance asset recovery.

Taking measures to enable competent authorities to retrieve, information related to assets in that country’s jurisdiction, in respect of a person or entity subject to investigation of corruption, in order to trace such assets in a timely manner and share this information in response to a well-supported request, in accordance with the fundamental principles of domestic law.

Developing appropriate domestic mechanisms to collect, analyze, maintain information and statistics in relation to incoming and outgoing international asset recovery requests related to corruption or take other appropriate measures, in order to internally monitor trends, track progress with a view to continually make processes more efficient. G20 countries may also consider the utility of publishing statistics related to asset recovery requests, on a voluntary basis.

Sharing good practices that facilitate successful cross-jurisdictional asset recovery and help to overcome challenges and strengthen asset recovery regimes.

Principle 2: Ensuring that tools, mechanisms and processes for the timely and effective identification and tracing of proceeds of crime are available to relevant domestic authorities and can be used effectively for making and executing international cooperation requests for asset tracing and identification

G20 countries can achieve this principle by:

Identifying existing and, where necessary, designating, in application to asset recovery requests from foreign jurisdictions, relevant single or multiple domestic authority(ies)/agency(ies) as the focal point/focal points, as appropriate and in accordance with fundamental principles of domestic law. Thus, facilitating informal/pre-MLA cooperation, including consultation, timely asset tracing and identification of proceeds of crime and also for overall effective domestic coordination.

Enabling the designated focal point(s) or relevant authorities to obtain or take appropriate measures, in accordance with domestic law, to provide informal/pre-MLA assistance in obtaining information in a timely manner for asset tracing and identification of proceeds of crime, from publicly available sources, as well as relevant domestic registers or databases, or other relevant sources, by working with domestic agencies.

Enhancing, where relevant and applicable, participation in international cooperation and asset recovery networks or groups such as the Global Operational Network of Anti-Corruption Law Enforcement Authorities (GlobE Network), International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), Egmont Group and the Asset Recovery Inter-Agency Networks (ARINs) as well to consider using other channels for the informal/pre-MLA exchange of information.

Making proactive and timely disclosure of information on suspected proceeds of crime to foreign jurisdictions, without prejudice to its domestic law or to its own investigations, prosecutions or judicial proceedings, consistent with articles 46(4) and 56 of UNCAC and the relevant FATF recommendations.

FATF Recommendation No. 40 and Relative Interpretative Note

Ensuring that domestic mechanisms allow for the identification of beneficial ownership status of a legal person or legal arrangement under investigation in corruption offences including through establishing or strengthening registers on the beneficial ownership of legal persons or alternative mechanisms, consistent with FATF recommendations.

Principle 3: Ensuring the timely restraint, freezing or seizure of proceeds of crime to prevent their movement across jurisdictions and dissipation

G20 countries can achieve this principle by:

To the extent consistent with fundamental principles of domestic law and domestic legal frameworks and in line with relevant international standards, countries should provide competent authorities such as FIUs, law enforcement, investigative, prosecutorial or judicial authorities with the adequate authority, processes, and tools necessary to prevent the transfer or dissipation of assets suspected to be proceeds of crime, in cases where a freezing order is to be sought but not yet entered. Such measures may include suspension of transactions by a competent authority or relevant entity, temporary freezing orders, and any other mechanisms to prevent dissipation of assets suspected to be proceeds of crime, in accordance with domestic law.

Providing competent law enforcement, investigative, judicial, or prosecutorial authorities, as applicable, with effective mechanisms to freeze or seize assets suspected to be the proceeds of crime in a timely manner, including where the request is made by a foreign country.

Ensuring competent authorities are empowered and are equipped with internal policies and procedures as well as resources and capacity to manage assets subject to provisional measures to prevent dissipation.

Enabling, as appropriate and in accordance with domestic law, competent authorities to proactively initiate freezing or seizure proceedings in cases of corruption and related offences, based on information through direct channels or international cooperation and asset recovery networks or groups.

Principle 4: Ensuring that the national asset recovery framework of G20 countries provides for the use of a wide range of legal powers, tools, and measures for effective asset recovery

G20 countries can achieve this principle with the following measures, where consistent with domestic law:

Effective mechanisms for asset recovery, which may include non-conviction-based confiscation or equivalent civil or administrative measures in appropriate cases such as death, flight or absence.

Article 54 (1)(c) of UNCAC, G20 Nine Key Principles on Asset Recovery, FATF recommendation 4 & 38.

Effective mechanisms for value-based freezing, seizure and confiscation and enforcement of foreign value-based freezing, seizure and confiscation orders, as applicable.

Article 31 of UNCAC

Effective mechanisms for the confiscation of proceeds of crime held in the name of or transferred to non-bona fide third parties.

Consider adopting measures which require a person suspected of corruption to demonstrate the lawful origin of the property alleged to be liable to confiscation, to the extent that such a requirement is consistent with the principles of domestic law.

Timely enforcement, where appropriate and consistent with Article 54 of UNCAC and domestic law, of foreign asset freezing, seizure or confiscation orders and consideration of measures such as mutual recognition processes and efficient international cooperation under bilaterally or multilaterally or reciprocally agreed upon conditions.

Articles 54 and 55 of UNCAC.

Effective enforcement of foreign non-conviction-based confiscation orders as long as such orders meet the minimum legal standards for enforcement. This authority should include being able to effectively respond to requests for enforcement made on the basis of non-conviction-based confiscation orders and related provisional measures, unless this is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of domestic law of the requested country. Countries may also consider mutual recognition of foreign non-conviction-based confiscation orders, where appropriate and consistent with fundamental principles of domestic law.

In line with G20 Nine Key Principles on Asset Recovery (2011).

Considering alternative resolution mechanisms which may involve settlement agreements in order to facilitate asset recovery.

Principle 5:  Ensuring timely and effective coordination and communication between countries’ competent authorities, to facilitate timely execution of cross-jurisdictional asset recovery requests

G20 countries can achieve this principle by:

Promoting and developing channels and procedures to allow for timely consultation and communication between central and competent authorities of the requesting and requested State, on a continuing basis, prior to and throughout the mutual legal assistance process.

Recognizing case specific differences in the execution of asset recovery requests, arising from the interpretation of laws, rules and procedures of each country as well as exchanging information to raise awareness of the respective national legal frameworks, processes and mechanisms.

Interpreting the dual criminality requirement to be satisfied by focusing on the underlying conduct and not the legal name of the offence. In the absence of dual criminality, consider providing the widest measure of mutual legal assistance, under mutually agreed upon conditions and in accordance with domestic law.

Proactively engaging in dialogue for seeking and providing clarifications and resolving differences between requesting and the requested State or promoting any other mechanism contained in bilateral or multilateral treaties, as applicable.

Principle 6:  Making effective use of open-source and other relevant information for successful asset recovery

The G20 can achieve this principle by:

Proactively raising awareness about and assisting other States in obtaining information that is in the public domain, including through a compilation of open-source resources of G20 countries, including “Country Guides on Asset Tracing and Asset Recovery”, if available, and resources gathered by various law enforcement networks. This information may include, if publicly available, property records, asset registers, company registers, or beneficial ownership information.

Exploring options in accordance with domestic law, to share other information not in the public domain on a voluntary basis, which could be utilised by interested jurisdictions. This information may include non-public beneficial ownership or anonymised money-laundering related data.

Developing effective mechanisms to verify beneficial ownership information and applying effective measures to deter furnishing of inaccurate information so as to comply with international standards on beneficial ownership.

Exploring methods to efficiently execute MLA requests seeking authentication of publicly available open-source information for its admissibility as evidence during proceedings related to corruption in the requesting country, in accordance with fundamental principles of domestic law.

붙임 4		부패 척결을 위한 국제협력과 정보공유 관련 법집행 강화에 대한 고위급 원칙 최종안

In today’s globalized world, the prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of corruption offences need to adapt to the changing nature of the cross-border dimensions of crime. Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) play a crucial role in combatting corruption.  LEAs have specific mandates and powers that can be limited by jurisdictional boundaries. This necessitates inter-agency cooperation as well as international cooperation and information sharing amongst agencies and countries, through cooperation mechanisms. This cooperation is crucial for timely and effective action for preventing, detecting, and investigating corruption offences, as well as for prosecuting offenders, and recovering the proceeds of crimes.

Article 48 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) on law enforcement cooperation requires State Parties to cooperate closely with one another, consistent with their respective domestic legal and administrative systems, to enhance the effectiveness of law enforcement action to combat the offences covered by the Convention.

In addition, various multilateral conventions, such as the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime  (UNTOC), the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, 1997  (OECD Anti-Bribery Convention) and the Makkah Al-Mukarramah Convention of the Member States of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on Anti-Corruption Law Enforcement Cooperation (2023); and regional conventions such as the Arab Anti-Corruption Convention 2010, Inter-American Convention against Corruption 1996, African Union Convention on preventing and combatting corruption 2003 and others, as applicable, also contain provisions for international cooperation and sharing of information to strengthen fight against corruption.

International cooperation between LEAs, including sharing of information that can be used as evidence in relation to corruption cases, is usually based on bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) Treaties, multilateral conventions, agreements, and arrangements. Continuous efforts are being made to improve the efficacy of existing mechanisms by exploring ways and taking measures to strengthen cooperation among LEAs towards more effective prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of corruption.

G20 countries agreed in the Anti-Corruption Action Plan 2022-2024 to convene technical experts and relevant multilateral fora and networks to exchange good practices on legislation, cross-border information sharing and operational procedures to better enable countries to engage in international cooperation and to explore ways to increase digitalization and interoperability of these processes.

Further, the G20 ACWG has been engaging with the issue of information sharing. In addition, multilateral agreements recognize the importance of effective sharing of information among competent authorities. Furthermore, the 2021 Think Pieces on ‘Law Enforcement Cooperation’ and ‘Strengthening Information Sharing Processes’ commissioned by the ACWG Chair also highlighted various challenges in effective law enforcement cooperation and proposed initiatives to address these challenges, including through more effective information sharing.

2013 G20 High-Level Principles on Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA), 2014 G20 High-Level Principles on Beneficial Ownership Transparency, 2016 G20 High-Level Principles on Cooperation on Persons Sought for Corruption and Asset Recovery, 2020 G20 Action on International Cooperation on Corruption and Economic Crimes, Offenders and Recovery of Stolen Assets.

For example, Articles 46 (Mutual Legal Assistance), 48 (Law Enforcement Cooperation), 56 (Special Cooperation) of UNCAC and Article 9 (Mutual Legal Assistance) of Convention on Combatting Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.

Building on the previous work of the G20 ACWG, these High-Level Principles are framed to underline the commitment of G20 countries towards strengthening cooperation among LEAs including through effective and efficient sharing of information, in accordance with and without prejudice to the fundamental principles of domestic frameworks, legal systems and law. For the purpose of these High-Level Principles, “corruption” encompasses the offences established under UNCAC.

Principle 1: Establishing or maintaining effective frameworks enabling international law enforcement cooperation in combatting corruption

There is a need to have in place robust legal and institutional frameworks to enable and facilitate international law enforcement cooperation to combat corruption. The mechanisms for cooperation between LEAs of different jurisdictions need to be established, maintained, and/or strengthened, as applicable.

G20 countries can achieve this principle by:

Taking measures, including through legislation, if required, to enable their LEAs to cooperate with the LEAs of other States.

Developing mechanisms to improve coordination amongst LEAs and other relevant authorities to enable timely and effective international cooperation on corruption matters.

Considering developing model agreements or arrangements for LEAs to enter into, for the effective exchange of information between LEAs, as needed and appropriate, through agreed upon communication channels.

Considering, in the absence of agreement for direct cooperation, using UNCAC to be the basis for mutual law enforcement cooperation in corruption cases.

Implementing measures to enable joint and/or parallel investigations,  in accordance with the fundamental principles of domestic framework, legal systems and law.

Article 49 of UNCAC and Article 19 OECD's Anti Bribery Convention.

Raising awareness amongst domestic LEAs about the availability and utility of existing channels for cooperation and information exchange. Members may be encouraged to participate in and make full use of existing law enforcement networks, as appropriate, such as those originating from the G20 ACWG, including G20 Denial of Entry Expert Network (DoEEN) and the Global Operational Network of Anti-Corruption Law Enforcement Authorities (GlobE Network) taking into consideration that useful networks in this regard includes INTERPOL, CARIN, regional ARINs, the Egmont Group, the FATF, the OECD Global Law Enforcement Network (GLEN) against transnational bribery and the OECD working group on Bribery Law Enforcement Official (LEOs).

As noted in the Anti-corruption Action Plan 2022-2024’

Principle 2: Leveraging channels of cooperation amongst relevant authorities for providing assistance in combatting corruption

Cooperation among relevant authorities including LEAs and FIUs of different jurisdictions can facilitate more effective, efficient, and targeted action against individuals and legal persons suspected to be involved in corruption. In particular, pre MLA consultation and support may result in better formulated, targeted, and well-supported MLA requests which can be efficiently and effectively executed by the requested country. Further, in situations where a MLA request is not required, it may be useful for relevant authorities to make use of other appropriate forms of assistance, wherever possible and appropriate.

G20 countries, in accordance with the fundamental principles of domestic frameworks, legal systems and law, can achieve this principle by, inter alia:

Assisting in identifying, tracing and, where appropriate, accessing publicly available information concerning persons of interest including legal persons and proceeds of crime in an investigation involving corruption. Such publicly available information may include details on identity, whereabouts and activities of persons suspected of involvement in corruption.

Ascertaining information, including through Financial Intelligence Unit (FIUs) cooperation, regarding the existence of bank accounts and other financial assets relating to persons of interest including legal persons in an investigation involving corruption.

Confirming the authenticity of government issued documents or assisting in verifying the information contained therein in an investigation involving corruption.

Conducting, in situations where a MLA request is not required, appropriate inquiries, through LEAs and Financial Intelligence Unit (FIUs) cooperation, regarding movement of proceeds of and property, equipment or other instrumentalities used or intended for use in corruption offences.

“Proceeds of crime” as defined in Article 2(e) of UNCAC.

Actively requesting information from and engaging with, as appropriate, relevant foreign authorities, regarding format, wording, and additional domestic legal requirements, in advance of a MLA request, where assistance is to be sought urgently in matters of restraint of assets in an investigation related to corruption.

Principle 3: Ensuring effective mechanisms for maintaining and sharing beneficial ownership information

The G20 has emphasized the need for adequate, accurate and up-to-date beneficial ownership information in the 2014 High Level Principles on Beneficial Ownership Transparency. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) through its Recommendations 24 and 25 has already paved the way for its member countries on transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons and arrangements. Further, the G20 ACWG Accountability Reports 2020 and 2021 identify the maintenance of adequate, accurate, and up-to-date beneficial ownership information as a challenge, and acknowledge the differences in regulatory regimes as an opportunity for corrupt actors to find jurisdiction in which they can remain anonymous.  There is a need for G20 countries to further promote greater transparency in the availability of and accessibility to beneficial ownership information.

G20 countries can achieve this principle by:

Identifying and addressing challenges in the collection, maintenance, verification and sharing of adequate, accurate, and up-to-date beneficial ownership information.

Ensuring timely and efficient access to adequate, accurate, and up-to-date beneficial ownership information by competent domestic authorities, in line with FATF Standards.

Fostering efficient cross-border sharing of beneficial ownership information that is accessible to competent authorities, including through LEAs and Financial Intelligence Unit (FIUs) cooperation, in accordance with domestic law.

Increasing awareness about information available in the public domain and assisting other States in identifying publicly available information, such as sharing information about publicly available asset registers, company registries, or beneficial ownership registries, as applicable.

Principle 4: Strengthening spontaneous sharing of information in the fight against corruption

Proactive communication is important for carrying out timely investigations and enabling prosecutions. To facilitate mutual legal assistance, under Article 46(4) of UNCAC, States parties may transmit information, without a prior request, where the States believe that such information could assist in undertaking or successfully concluding inquiries and proceedings related to corruption. Without prejudice to domestic law, G20 countries should consider utilizing these provisions under UNCAC and similar provisions in other agreements for spontaneous exchange of information to a competent authority in another State.

G20 countries can achieve this principle by:

Raising awareness among domestic LEAs about importance of spontaneous sharing of information along with enabling treaty provisions and the steps which may be followed to facilitate spontaneous sharing of information with foreign counterparts, as applicable.

Considering spontaneous transmission of information, without prior request, when appropriate and without prejudice to domestic laws or jeopardizing ongoing investigations, where it is believed that such information could assist the LEAs in relevant jurisdictions in undertaking or successfully concluding inquiries and proceedings related to corruption.

Sharing of good practices and case studies with other countries, with due regard to confidentiality and privacy, where the spontaneous exchange of information has supported corruption-related investigations, prosecutions, and related proceedings.

Principle 5:  Improving the capacity of law enforcement authorities to cooperate with their counterparts in other States, including in responding to the challenges associated with new and emerging technologies

LEAs require adequate resources and capabilities, to ensure effective international cooperation in fighting corruption. States should share experiences and expertise in order to augment capacity to enhance cooperation with their counterparts. Such cooperation is also required to better understand and address new and emerging challenges.

G20 countries can achieve this principle by:

Allocating adequate human, financial, material and technological resources, as appropriate, to enable effective cooperation in pre-MLA and MLA processes.

Organizing regular training programmes for law enforcement practitioners to enhance their institutional and operational capabilities when dealing with cross-border corruption matters, as applicable.

Considering providing technical assistance and capacity building support for this purpose to other States upon their request, to the extent resources are available.

Implementing practices to strengthen relationships and foster trust between relevant authorities across different States, such as facilitating regular engagement amongst practitioners involved in corruption investigations, including by considering concluding agreements and programmes of cooperation between LEAs and their counterparts.

This may include engagement through other groups, regional and inter-agency networks such as Global Operational Network of Anti-Corruption Law Enforcement Authorities (GlobE Network), INTERPOL, G20 Denial of Entry Experts Network (DoEEN), OECD Global Law Enforcement Network (GLEN) and the OECD Working Group on Bribery Law Enforcement Officials (LEO), etc.

Undertaking enhanced efforts to develop an understanding of emerging technologies with a view toward assessing the risks involved in order to take mitigating measures to prevent their misuse.

Exploring the use of information and communications technology (ICT) in law enforcement cooperation to enhance the efficiency of these processes, including by considering transmission of outgoing mutual legal assistance requests in digital format, and receipt of information provided in response in a digital format, subject to domestic frameworks supporting the same.

Principle 6: Exploring ways to streamline the processes for LEAs to better utilize information, exchanged through bilateral treaties and multilateral conventions relating to cooperation, for investigation and prosecution of corruption

The existing bilateral MLA treaties and other multilateral conventions allow information sharing between countries for specified purposes. In the G20 Anti- Corruption Action Plan 2022-2024, G20 countries agreed to continuously promote information exchange among tax authorities as well as FIUs to support the activities of law enforcement and other relevant anti-corruption authorities in order to better combat corruption. Countries may also explore sharing best practices on use of treaty-exchanged information and related processes by interested jurisdictions, consistent with legal obligations under treaties, including limitation on use and confidentiality requirements.

G20 countries can achieve this principle by:

Taking steps to ensure measures are in place that facilitate sharing of information and evidence received in response to MLA requests, among domestic LEAs, in line with any use limitations or conditions imposed on the information and evidence shared, and where appropriate and in accordance with domestic law.

Using existing mechanisms such as the use limitation provisions available under applicable treaties and conventions for making requests for onward sharing of treaty exchanged information with other domestic LEAs, to the extent permitted in such treaties and conventions, domestic regulations and following approval from source country.

Sharing good practices and case studies by interested jurisdictions where exchange of information by tax authorities under tax treaties and by FIUs, with due regard to confidentiality and privacy, supports the activities of LEAs in corruption proceedings.

붙임 5		회의 사진