Can only the state prosecute against corruption what if the person who is corrupt is

Watch
hsv
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
Can only the state prosecute against corruption? For example when there is criminal case in this country from the little I know and I have seen in legal dramas it usually the Crown Prosecution Service versus the defendant as far as I understand. What if the person who is corrupt is close friends with the President/Prime minister and ex Presidents of that country? Then is a prosecution highly unlikely and can an individual bring charges against them?

I have read in a book called Plutocrats that there is something called "legal corruption" whereby it is someone say for example can coerce the government to give them a permit to build something. I suspect the individual I am talking about may have done this as relatives who work with him (he paid off this relations debt in return for working for him and gave them a free house in one of his developements) say that no one knows how he became wealthy he just became wealthy overnight. Or other relations say statements hen I enquire about this individual such as he became wealthy in the 80's such a long time ago no one knows how he did it and one even claimed he put someone in prison just because they did not like them or something along those lines. He is the construction industry and his old projects from what I can gather pertained to building civil works projects in that country. Other people who have been close to government and in this field include the so called "G7 Singhs" who some transparency critics have described as having monopolistic rights over building roads after being close to government ministers and other public works in certain areas of that country. So there is the possibility of this individual not playing fair in his business dealings. Especially when people who have worked with him have said statements such as his lawyers can make documents at the ministry of land go missing if they want to, I guess probably to help him construct something easier as a guess. Can anything be done about this situation, or do you just accept it and know nothing can be done?
0
reply
username47781
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
Moved to Society
0
reply
hsv
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#3
(Original post by Rock Fan)
Moved to Society
Thanks
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
(Original post by hsv)
Can only the state prosecute against corruption? For example when there is criminal case in this country from the little I know and I have seen in legal dramas it usually the Crown Prosecution Service versus the defendant as far as I understand. What if the person who is corrupt is close friends with the President/Prime minister and ex Presidents of that country? Then is a prosecution highly unlikely and can an individual bring charges against them?

I have read in a book called Plutocrats that there is something called "legal corruption" whereby it is someone say for example can coerce the government to give them a permit to build something. I suspect the individual I am talking about may have done this as relatives who work with him (he paid off this relations debt in return for working for him and gave them a free house in one of his developements) say that no one knows how he became wealthy he just became wealthy overnight. Or other relations say statements hen I enquire about this individual such as he became wealthy in the 80's such a long time ago no one knows how he did it and one even claimed he put someone in prison just because they did not like them or something along those lines. He is the construction industry and his old projects from what I can gather pertained to building civil works projects in that country. Other people who have been close to government and in this field include the so called "G7 Singhs" who some transparency critics have described as having monopolistic rights over building roads after being close to government ministers and other public works in certain areas of that country. So there is the possibility of this individual not playing fair in his business dealings. Especially when people who have worked with him have said statements such as his lawyers can make documents at the ministry of land go missing if they want to, I guess probably to help him construct something easier as a guess. Can anything be done about this situation, or do you just accept it and know nothing can be done?
The rules on private prosecutions vary from country to country.

In most democracies, power is multi-faceted which means that even the most powerful "can" be prosecuted by organs of the state for corruption. However, there may well be political reasons which means that they are not prosecuted.

First of all I think you have to ignore cases of corruption where the high officials concerned are givers rather than receivers of corrupt payments. When they emerge that may or may not finish off the political figure concerned but essentially he is being involved in corruption in the service of his country. We have to ignore bribes paid by western arms exporting countries in the Middle East to get contracts. The western politicians are not doing that for personal gain. Whether lawful or not, that is being done in the service of the countries they serve.

If you look at "incoming" bribes, one can see that this will very often finish a political career regardless of whether a prosecution is mounted. There has been little political corruption in the UK. Over the last 20 years or so, various minor MPs have been caught accepting payments for political services but none of these have had real power. Where there has been corruption of those with power (usually over planning decisions or the award of contracts), it has been in local government and prosecutions have universally followed on discovery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Poulson
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/mar/13/uknews
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/3594421.stm

The two major budget leak scandals of the 20th century resulted in resignations Neither leak was for money. Both were to secure favour. However one minister was rehabilitated. The other disappeared for good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Henry_Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Dalton


However one can see more complex cases. The Marconi scandal was too widespread within the upper reaches of the ruling Liberal party to result either in loss of office or prosecution but those involved were undoubtedly guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marconi_scandal

That represents a limit on the ability to pursue corruption. When it is too widespread, action cannot effectively be taken.

Another limit is when the corrupt politicians are too vital to the political process. Many Northern Irish politicians are effectively "above the law" because of their importance to the political process. That is usually seen in terms of Sinn Fein leaders not being prosecuted for their roles in the iRA. However look at these issues and one can see that the matter is not limited to Republican politicians.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kincora_Boys%27_Home
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7250877.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Robinson_scandal

If we go abroad, the position is equally complex.

In Spain there are a number of cases of corruption involving

centre-right parties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCrtel_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcenas_case

left wing parties

http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-ne...egal-payments/

and the royal family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%B3os_case

Two things are noticeable. Firstly the ubiquity of corruption in Spain which means that the powerful all thought they could get away with it and secondly the fact that it is being investigated.

Corruption involving royalty is particularly difficult.

Compare what happen to Strauss (nothing) in Bavaria with what happened to Rumor and Leone in Italy (finished them off) with what happened to Prince Bernhard in the Netherlands (a threat of abdication if the matter was pursued) in the Lockheed scandal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
0
reply
hsv
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by nulli tertius)
The rules on private prosecutions vary from country to country.

In most democracies, power is multi-faceted which means that even the most powerful "can" be prosecuted by organs of the state for corruption. However, there may well be political reasons which means that they are not prosecuted.

First of all I think you have to ignore cases of corruption where the high officials concerned are givers rather than receivers of corrupt payments. When they emerge that may or may not finish off the political figure concerned but essentially he is being involved in corruption in the service of his country. We have to ignore bribes paid by western arms exporting countries in the Middle East to get contracts. The western politicians are not doing that for personal gain. Whether lawful or not, that is being done in the service of the countries they serve.

If you look at "incoming" bribes, one can see that this will very often finish a political career regardless of whether a prosecution is mounted. There has been little political corruption in the UK. Over the last 20 years or so, various minor MPs have been caught accepting payments for political services but none of these have had real power. Where there has been corruption of those with power (usually over planning decisions or the award of contracts), it has been in local government and prosecutions have universally followed on discovery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Poulson
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/mar/13/uknews
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/3594421.stm

The two major budget leak scandals of the 20th century resulted in resignations Neither leak was for money. Both were to secure favour. However one minister was rehabilitated. The other disappeared for good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Henry_Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Dalton


However one can see more complex cases. The Marconi scandal was too widespread within the upper reaches of the ruling Liberal party to result either in loss of office or prosecution but those involved were undoubtedly guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marconi_scandal

That represents a limit on the ability to pursue corruption. When it is too widespread, action cannot effectively be taken.

Another limit is when the corrupt politicians are too vital to the political process. Many Northern Irish politicians are effectively "above the law" because of their importance to the political process. That is usually seen in terms of Sinn Fein leaders not being prosecuted for their roles in the iRA. However look at these issues and one can see that the matter is not limited to Republican politicians.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kincora_Boys%27_Home
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7250877.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Robinson_scandal

If we go abroad, the position is equally complex.

In Spain there are a number of cases of corruption involving

centre-right parties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCrtel_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcenas_case

left wing parties

http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-ne...egal-payments/

and the royal family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%B3os_case

Two things are noticeable. Firstly the ubiquity of corruption in Spain which means that the powerful all thought they could get away with it and secondly the fact that it is being investigated.

Corruption involving royalty is particularly difficult.

Compare what happen to Strauss (nothing) in Bavaria with what happened to Rumor and Leone in Italy (finished them off) with what happened to Prince Bernhard in the Netherlands (a threat of abdication if the matter was pursued) in the Lockheed scandal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
Thus if I want this guy to be prosecuted if I find him doing any misdemeanours, there is nothing I can do if he close friends with the ruling elite? How would you actually carry out the process of prosecuting this person, especially if friends of an ex president have allegedly got away with murder in the past? Is it highly likely that in third world/developing countries that people who got "rich overnight" like the oligarchs did it via illegal or corrupt means especially if his sector has had cases of corruption before?
0
reply
Yi-Ge-Ningderen
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
A tory minister hired an illegal immigrant. Yet faces no criminal charges, it speaks for itself.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen)
A tory minister hired an illegal immigrant. Yet faces no criminal charges, it speaks for itself.
He isn't being prosecuted because he committed no crime.

This is the offence in section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006:


A person commits an offence if he employs another (“the employee”) knowing that the employee is an adult subject to immigration control and that—

(a)he has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or

(b)his leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom—

(i)is invalid,

(ii)has ceased to have effect (whether by reason of curtailment, revocation, cancellation, passage of time or otherwise), or

(iii)is subject to a condition preventing him from accepting the employment.
The CPS has to satisfy a jury with evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the minister knew that the cleaner had no right to work here.

Do you have any evidence that the minister knew that she didn't have the right to work here? If so, please give it to the police.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by hsv)
Thus if I want this guy to be prosecuted if I find him doing any misdemeanours, there is nothing I can do if he close friends with the ruling elite? How would you actually carry out the process of prosecuting this person, especially if friends of an ex president have allegedly got away with murder in the past? Is it highly likely that in third world/developing countries that people who got "rich overnight" like the oligarchs did it via illegal or corrupt means especially if his sector has had cases of corruption before?
One of the things that differentiates third world/developing countries from developed ones is the integrity of the legal system.

If you look at developed countries such as France and Italy, both ex-President Chirac and ex-Prime Minister Berlusconi have been convicted of crimes.
0
reply
Yi-Ge-Ningderen
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by nulli tertius)
He isn't being prosecuted because he committed no crime.

This is the offence in section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006:




The CPS has to satisfy a jury with evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the minister knew that the cleaner had no right to work here.

Do you have any evidence that the minister knew that she didn't have the right to work here? If so, please give it to the police.
There hasn't even been an investigation. So from now on the police just take peoples word yes?

If another person did that, the police would be after them.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen)
There hasn't even been an investigation. So from now on the police just take peoples word yes?

If another person did that, the police would be after them.
Most unlikely.

There were 7 prosecutions nationwide for this offence in 2012.

In 2009 virtually the same thing happened with Labour minister Baroness Scotland (again it was a forged passport). She was not prosecuted and did not resign.

Baroness Scotland eventually received a civil penalty of £5000 for failing to carry out the prescribed checks on the cleaner. It wasn't clear whether if those checks had been carried out, the deception would have been discovered.

It is likely that Harper will get a similar penalty. He says he has lost the documents when he originally checked on the woman. He is supposed to retain those and so he will be "bang to rights".
0
reply
Yi-Ge-Ningderen
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Most unlikely.

There were 7 prosecutions nationwide for this offence in 2012.

In 2009 virtually the same thing happened with Labour minister Baroness Scotland (again it was a forged passport). She was not prosecuted and did not resign.

Baroness Scotland eventually received a civil penalty of £5000 for failing to carry out the prescribed checks on the cleaner. It wasn't clear whether if those checks had been carried out, the deception would have been discovered.

It is likely that Harper will get a similar penalty. He says he has lost the documents when he originally checked on the woman. He is supposed to retain those and so he will be "bang to rights".
Yeh right.... "lost".
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen)
Yeh right.... "lost".
That is why the rules are drafted as they are. The UKBA does not have to consider whether the checks were originally carried out and the results lost or whether they were never carried out at all.

He doesn't have the records, so he will be liable to a civil penalty.

There were 8,100 civil penalties imposed in 4 years 2008-12.

In the real world, which will be better, to take action for a civil penalty that is unarguable or investigate him for a crime that he almost certainly didn't commit?
0
reply
Yi-Ge-Ningderen
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by nulli tertius)
That is why the rules are drafted as they are. The UKBA does not have to consider whether the checks were originally carried out and the results lost or whether they were never carried out at all.

He doesn't have the records, so he will be liable to a civil penalty.

There were 8,100 civil penalties imposed in 4 years 2008-12.

In the real world, which will be better, to take action for a civil penalty that is unarguable or investigate him for a crime that he almost certainly didn't commit?
He wont get a penalty, that is the point.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen)
He wont get a penalty, that is the point.
Wait and see
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Poll: What factors affect your mental health most right now? Post-lockdown edition

Anxiousness about restrictions easing (54)
6.07%
Uncertainty around my education (101)
11.35%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (94)
10.56%
Lack of purpose or motivation (110)
12.36%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (44)
4.94%
Impact lockdown had on physical health (48)
5.39%
Social worries (incl. loneliness/making friends) (99)
11.12%
Financial worries (60)
6.74%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (40)
4.49%
Exposure to negative news/social media (56)
6.29%
Difficulty accessing real life entertainment (26)
2.92%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (86)
9.66%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (72)
8.09%

Watched Threads

View All