INTRODUCTION

Sr. No. Topic Hours

1. Introduction 4 Hours
1. Basic Concept; Definitions (public interest centered definition and public office
centered definition), and its manifestation and costs (political, economic, democratic
and legal) and impact (case studies)
2. Diverse nature and forms of corruption: grand and petty, criminal and civil, state
capture and public and private sector corruption
3. Causes of corruption- corruption in an emerging development context- Theories: public
choice theory, bad apple theories, Organizational Cultural theory, Clashing moral
values theories, the ethos of public administration theories & co-relation theory
4. Impact of corruption: Legal, economic, cultural, civic,
5. Corruption in context: Corruption and Law, corruption and culture and corruption and
politics

Meaning
Corruption means when someone misuses their power for personal gain. It has many negative
effects. India is ranked 85th out of 180 countries in the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)
2021. This index measures how corrupt a country's government is. Corruption is bad because
it destroys people's trust, weakens democracy, slows down economic growth, and worsens
inequality, poverty, social divisions, and environmental issues.

Causes of Corruption
1. Higher level of bureaucracy and inefficiency in administrative structures: In India,
the complicated government system often causes delays and more paperwork. This can
lead to corruption, where officials ask for bribes to make things go faster. For instance,
if a new road or building is being built, it may get delayed because of government
obstacles, and officials may ask for money to make it happen quicker.
2. Weak property rights: In India, property rights are not well protected. This makes it
easier for officials to ask for bribes in exchange for giving or transferring ownership of
property. For instance, if someone wants to register their land or get permission to build
on it, they may have to pay bribes to officials.
3. Low levels of education: Education is really important for fighting corruption. When
people don't have enough education, they may not know about the rules and laws. This
makes them more likely to fall into corrupt activities. For example, someone might not
know that it's against the law to give bribes to officials for public services.
4. Lack of commitment to society: When people don't feel responsible for their actions,
it adds to corruption. Some people think it's okay to give bribes to get things done
quickly or avoid following the rules. For instance, someone might pay bribes to get a
driving license without going through the proper process..
5. Extravagant family: In India, family is really important, and people feel a strong duty
to support their extended family. But this can sometimes lead to corruption, like when
public officials give jobs or contracts to their own family members. For instance, a
government official might give a contract to a company owned by their family instead
of a company that is more qualified and deserving.
Corruption means when people don't behave ethically and follow the law, going against what
is considered right. But what exactly counts as corruption can be different depending on who
you ask:
 According to the law, corruption is breaking specific rules like taking bribes, favoring
family members, or stealing money.
 According to public opinion, corruption is when people abuse their power in ways that
most citizens would see as wrong, even if it's not against the law.
 According to the public interest, corruption is when people act in ways that go against
what's good for the public, even if it's not illegal or widely disapproved of.

United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC)

The UNCAC is the only legally binding universal anti-corruption instrument. The Convention
is an important tool to address a global problem because it has many mandatory rules and
covers a wide range of issues. The convention covers five main areas:
1. Preventive Measures
2. Criminalization and Law Enforcement
3. International Cooperation
4. Asset recovery
5. Technical assistance
6. Information exchange

Conference of the States Parties (COSP) to the UNCAC

The COSP is the main policymaking body of the UNCAC. It supports States parties and
signatories in their implementation of the convention and gives policy guidance to UNODC to
develop and implement anti-corruption activities. The Conference was established, as per
Article 63 of the Convention:
 To improve the capacity of States to implement the Convention
 To enhance cooperation among States in achieving the objectives of the Convention
and
 To promote and review the implementation of the Convention
The Conference meets every two years and adopts resolutions and decisions in furtherance of
its mandate.
From 25 to 29 November 2013, Panama will be hosting the 5 th Session of the Conference in
Panama City.

Types of Corruption
1. Political Corruption: This refers to the misuse of public power for personal gain by
politicians and public officials. For example, a politician may accept bribes in exchange
for awarding government contracts to a particular company.
2. Economic Corruption: This type of corruption involves the abuse of power by
business executives and other private sector actors for personal gain. For example, a
company may bribe officials to evade taxes or obtain licenses.
3. Democratic Corruption: This refers to the manipulation of democratic processes for
personal gain. For example, a candidate may bribe voters or manipulate election results
to win an election.
4. Legal Corruption: This involves the exploitation of legal loopholes and weaknesses
in the legal system for personal gain. For example, a lawyer may bribe judges or other
legal officials to influence the outcome of a case.
Grand Corruption
Transparency International (TI) has given a definition for Grand Corruption. It means
committing certain crimes listed in the UNCAC Article 15-25 in a specific way:
 It involves a very important government official.
 It leads to or is meant to lead to a big misuse of public money or resources, or severe
violations of the rights of a large part of the population or a vulnerable group ex. bribing
national and foreign government officials, stealing money, using influence for personal
gain, bribing in the private sector, hiding illegal money, and blocking justice, among
others.

Petty Corruption
Petty Corruption happens on a smaller level when public officials interact with the public
during the delivery of public services. For example, it can occur in places like registration
offices, police stations, state licensing boards, and other private and government sectors in
small towns or areas..

Cybercrime Corruption
 As technology keeps advancing, cybercrimes have become a big problem. Criminals
use the internet to exploit weaknesses in online systems and networks. These crimes
happen worldwide and change quickly, making it hard to catch and punish the culprits.
 Apart from cybercrimes, human trafficking is connected to other illegal activities like
using fake travel documents, illegal money transfers, and cybercrime.
 Moreover, organized crime often gets involved in money laundering, which means
hiding money from illegal activities by making it seem like it comes from legal sources
through a series of financial transactions.
 These crimes seriously threaten the safety and stability of societies. Law enforcement
agencies must constantly adapt to stay ahead of these ever-changing threats.

State Capture Corruption

State Capture Corruption is when certain groups gain control over the institutions and processes
that are supposed to make fair decisions for everyone. They manipulate laws, social norms, and
government bureaucracy to serve their own interests. This can involve government officials,
state-backed companies, private companies, or individuals influencing state policies and laws
to benefit themselves.

Public Corruption
It happens when government officials and bureaucrats use their power to change the rules and
procedures that decide how the state's goods, services, and resources are given out..

Private Corruption
Private Corruption happens when certain people or groups are given special treatment that is
unfair to others. This can cause harm to a company, even though making money is usually the
main goal of a business. Using corrupt practices can lead to negative effects like lower
employee morale, less productivity, loss of trust from shareholders and investors, and damage
to the company's reputation and relationships with business partners.
Here are some ways private sector corruption affects economic development and investment:
 Unfair Competition: When a company offers bribes to gain an advantage over
competitors, it creates an unfair playing field. Companies that don't engage in
corruption may be left out, and their products or services might not even be considered.
This undermines fair competition and makes the market less efficient.
  Inflated Costs: Corruption can reduce competition, leading to higher prices and lower
quality goods and services. Consumers suffer as they have to pay more for inferior
products. Companies involved in corruption may neglect investments in innovation,
technology, and employee training, further harming their own productivity and the
quality of their offerings.
 Societal Impact: Corruption in business can have serious consequences for the
environment and human rights. It can violate basic rights such as access to a clean
environment, fair treatment, and protection from exploitation. This not only affects
individuals and communities but also has broader negative impacts on society as a
whole.

Rahul completed his MBA and has got his first job. He is hardworking and honest and is very
good at his work. As he starts working, he realizes that a lot of irregularities are being practiced
by the company he works for. He tries to object but get a stern warning from his superiors about
the consequences of such behaviour on his part. Rahul is extremely uncomfortable and decides
to quit his job.

Theories of Corruption
1. Bad Apple Theories: The police force is a group authorized by the government to keep
peace and order. They must enforce the law and protect people from harm. The Bad
Apple Theory tries to explain why some police officers act illegally and unethically. It
suggests that corruption happens because there are a few bad officers among the many
good ones. This idea makes it difficult to understand and stop corruption effectively.
2. Organizational Culture and Workplace Corruption:
 Workplace corruption can be categorized into three types: incidental,
institutional, and systemic.
 Incidental corruption involves smaller-scale acts like embezzlement, bribery,
favoritism, and discrimination.
 Institutional corruption involves larger-scale corrupt practices such as fraud,
embezzlement on a larger scale, and economic privileges for special interests.
 Systemic corruption is deeply ingrained and difficult to eradicate.
 Experts studying corruption in the public sector agree that the main causes are
the values and norms of politicians and public servants, lack of control, and the
relationships between business, politics, and the state. Organizational culture
plays a significant role in shaping employee behavior.
 Corruption becomes normalized in organizations through institutionalization,
rationalization, and socialization. This creates a cycle where corruption is
accepted and ingrained.
 Rationalization is the process of justifying corrupt acts as exceptions to normal
rules. Individuals use mechanisms like depersonalization and selective
weighting to legitimize their behavior.
 Socialization is how newcomers are taught to accept and engage in corrupt
practices. Co-optation, incrementalism, and compromise are three ways this
occurs.
3. Ethos of Public Administration Theories: The Ethos of Public Administration
Theories suggests that corruption is influenced by the culture of public management
and society in general. This theory looks at not only the culture within organizations
 but also the larger social structures that shape ethical norms in public administration. It
argues that the way the government is organized, which is influenced by society, can
either encourage or discourage corruption at the individual and organizational levels.
This theory is similar to the 'structural approach' to political corruption.
4. Public Choice Theory: The public choice theory believes that public servants are
motivated to maximize society's well-being. It criticizes bureaucracy as unresponsive
and inefficient, with a rigid hierarchy. This leads to delays in delivering goods and
services, limiting people's choices. Centralized government struggles to meet
everyone's preferences.
The goal of public choice theory is to improve efficiency and responsibility in public
administration. It promotes institutional pluralism for better service standards and
broader options for the public. It emphasizes democratic administration, public
participation, decentralization of power, consumer freedom, and welfare. It seeks to
reduce government monopoly and increase the role of private players in supplying
goods to consumers.
5. Clashing Moral Values Theories: Another theory suggests that corrupt officials may
have conflicting moral values between their public role and private obligations. Unlike
previous theories, this theory looks at corruption on a larger scale, focusing on society
as a whole. Since the culture of an organization is influenced by society, there is a
connection between this theory and organizational culture theories. According to this
theory, corruption stems from the values and norms of society, which then influence
the values and behavior of individuals, leading to corruption. In some societies, there
is no clear separation between one's personal and public roles.

Which theory according to you best suits the above situation? Why?
The theory that is applicable in this scenario is the agency problem theory within the principal-
agent model. According to this theory, Rahul, as an employee (agent), recognizes the
irregularities being practiced within the company and feels a moral obligation to object and act
honestly. However, his superiors, who represent the principal in the principal-agent
relationship, give him a stern warning about the potential consequences of his behavior. This
situation highlights the conflict between individual and group rationality. Rahul's superiors
may prioritize their own interests or the company's interests over ethical behavior, creating an
agency problem. In response to the uncomfortable situation and the inability to address the
irregularities, Rahul decides to quit his job, which is a reflection of his ethical stance and refusal
to participate in corrupt practices.

Impact of Corruption
 Legal Impact: Corruption makes the legal system weak and unfair. It makes people
lose trust in the courts and police, leading to less fairness and accountability.
Sometimes, the guilty can escape punishment, while innocent people may be wrongly
accused.
 Economic Impact: Corruption slows down economic growth and progress. It creates
obstacles to fair competition, messes up how markets work, and discourages
investment. Money that could be used for important things is often taken for personal
gain, which leads to inefficiency, fewer public services, and unequal distribution of
wealth.
 Cultural Impact: Corruption can become a part of a society's culture, affecting its
values and how people behave. It lowers ethical standards and encourages dishonesty,
which goes against good morals. This can cause people to lose trust in each other and
in institutions, making it harder for society to work together and move forward.
 Civic Impact: Corruption reduces people's involvement in society and harms
democracy. When corruption is widespread, people may feel disappointed with the
political system and stop taking part in community activities. Corruption can make
democratic institutions less effective and make it difficult for citizens to hold their
leaders accountable.
 MODULE 2
1. Corruption as a privilege class deviance- 3 Hours
 Official deviance (legislators, judges, bureaucrats etc.)
 Professional Deviance: journalists, teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects
and publishers
 Police Deviance - Structures of legal restraint on Police powers in India,
Unconstitutionality of 'third degree' method and use of fatal force by police -
Encounter killings - Police atrocities - Custodial violence the plea of superior orders
- rape and related forms of gender based aggression - National Police Commission
- Reforms
 Response of Indian Legal Order to the Deviance of Privileged Classes

Raman comes from a humble background. He became a constable in the year 2010. In these
past 11 years his assets have increased dramatically. An inquiry has been set up against him as
there have been several complaints against him accusing him for corruption.
How is a traditional act of crime different from that of privilege class deviance specifically
relating to acts of corruption?
Which provisions of the POCA would be applicable in the above case?

Short Notes: Police Deviance

Corruption as a privilege class deviance

White-collar crimes committed by the privileged class in the Indian trade and business world
pose significant challenges to public wealth and health. Common offenses include hoarding,
profiteering, black-marketing, violation of foreign exchange regulations, and adulteration of
foodstuffs and drugs. In response to these crimes, various acts such as The Conservation of
Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, The Smugglers & Foreign
Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, Consumers Protection Act, Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and Competition Act have been enacted. However,
the prosecution process in such cases has often faced hurdles, leading to unjustified acquittals.
Drastic measures are needed to combat these offenses and ensure justice is served effectively.

White Collar Crime

White-collar crime refers to non-violent crimes committed by individuals in professional or
high-status positions. These crimes can have serious consequences for individuals and the
economy. Examples of white-collar crimes include public corruption, fraud in healthcare and
mortgages, deceptive practices in securities, and illegal money laundering.

Types of Deviances
 Official deviance: This type of deviance involves individuals in positions of authority
and power, such as bureaucrats, legislators, and judges, who engage in wrongful or
unethical behavior. They may abuse their power, take bribes, or act in ways that are
contrary to their responsibilities. This undermines the public's trust in the system and
can have negative consequences for society.
 Professional deviance: Professional deviance occurs when individuals in specific
fields, such as the legal, medical, journalism, engineering, architecture, or publishing
professions, engage in unethical or illegal practices. This can include actions like
 fraudulent billing, professional misconduct, biased reporting, or compromising safety
standards. Professional deviance undermines the integrity and reputation of these
professions and can harm individuals who rely on their services.
 Police deviance: Police deviance refers to misconduct or unethical behavior by law
enforcement officers. This can include excessive use of force, bribery, racial profiling,
or involvement in organized crime. Police deviance erodes trust between the police and
the community they serve, undermines the justice system, and can lead to violations of
civil rights.
 Gender-based aggression: Gender-based aggression involves acts of violence,
harassment, or discrimination that target individuals based on their gender. This can
include domestic violence, sexual assault, workplace harassment, or unequal treatment
based on gender. Gender-based aggression perpetuates harmful stereotypes, creates an
unsafe environment for individuals, and hinders progress towards gender equality.
 Trade union deviance: Trade union deviance refers to actions by members or leaders
of labor unions that violate ethical or legal standards. This can include embezzlement
of union funds, corruption, or engaging in illegal strikes or protests. Trade union
deviance undermines the credibility and effectiveness of labor unions in representing
the interests of workers and can lead to negative consequences for employees and
employers alike.

Official Deviance by Bureaucrats

 Official deviance happens when people in positions of power, like bureaucrats, do
things that are wrong or unethical. They go against the official rules and code of conduct
that they should follow when doing their administrative work.
 Bureaucrats are officials who work in administrative units and have the responsibility
to carry out administrative tasks in a rational way. They have a lot of power to make
decisions and choices within their roles.
 The control or oversight of bureaucrats by the judiciary, which is the part of the
government that deals with laws and courts, is weak. The court can only make sure that
bureaucrats do their mandatory duties, but it cannot force them to use their discretionary
powers in a specific way. This lack of strong control can lead to the misuse or abuse of
their powers.
 Red tapism refers to the excessive bureaucracy and the delays in taking action.
Bureaucratic processes can be slow and complicated, causing unnecessary delays and
making it harder to get things done efficiently.
 Corruption happens when bureaucrats use their positions of power for personal gain.
They might give out licenses or permits in exchange for bribes or use their authority to
get valuable things or property that they shouldn't have based on their income or what
is right.

Official Deviance by Judges

The court procedure has become long and expensive, causing delays and adding to the costs
involved. There are concerns about the honesty and trustworthiness of the court staff, including
judges and magistrates. Some judges accept bribes to influence their decisions, leading to
biased rulings and misuse of funds. There are reports of judges being influenced by political
pressures and threats. Some judges have personal relationships with lawyers who appear before
them, and there are instances where judges provide favorable outcomes in writing even before
the case is heard.

Official Deviance by Legislators

  Legislators are supposed to work for the benefit of the people who elected them, but
sometimes they are influenced by certain groups who offer money or information in
exchange for favorable policies. This type of corruption by legislators has become a
common form of official wrongdoing.
 Large amounts of money are often collected as contributions to party funds from
industrialists. In return, these industrialists receive grants, licenses, and favorable
policies that benefit their businesses and increase their profits. This can create a
situation where sensitive issues, such as the rights of minority groups, are not given
proper consideration in order to secure votes.
 Deviant legislators also allocate quotas for things like diesel, petrol pumps, or the paper
industry, favoring their own relatives or individuals who are favorable to them. This
type of favoritism and nepotism can undermine fairness and equal opportunities.
 There is also a close relationship between legislators and criminals in some cases. This
connection can lead to further corruption and abuse of power, as criminals may use
their influence over legislators for personal gain.

o In the 1950s, Haridas Mundhra, a stock speculator, was involved in a major financial
scandal in India. Feroze Gandhi, a Member of Parliament, played a role in the anti-
corruption movement that led to Ramkrishna Dalmia's imprisonment. Later, Feroze Gandhi
raised concerns about the use of premiums by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC). The
Chagla Commission, led by Justice M.C. Chagla, found Mundhra guilty on 124 charges.

o In 1964, the Das Commission dealt with the case of R.P. Kapoor v. Pratap Singh Kairon.
Pratap Singh Kairon, the Chief Minister of Punjab, was accused of using public funds to
benefit himself and his family. The commission exempted him from liability, stating that a
father cannot be held responsible for the actions of his adult children. However, it clarified
that a son cannot exploit others using his father's political position. The court dismissed the
petition against Kairon.

Professional Deviance
Crime committed by persons of respectability and high social status in course of their
occupation.

Lawyers
Deviant behavior within the legal profession involves unethical actions that harm the reputation
and integrity of lawyers. In India, the legal profession has experienced a decline in public
respect due to two main factors:
 Declining Standards of Legal Education: The quality of legal education has worsened,
negatively impacting the profession. Some lawyers lack proper training, knowledge of
legal principles, and ethical values, leading to a negative perception of the profession.
 Unethical Practices to Gain Clients: Some lawyers engage in unethical practices to
attract clients. These practices include fabricating false evidence, using dishonest
witnesses, and violating ethical standards. Lawyers also frequently resort to strikes,
disrupting the judicial system. They may collaborate with court staff to delay
proceedings.
Additionally, lawyers can be associated with professional criminals and gangs. These criminals
rely on trusted lawyers to manipulate legal processes and secure bail or evade arrest through
habeas corpus writs.
Lawyers who specialize in corporation and constitutional law are sometimes involved in white-
collar criminal activities. They not only provide advice to organized criminals but also actively
encourage and assist in committing these types of crimes. This behavior is particularly
prevalent in the realm of finance capitalism, where lawyers may suggest or guide corporations
in engaging in illegal activities. This includes the widespread commission of white-collar
crimes in public utilities. [M V Dhabolkar Vs State of Maharashtra (1975) 2 SCC 702]
Teachers
Deviant behavior within the teaching profession, especially in privately run educational
institutions, involves illegal practices and exploitation. Here are the main points:
 Fictitious Financial Details: Private educational institutions manipulate government
grants and financial aid by providing false information about their institutions. This
allows them to unlawfully receive large sums of money.
 Exploitation of Teachers: Teachers and staff in these institutions often receive lower
salaries than what they were promised or deserve. This difference in salary allows the
management to profit illegally. Teachers, fearing job loss, are unable to speak up about
this exploitation.
 Margin for Illegal Profits: The gap between the actual salaries paid to teachers and the
reported amount creates an opportunity for the management to accumulate unlawful
profits.
 Fear of Job Loss: Teachers hesitate to report or complain about the exploitation due to
the fear of being fired or facing consequences. They feel compelled to tolerate unfair
treatment.
 Challenges with Treasury Payments: Although the government introduced treasury
payments for teachers in private institutions, exploitation still persists in various forms.
The system has not completely eliminated illegal practices and financial discrepancies.
 Fake Enrollments and Capitation Fees: Institutions earn illegal money by enrolling
fake students who live far away from the institution. These students are charged high
amounts as donations or capitation fees for admission.

Journalists
Even though journalism is a noble profession and a way to communicate with the masses,
corruption can still be found within it. Some professional journalists engage in corrupt practices
such as blackmailing wealthy and influential individuals for money. They threaten to expose
their weaknesses, which could lead to their downfall, damage their reputation, or defame them.
The main targets of such journalists are often political leaders and public servants involved in
various scandals.

Doctors
Doctors engage in deviant behaviors, which are unethical and illegal actions within the medical
profession. Here are some common examples:
 False Medical Certificates: Doctors may issue fake medical certificates, providing
misleading information about a person's health. This can help individuals avoid
responsibilities or gain undeserved benefits.
 Illegal Abortions: Some doctors perform abortions in violation of legal and ethical
guidelines, risking the health of women seeking these services.
 Assisting Criminals: Doctors who provide expert opinions favoring criminals, like
robbers, to influence legal proceedings and secure their acquittal, engage in deviant
behavior. This undermines the integrity of both the medical profession and the justice
system.
  Sale of Sample Drugs: Doctors involved in selling sample drugs to patients or chemists
are breaking the law. This disrupts the proper distribution of medications and exposes
patients to potentially harmful substances.
 Exploitative Practices: Some doctors use delaying tactics, prolong medical procedures,
or recommend unnecessary tests to charge excessive fees. This exploits vulnerable
patients and contributes to the unethical commercialization of healthcare.
To address these issues, the government has introduced laws like the Indian Medical Council
Act, Indian Medical Degree Act, and Indian Medical Council Amendment Act. These laws set
standards, guidelines, and disciplinary measures to ensure doctors' accountability and
professionalism. They regulate licensing, ethical conduct, and the overall practice of medicine.
Implementing these regulations is crucial to prevent deviant behavior, safeguard patient well-
being, and maintain the credibility of the healthcare system. It is also important for professional
bodies, medical associations, and institutions to enforce ethical codes, provide ongoing
training, and raise awareness among doctors about the consequences of deviant actions.

Engineers
Deviant behavior within the engineering profession involves unethical practices and illegal
actions that harm construction projects. Here are some common examples:
 Unethical Dealings: Engineers may engage in secret dealings with contractors and
suppliers. They might accept bribes or kickbacks to award contracts or use low-quality
materials. These actions compromise project quality, endanger public safety, and cause
financial losses.
 Approval of Substandard Works: Engineers who knowingly approve and pass
substandard works and materials fail to meet professional standards. This can lead to
structural problems, increased risks, and harm to public safety. It also wastes public
funds spent on these projects.
 Bogus Records of Labor: Some engineers maintain fake records of work-charged labor.
They inflate the number of workers or their work hours to embezzle funds or divert
resources for personal gain. This misappropriation affects project progress, resource
efficiency, and the quality of work.
The consequences of such deviant behavior are significant. They put public safety at risk and
cause financial losses to the government. When buildings, roads, canals, dams, and bridges are
constructed with low-quality materials, they endanger the lives of people who use them.
Moreover, using poor-quality materials and engaging in unethical practices leads to frequent
repairs, maintenance issues, and higher costs in the long term.

Differences between White Collar Crimes & Conventional Crimes

 Nature of Offenses: White collar crimes typically involve non-violent offenses
committed by individuals in positions of power or authority, often in the context of their
occupation or profession. These crimes are often financially motivated and involve
fraud, embezzlement, bribery, insider trading, or tax evasion. On the other hand,
conventional crimes refer to offenses such as robbery, assault, murder, theft, or drug-
related crimes, which are typically committed by individuals from various socio-
economic backgrounds.
Example from Indian jurisprudence: In the case of Satyam Scandal (2009), the
chairman of Satyam Computers, Ramalinga Raju, was involved in a white collar crime
where he manipulated the company's accounts, resulting in a massive financial fraud.
 Perpetrators: White collar crimes are predominantly committed by individuals in high-
level corporate or professional positions, often belonging to the privileged class, such
 as executives, professionals, or government officials. Conventional crimes, however,
can be committed by individuals from any socio-economic background.
Example from Indian jurisprudence: In the 2G Spectrum Scam case (2012), several
influential individuals, including politicians, bureaucrats, and corporate executives,
were implicated in a white collar crime related to the illegal allocation of telecom
spectrum licenses.
 Motivation: White collar crimes are usually driven by financial gain, personal
enrichment, or the pursuit of professional advantage. In contrast, conventional crimes
are often motivated by personal disputes, desperation, survival, or the pursuit of
immediate material benefits.
Example from Indian jurisprudence: In the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case (1984), the white
collar crime was committed by Union Carbide Corporation, an American multinational
company, which neglected safety standards in order to cut costs, resulting in a gas leak
that caused the deaths of thousands of people.
 Impact and Victimization: White collar crimes typically have a wide-reaching impact,
affecting numerous individuals, organizations, or even the economy as a whole. The
victims of these crimes are often large groups of people, consumers, shareholders, or
employees who suffer financial losses or harm to their well-being. Conventional crimes
tend to have more localized impacts and immediate victims.
Example from Indian jurisprudence: The Saradha Group Scam (2013) involved a large-
scale financial fraud perpetrated by the Saradha Group, which duped thousands of
investors, particularly those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, resulting in
significant financial losses.
 Detection and Investigation: White collar crimes often require complex investigations,
involving financial audits, forensic analysis, and specialized knowledge. The detection
and investigation of these crimes may take a considerable amount of time and resources.
In contrast, conventional crimes are typically detected more easily, and investigations
may rely on evidence collection, witness statements, or forensic analysis.
Example from Indian jurisprudence: The Harshad Mehta securities scam (1992)
involved manipulation of the stock market by Harshad Mehta, a stockbroker. The
investigation required extensive analysis of financial transactions and irregularities in
the securities market.

Police Deviance
 Police deviance refers to a broader range of behaviors beyond just corruption. It
encompasses activities that go against the norms, values, and ethics expected of police
officers.
 There are different types of police deviance, including occupational deviance, which
involves both criminal and non-criminal behavior carried out during the course of an
officer's work or done under the guise of their authority. Abuse of authority is another
form of deviance, where police officers violate the trust placed in them.
 The primary responsibilities of the police include serving the community, safeguarding
lives and property, protecting the innocent, maintaining peace, and ensuring the rights
of all individuals to liberty, equality, and justice.
 However, police deviance can take various forms, such as brutality, abuse of authority,
lying, theft, alcohol or drug abuse, excessive use of force, unlawful arrests, and the use
 of restricted weapons. These behaviors undermine the trust and integrity of the police
force and can have negative consequences for the community they serve.

Third Degree Method

 The use of the 'third degree' method and fatal force by the police is unconstitutional and
goes against the law. In 2021, India recorded a total of 88 deaths in police custody, with
Gujarat having the highest number for the second year in a row. Maharashtra had the
second highest number of custodial deaths with 21, followed by Madhya Pradesh with
7, Andhra Pradesh with 6, and Haryana with 5.
 There are legal provisions in India to prevent custodial torture. Article 20(1), Article
20(2), and Article 20(3) of the Constitution provide protection against ex-post facto
laws and self-incrimination. Section 348 of the Indian Penal Code prohibits wrongful
confinement for extracting confessions or information. Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the
Evidence Act also address this issue.

In the case of Pram Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980), the Supreme Court ruled
that it is inhumane to compulsorily handcuff prisoners and set certain guidelines to prevent this
practice.

In the case of Inderjeet v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014), the Supreme Court declared that
punishments involving torture are unconstitutional.

In the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union (1981), the Supreme Court
stated that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to protection against torture.

In the case of D K Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court emphasized that
custodial death is a serious crime. It questioned whether a citizen loses their fundamental right
to life the moment they are arrested, concluding with an emphatic "No." The court outlined
several important guidelines to be followed:
 Accurate, visible, and clear identification and name tags.
 Issuing a memo of arrest.
 The right to inform someone about the arrest.
 Notification by the police.
 Medical examination.
 The right to have the assistance of a lawyer.
 Access to the police control room.

In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court ruled that arrest is not
necessary in every case. The court also held that if the arrested person requests it, they are
entitled to have a friend, relative, or someone else known to them or likely to take an interest
in their welfare informed, to the extent possible, about their arrest and where they are being
detained.

Encounter Killing
 Encounter killings, also known as "encounters of the accused criminals," were initiated
to demonstrate the power of the police over potentially dangerous criminals. The
purpose is to safeguard political, judicial, and public assets, as well as the general
public.
  The Indian government is responsible for conducting encounter killings as a legal
process. It involves the killing of criminals without a court order. However, these
extrajudicial killings are unlawful and occur in public places, causing harm and issues
for the people present.
 According to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, killing someone without legal
authorization is considered murder. To address the rising number of unlawful killings,
the government devised an operation to eliminate criminals in cities.
 Are Extrajudicial Killings Justifiable? In certain circumstances, such as self-defense or
protecting individuals and religious figures, extrajudicial killings may be deemed
justifiable. For instance, a police officer may use force to defend themselves against a
criminal. Similarly, when protecting people or ministers, the police may encounter
criminals in the process.

Fake Encounter
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recorded 1,782 cases of fake encounters
between 2000 and 2017. From 1993 to 2009, the NHRC received reports of 2,560 encounter
cases, of which 1,224 were found to be fake.

The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of extrajudicial killings. In the Extra Judicial
Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
case, the court distinguished between the right of self-defense and the use of excessive or
retaliatory force. While police have the right to self-defense, they become aggressors and
commit crimes punishable by law if they employ excessive force or punitive measures.

There are exceptions where extrajudicial killings may not be considered criminal offenses.
These include situations where death occurs during the exercise of the right of private defense,
under specific sections of the Indian Penal Code, or when it is necessary to arrest a person
accused of a serious offense.

The Supreme Court has issued guidelines to ensure accountability and uphold the rule of law
in encounters. In various cases, such as PUCL v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and Om
Prakash vs. State of Jharkhand, the court emphasized the importance of preserving evidence,
conducting independent investigations, and expediting trials.

The National Police Commission (NPC), established in 1977, aimed to reform India's police
system. It focused on various aspects, including recruitment, promotions, disciplinary control,
and addressing discrepancies within the police force.
The NPC's reports highlighted issues such as complaints against police officers, the
appointment of the Criminal Justice Commission, protection of weaker sections of society,
registration of FIRs, psychological testing of candidates, and promoting accountability among
police officials.
The Ribeiro Committee and the Padmanabhaiah Committee submitted reports endorsing the
NPC's recommendations, while the Supreme Court issued directives on police reforms in 2006.
These directives aimed to ensure the independence of the police, separate law and order
functions from investigation, establish police complaints authorities, and set up a National
Security Commission.

Efforts have been made to address the problem of fake encounters and reform the police system,
but continued vigilance and implementation of reforms are crucial to protect human rights and
uphold the rule of law.
Under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), corrupt public servants
accused of offenses committed while performing their official duties were protected from
prosecution.

In the case of Vineet Narayan v. Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court noted delays in
corruption cases due to the competent authority's refusal or delayed sanction for prosecution.
The court emphasized that if a prima facie case is established, the competent authority must
grant sanction for prosecution.
In the case of Jayalalitha v. Union of India (1999), the Supreme Court highlighted the
detrimental effects of corruption on society and the national economy. The misuse of power by
individuals in high positions within the government has tarnished the country's image.
In the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. V. Reddy (2002), the Supreme Court
interpreted the term "public servant" broadly to include not only government officials but also
employees of government-controlled entities. This interpretation aimed to combat corruption
at all levels.
Subramanium Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh (2012) reiterated the importance of timely
granting government sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. The Supreme Court emphasized that the three-month time limit for granting sanction
should be strictly followed without delay.
In Ram Narayan Poply v. C.B.I. (2003), the Supreme Court expressed concern about the
adverse effects of white-collar crimes and emphasized the need to sternly deal with economic
offenders who could harm the country's economy.
These cases highlight the judiciary's stance on combating corruption, ensuring timely
prosecution of public servants involved in corruption, and protecting the nation's economy and
reputation from the detrimental effects of such offenses.
 MODULE 4
Prosecution in India 4 Hours
1. Investigation, compliances and trial under CrPC, and statutes (Prevention of
Corruptions Act)
2. Sanctions and Regulation

Mr. S was found to have misappropriated funds while working as an officer for the Government
of India. He was dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry was conducted by the
competent authority. He was also prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
Does this amount to double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India? Why?
What is the procedure for prosecution of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988?

Mr. Deepak Kumar was alleged to have misappropriated funds while working as a revenue
collection officer for the Government of India. He was dismissed from service after a
departmental inquiry was conducted by the competent authority. He was also prosecuted under
the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Abdul Anthony Kapoor
challenged his prosecution under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as being double
jeopardy and therefore being unsustainable before the court of law.
Would prosecution under provision of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alongside the
departmental inquiry lead to double prosecution for a single act amounting to double jeopardy?
Under what provisions of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, could Mr Abdul Anthony
Kapoor be held liable?
Explain briefly the procedure followed under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for the
prosecution of a public servant alleged to have committed an act of corruption.

Various corruption laws in India

Corruption laws in India aim to penalize public servants engaged in corrupt practices. The
Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 are the key
legislations in this regard. Additionally, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act of 1988
targets benami transactions, while the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002 addresses
money laundering offenses.
Under the IPC:
 "Public servant" includes government employees, military officers, police, judges, and
more.
 Section 169 deals with a public servant unlawfully buying or bidding for property, with
potential imprisonment and confiscation of the property.
 Section 409 pertains to criminal breach of trust by a public servant, carrying life
imprisonment or up to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
 Expands the definition of "public servant" to include office bearers of cooperative
societies, university employees, and more.
 It penalizes a public servant for accepting gratification for official acts or to influence
other public servants, with a minimum of six months and a maximum of five years of
imprisonment.
  It also addresses the acceptance of valuable things without proper payment, exercising
personal influence, and requires prior sanction from the government for prosecuting a
public servant.
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988:
 Prohibits benami transactions, except when property is purchased in the name of a wife
or unmarried daughter.
 Violators of the Act can face imprisonment of up to three years and/or a fine, and
acquired benami properties can be confiscated without compensation.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002:
 Defines money laundering as the process of using proceeds of crime as untainted
property.
 Imposes rigorous imprisonment of three to seven years and a fine of up to Rs 5 lakh for
money laundering offenses.
 Establishes an Adjudicating Authority and an Appellate Tribunal to handle cases related
to money laundering.
 Requires banking companies, financial institutions, and intermediaries to maintain
transaction records and provide information to specified authorities.
 These laws work together to combat corruption, prevent benami transactions, and
address money laundering activities in India.

Mr. Deepak Kumar can be prosecuted for the offence of Criminal Misconduct by a Public
Servant under Section 13(1) of the POCA.
A person is liable under Section 13(1) of the POCA if he dishnosetly or fraudulently
misaapropriates or converts to his own use any property entrusted to him or any other
property other property under his control as a public servant ot allows any other person to do
so.
It was held in the case of Madhusudan Singh v. State of Bihar, that contents of FIR
corroborated by oral evidence provides sufficient evidence to hold a public servant accountable
for criminal misconduct.

Meaning of Double Jeopardy

 Meaning of double jeopardy is “two adjudications for one offense”.
 A person is prosecuted twice in court of law for same and single offence committed by
him.
 The doctrine of double jeopardy says that no person shall be prosecuted and punished
twice for same and single offence committed by that person.

Essentials applicable to doctrine of double jeopardy

 The person must be accused of an offence
 There is judicial proceeding against that person in the court of law
 The person had been prosecuted and punished in the earlier proceeding
 The person should be sued again, provided that the offence must be same for which the
person was prosecuted and punished earlier.

Article 20 (2)
 As per Article 20(2), no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence
more than once
  Constitution of India gives protection against the double jeopardy
 Recognized as fundamental right under the Constitution of India
 The 44th amendment of the Constitution of India has strengthened the doctrine by giving
special provision to the article during state under emergency i.e., article 20 and 21 will
not be suspended during emergency.
 The Constitution recognizes the plea of a defendant who claims that they have already
been tried and convicted for the same offense.
 This means that if an individual has faced a trial and has been pronounced guilty for a
particular offense, they cannot be subjected to another trial or punishment for the same
offense. The purpose of this provision is to safeguard individuals from being harassed
or penalized multiple times for the same wrongdoing, ensuring fairness and protection
against arbitrary legal actions.

Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897



Section 300 CrPC

 In this context, if an individual has been previously tried for a particular offense and
has been acquitted, they cannot be subjected to a new trial or punishment for the same
offense. This principle prevents the state from making repeated attempts to prosecute
an individual for a crime in which they have already been found not guilty.
 The recognition of this aspect in the CrPC ensures that individuals are protected from
harassment and unfair treatment by preventing their re-prosecution for an offense after
being acquitted. It upholds the principle of double jeopardy, which prohibits subjecting
an individual to multiple trials or punishments for the same crime.

As per the above given facts of the case, Mr. S is facing consequences in two separate
proceedings that serve different purposes.
1. Departmental Enquiry: Mr. S was dismissed from service after the departmental
enquiry conducted by the competent authority. This is an administrative proceeding
aimed at determining whether Mr. S breached the code of conduct or violated the terms
of his employment. The purpose of the departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline
and integrity within the government service and is independent of any criminal
prosecution.
2. Prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act: Mr. S is also being prosecuted
under the provisions of the POCA. This is a criminal proceeding that aims to hold
individuals accountable for corrupt practices and punish them according to the law. The
purpose of the prosecution is to address the criminal aspect of misappropriation of funds
and protect the interests of the state and society.
Since the departmental enquiry and the criminal prosecution serve different purposes and have
distinct consequences, they do not violate the principle of double jeopardy. Double jeopardy
protection applies when a person is prosecuted multiple times for the same offense in the same
proceedings, not when separate proceedings are initiated to address different aspects of the
misconduct.
In the case of Venkataraman v. Union of India, an enquiry was made before the enquiry
commission on the appellant under the Public Service Enquiry Act, 1960 & as a result, he was
dismissed from the service. He was later on, charged for committed the offence under the IPC
and the POCA. The court held that the proceeding held by the enquiry commission was only a
mere enquiry and did not amount to a prosecution for an offence. Hence, the second prosecution
did not attract the doctrine of Double Jeopardy or protection under Fundamental Right Article
20 (2).
An employee of the Boarded Road Organization was court-martialled and found to be guilty
of some of the charges framed against him and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
one year. Thereafter he was dismissed from the service under the relevant Service Rules. The
SC ruled in the case of Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar that it did not amount to double
jeopardy under Article 20(2). The two proceedings operated in two different fields even though
the crime or the misconduct might arise out of the same act. The two proceedings did not
overlap – court-martial proceedings dealt with penal aspect of the misconduct while the
proceedings under the Service Rules dealt with the disciplinary aspect of the misconduct.

Procedure of Prosecution of a Public Servant

1. Authorities Involved: The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the Central Bureau
of Investigation (CBI), and state Anti-Corruption Bureaus (ACBs) are the main
authorities responsible for investigating and prosecuting corruption cases involving
public servants. Money laundering cases are handled by the Directorate of Enforcement
and the Financial Intelligence Unit.
2. Jurisdiction: The CBI handles corruption cases related to the central government and
Union Territories, while state ACBs investigate cases within their respective states.
States can refer cases to the CBI if needed.
3. Prior Permission for Investigation: Under the POCA Amendment Act, police officers
must seek prior approval from the relevant government authority before conducting an
inquiry into any offense committed by a public servant. The approval is required within
a specified timeframe, but exceptions exist for officials caught accepting or attempting
to accept bribes.
4. Sanction for Prosecution: Prior sanction from the central or state government is
required for initiating prosecution against serving or retired public servants under the
Prevention of Corruption Act. Government-appointed prosecutors handle the
prosecution proceedings in court.
5. Special Judges: All cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are tried by
Special Judges appointed by the central or state government. These judges are
responsible for presiding over corruption cases involving public servants.

OR

1. Investigation Initiation: The process of prosecuting a public servant for corruption

starts with the initiation of an investigation. If there is reasonable suspicion or credible
information about the involvement of a public servant in corrupt practices, the case is
taken up for investigation.
2. Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Involvement: The Central Vigilance
Commission, which is an independent statutory body, plays a crucial role in supervising
corruption cases in government departments. The CVC can refer cases to the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the Central Vigilance Officer (CVO) within each
department for further action.
3. Role of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI): The CBI is the premier investigation
agency in India responsible for handling corruption cases at the central level. It has
jurisdiction over central government employees and Union Territories. The CBI
conducts a thorough investigation, collecting evidence, examining witnesses, and
building a case against the accused public servant.
4. Role of State Anti-Corruption Bureaus (ACBs): State ACBs have the authority to
investigate corruption cases involving public servants within their respective states.
They handle cases where the alleged corruption falls under the jurisdiction of the state
government. The state government may also refer cases to the CBI for investigation.
5. Gathering Evidence: During the investigation, the investigating agency collects
evidence such as documents, financial records, witness statements, and other relevant
material to establish the involvement of the public servant in corrupt activities. The
evidence is presented in court during the trial.
6. Sanction for Prosecution: Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, prior
sanction or approval from the central or state government is required to initiate
prosecution against a public servant for corruption offenses. This sanction is necessary
for both serving and retired officials. The government-appointed prosecutors undertake
the prosecution proceedings in court.
7. Special Judge: All cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are tried by
Special Judges. These judges are appointed by the central or state government and are
designated to handle corruption cases involving public servants. The Special Judge
presides over the trial proceedings and ensures a fair and impartial trial.
8. Trial Process: The trial process involves presenting the evidence gathered during the
investigation before the court. The accused public servant has the opportunity to present
their defense and challenge the evidence against them. The prosecution and defense
present their arguments, examine witnesses, and cross-examine the opposing side's
witnesses. The court evaluates the evidence and arguments presented and delivers a
verdict.
9. Appellate Process: In case of dissatisfaction with the trial court's verdict, both the
prosecution and the defense have the right to appeal the decision to a higher court. The
appellate court reviews the case, examines any legal errors or irregularities, and may
uphold, modify, or reverse the lower court's decision.
 MODULE 5
1. Global Corruption, Good Governance and International initiatives 6 Hour
 Global Corruption: Concept
 Good Governance and rule of law: Civil service reform, Codes of conduct,
transparency and accountability; The Role of Civil Society; Public Monitoring
& Reporting; Bribery of Foreign Government Officials; Criminal Liability for
False Financial Disclosure
 International convention and treaties- United Nations Convention against
corruption (UNCAC)
 International, national and regional initiative to corruption: Anti-corruption
conventions and treaties such
o Inter-American Convention against Corruption (OAS – 1996)
o Organization of Economic Development and Cooperation’s
o Convention on Combatting Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in
International Transactions (OECD-1999); (iv)
o Council of Europe Convention Against Corruption (COE-1999); (v)
o African Union Convention on Preventing and Controlling Corruption
(AU – 2003) and (vi)
o Asian Development Bank/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia
and the Pacific (ADB/OECD – 2000)
 International Cooperation in Fighting Corruption:
o International law enforcement cooperation;
o Extradition;
o Legal basis for mutual legal assistance;
o Dual criminality;
o Private sector cooperation;
o Access to information from law enforcement and international
organizations;
o Reporting corruption to the law enforcement community and law
enforcement community integrity

With the help of relevant international conventions explain the importance of International
Cooperation in combating global corruption.

Explain the importance of International Cooperation in combating global corruption with

reference to the relevant international conventions.

How does global corruption impact the world economy? Highlight the initiatives adopted by
the international community to curb global corruption.

SHORT NOTE: Access to information for international organization

Corruption under International Law

International Legal Framework

 Asian Development Bank/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific
(ADB/OECD – 2000)
Organisations
Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development
 is a group of mostly wealthy and developed countries that work together to improve
their economies. They compare policies, share good ideas, and coordinate their actions.
The OECD is like a think-tank or monitoring group and is officially connected to the
United Nations. It is based in Paris, France. The member countries of the OECD
represent a large part of the global economy.
 The OECD started in 1948 as the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation
and became the OECD in 1961. Its goals include promoting economic growth,
cooperation, and fighting poverty while considering the environment. The OECD
publishes economic reports, makes recommendations, and works to stabilize the global
economy. It also fights against bribery, financial crimes, tax evasion, and maintains a
list of uncooperative tax havens.
 The OECD provides a platform for governments to work together and find solutions to
common problems. It has 36 member countries, including major economies like the
United States, Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The European Commission
is involved, and countries like Colombia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and South
Africa also participate in OECD activities as key partners.

Conventions:
Inter-American Convention against Corruption (OAS – 1996):
 This Convention fights corruption in the Americas.
 It strengthens measures to prevent, detect, punish, and eradicate corruption.
 Preventive measures and institutional modernization are important to address
corruption.
 Ongoing efforts are needed to combat corruption.
 Civil society plays a role, and countries cooperate and exchange experiences.
 The Convention facilitates extradition and obtaining evidence for corruption cases.
 It prevents bank secrecy from aiding corruption and investigates financial institutions.
 Asylum rights are protected while preventing its misuse to avoid corruption charges.
 Transnational bribery is addressed, making the Americas a leader in tackling this issue.
Convention on Combatting Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International
Transactions (OECD-1999):
 The OECD Convention targets bribery of foreign public officials in international
business.
 It has 36 Parties, including major trading countries.
 It requires equivalent anti-bribery measures but not identical laws.
 The OECD Working Group on Bribery monitors implementation through peer reviews.
 Phase 1 assesses national legislation, and Phase 2 examines practical application.
 Reports and recommendations are prepared for each Party based on the review findings.
Council of Europe Convention Against Corruption (COE-1999):
 The Council of Europe combats corruption through international cooperation.
 The Criminal Law Convention on Corruption covers various corrupt activities.
 An Explanatory Report provides additional explanations.
 Implementation is monitored by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO).
 GRECO conducts peer reviews and focuses on themes related to fighting corruption.
 Evaluation reports are available online.
  Other conventions related to corruption exist, including the Civil Law Convention on
Corruption and Conventions on Laundering, Search, Seizure, Confiscation, and
Terrorism Prevention.

African Union Convention on Preventing and Controlling Corruption (AU – 2003)

UN Convention against Corruption

 The UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) was adopted in 2003 as a global,
legally-binding instrument to address corruption.
 The Convention came into effect in December 2005 and has been ratified or acceded to
by 81 countries.
 The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has developed a Legislative Guide and
is preparing a Technical Guide to assist countries in implementing the Convention.
 The UNCAC is the most comprehensive international anti-corruption convention and
covers a wide range of corruption offenses, including bribery of public officials,
obstruction of justice, illicit enrichment, and embezzlement.
 The Convention also includes measures for prevention, international cooperation,
technical assistance, and asset recovery.
 Asset recovery is a key focus of the Convention, with provisions specifying cooperation
and assistance in returning embezzled public funds to the requesting state.
 While some provisions of the Convention are mandatory, many are optional and require
signatories to consider their implementation.
 The UNCAC includes a process for periodic review of its implementation by States
Parties, with discussions and decisions made during conferences of States Parties.

General Provisions
The first chapter of the Convention emphasizes three primary objectives:
 Enhancing measures to prevent and combat corruption with greater efficiency and
effectiveness.
 Facilitating international cooperation and providing technical assistance to prevent and
fight against corruption, including in the area of asset recovery.
 Promoting integrity, accountability, and responsible management of public affairs and
public property.

Preventive Measures: Chapter II

 Transparent and competitive public procurement systems.
 Transparency and accountability in public finance management.
 Merit-based civil service.
 Enhanced transparency in public administration, ensuring public access to information
and implementing auditing and accounting standards for the private sector.
 Independence of the judiciary and prosecutors.
 Active involvement of civil society, non-governmental organizations, and community-
based organizations in anti-corruption efforts.
 Measures to prevent money laundering.
Mandatory Provisions:
 Article 6: Establishment of independent anti-corruption bodies.
 Article 9: Implementation of transparent, competitive, and objective public
procurement and public finance management systems.
  Article 11: Strengthening integrity among members of the judiciary and the prosecution
service.
 Article 12: Promoting ethics, integrity, and transparency in the private sector through
measures like transparency among private entities, post-employment restrictions on
public officials, adoption of accounting and auditing standards, and establishment of
penalties at civil, administrative, and criminal levels.
Additional Mandatory Provisions:
 Article 13: Promoting active participation of civil society and non-governmental
organizations in anti-corruption efforts, including enhancing transparency, public
contribution to decision-making processes, ensuring public access to information, and
protecting freedom to seek, receive, and publish information about corruption.
 Article 14: Establishing regulatory and supervisory regimes to deter and detect money
laundering.

Criminalization and Law Enforcement: Implementation of the United Nations

Convention Against Corruption
Bribery in the Public Sector
 Bribery of national public officials (mandatory) – Article 15: Prohibits the act of bribing
national public officials.
 Bribery of foreign public officials and officials of international organizations
(mandatory) – Article 16: Prohibits the act of bribing foreign public officials and
officials of international organizations.
Diversion of property, trading in influence, abuse of functions and illicit enrichment
 Embezzlement, misappropriation, or other diversions of property by a public official
(mandatory) – Article 17: Criminalizes the act of public officials embezzling,
misappropriating, or diverting property.
 Trading in influence (non-mandatory) – Article 18: Optional provision that addresses
the act of engaging in influence peddling.
 Abuse of functions (non-mandatory) – Article 19: Optional provision that deals with
the misuse or abuse of official positions.
 Illicit enrichment (non-mandatory) – Article 20: Optional provision that addresses the
acquisition of wealth through illegal means.
Private Sector Offences
 Bribery in the private sector (non-mandatory) – Article 21: Optional provision that
prohibits bribery within private sector interactions.
 Embezzlement of property in the private sector (non-mandatory) – Article 22: Optional
provision that criminalizes the act of private sector embezzlement.
Money-laundering and related conduct
 Money laundering (mandatory) – Article 23: Requires the criminalization of the act of
money laundering.
 Concealment (non-mandatory) – Article 24: Optional provision that deals with the act
of concealing illegal activities or proceeds.
Obstruction of Justice
 Obstruction of justice (mandatory) – Article 25: Requires the criminalization of
obstructing the course of justice.

Asset Recovery
  Mutual legal assistance: The Convention requires States Parties to cooperate and assist
each other in cross-border corruption cases, including gathering and transferring
evidence for use in court (Article 46).
 Loosening of dual criminality requirement: Traditionally hindering cooperation, the
Convention relaxes the dual criminality requirement, allowing assistance even if the
alleged crime is not criminalized in both the requesting and requested countries.
 Transfer of sentenced persons: The Convention provides a legal basis (Article 45) for
the transfer of individuals convicted of corruption offenses between countries, even in
the absence of a bilateral extradition agreement.
 Extradition for corruption offenses: Article 44 of the Convention establishes a legal
foundation for extradition related to corruption offenses, enabling extradition between
countries without a specific bilateral agreement. However, this provision has seen
limited utilization by a few countries.

International cooperation plays a crucial role in combating global corruption due to the
following reasons:
 Cross-border Nature of Corruption: Corruption is not confined within national
boundaries and often involves actors from multiple countries. International cooperation
enables coordinated efforts to investigate and prosecute corrupt individuals and
networks that operate across jurisdictions.
 Sharing of Information and Intelligence: Countries can share valuable information
and intelligence related to corrupt practices, including money flows, illicit assets, and
corrupt networks. This exchange of information enhances the effectiveness of
investigations and helps uncover complex corruption schemes.
 Asset Recovery and Repatriation: Corrupt individuals often stash their ill-gotten assets
in foreign jurisdictions, making recovery and repatriation challenging. International
cooperation facilitates the tracing, freezing, and return of stolen assets, ensuring that
they are returned to their rightful owners or the affected country.
 Harmonization of Legal Frameworks: International cooperation helps in harmonizing
legal frameworks and standards related to corruption offenses, extradition, mutual legal
assistance, and asset recovery. This alignment simplifies the legal processes involved
in investigating and prosecuting corruption cases.
 Technical Assistance and Capacity Building: Developing countries may lack the
necessary resources, expertise, and infrastructure to effectively tackle corruption.
International cooperation provides technical assistance, training, and capacity-building
programs to strengthen institutions, improve governance, and enhance anti-corruption
measures.
 Deterrence and Prevention: Collaboration among nations sends a strong message that
corruption will not be tolerated globally. The collective efforts to investigate, prosecute,
and sanction corrupt individuals serve as a deterrent, discouraging potential wrongdoers
and promoting a culture of integrity and accountability.
 Strengthening International Norms and Standards: Through cooperation, countries
can collectively shape and strengthen international norms, conventions, and standards
related to anti-corruption efforts. This fosters a global consensus on the importance of
fighting corruption and helps establish a robust framework for addressing this pervasive
issue.
 Global Corruption and Good Governance
The Corruption Perception Index (CPI) is based on various data sources that capture different
manifestations of public sector corruption. The specific manifestations covered by the CPI
include:
 Bribery: The presence or prevalence of bribery, which involves the offering, giving,
receiving, or soliciting of something of value to influence the actions of public officials.
 Diversion of public funds: Instances where public funds are misused or diverted for
personal gain instead of being allocated for their intended public purposes.
 Officials using their public office for private gain without facing consequences: This
refers to situations where public officials abuse their positions for personal benefit, such
as embezzlement, kickbacks, or other forms of illicit enrichment, with limited or no
accountability.
 Ability of governments to contain corruption in the public sector: This aspect focuses
on the effectiveness of government efforts and measures in preventing and combating
corruption within the public sector.
 Excessive red tape in the public sector: Excessive bureaucratic procedures and
regulations in the public sector can create opportunities for corruption, as they may
increase interactions between officials and citizens, thereby potentially facilitating
corrupt practices.
 Nepotistic appointments in the civil service: This pertains to the practice of favoritism
in appointing individuals to positions within the civil service based on personal
relationships rather than merit or qualifications.
 Laws ensuring public officials disclose finances and conflicts of interest: The
existence and enforcement of legal provisions that mandate public officials to disclose
their financial holdings and potential conflicts of interest, promoting transparency and
accountability.
 Legal protection for whistleblowers: The presence of laws or mechanisms that provide
protection to individuals who report cases of bribery and corruption, safeguarding them
from retaliation or legal repercussions.
 State capture by narrow vested interests: State capture refers to situations where
powerful individuals or groups exert undue influence over the state apparatus to
advance their own interests, undermining fair governance and perpetuating corruption.
 Access to information on public affairs/government activities: The availability and
accessibility of information regarding public affairs and government activities, ensuring
transparency and accountability in decision-making processes.

The Nordic countries are known for having low levels of corruption, as highlighted in an anti-
corruption report by the European Commission. Several factors contribute to their success in
combating corruption:
 Efficient public administration: The Nordic countries have well-functioning and
efficient public administrations that prioritize transparency, accountability, and
integrity in their operations.
 Comprehensive services: These countries provide high-quality services to their citizens
and businesses, ensuring fair and equal treatment for all. This reduces the opportunities
for corruption to occur in public service delivery.
 Tradition of openness and transparency: The Nordic countries have a long-standing
tradition of openness and transparency in their societies and institutions. This culture
of transparency fosters an environment where corruption is less likely to thrive.
It is important to note that these factors work in synergy and are supported by a combination
of legal, institutional, and cultural practices. The success of the Nordic countries in combating
corruption is a result of their ongoing commitment to upholding ethical standards, fostering
transparency, and promoting a culture of integrity.

Corruption Issues
Corruption issues have significant implications in various areas, including internal security,
organized crime, and the disrespect of political and social institutions:
a) Internal Security:
 Corruption poses a fundamental threat to peace and security.
 It can both result from and contribute to conflicts by eroding the legitimacy of the
state.
 Diverting public goods, which is a major concern, can be a primary cause of internal
conflicts.
b) Organized Crime:
 Corruption fuels impunity and undermines the legitimacy of the state.
 It weakens the rule of law by influencing law enforcement agencies, courts, and the
prison system.
 This undermines the basic principle of equality before the law.
c) Disrespect of Political and Social Institutions:
 Public trust is crucial for compliance with public policies, such as public health
responses, regulations, and the tax system.
 Trust in institutions nurtures political participation and strengthens social cohesion.
 It also builds legitimacy for political and social institutions, fostering a stable and
functioning society.

Corruption and Good Governance

Corruption and good governance are interconnected concepts that involve institutions, power,
order, justice, and equity.
1. Governance and Institutions:
 Governance encompasses the relationship between institutions, power, and how
they function.
 It involves the effective enactment and implementation of public policies and
procedures.
 Institutions play a crucial role in ensuring legitimacy and accountability to the
citizens.
2. Power and Accountability:
 Good governance requires the responsible exercise of power and authority.
 It involves ensuring that those in positions of power act in the best interests of the
citizens and are accountable for their actions.
 Transparency and accountability are essential components of good governance.
3. Laws and Human Interaction:
 Laws are an integral part of governance as they regulate human and institutional
interactions.
 Effective laws contribute to social and economic development by providing a
framework for fair and just interactions.
  Laws shape the way individuals and institutions interact, promoting order and
stability in society.
4. Economic and Social Development:
 Good governance is crucial for economic and social development.
 It ensures that resources are managed efficiently and equitably, benefiting the
overall well-being of society.
 By promoting justice, equity, and effective public policies, good governance
contributes to the growth and progress of communities.

Good Governance
Good governance is a vital concept that encompasses various elements. Here’s a simplified
breakdown of the points mentioned by the World Bank and the United Nations:
1. Selection, Monitoring, and Replacement of Governments:
 Good governance involves a fair and transparent process for selecting and changing
governments.
 Governments should be accountable to the citizens, and their actions should be
monitored to ensure they serve the public interest.
2. Government Capacity for Sound Policies:
 Good governance requires governments to have the ability to develop and
implement effective policies.
 This involves formulating policies that benefit the society as a whole and ensuring
their successful implementation.
3. Respect for Institutions:
 Good governance involves citizens and the state showing respect for the institutions
that govern economic and social interactions.
 This includes valuing and upholding the rule of law, which provides a framework
for fairness, justice, and the protection of rights.
4. Guaranteeing Rights and Essential Services:
 According to the United Nations, good governance ensures that institutions
effectively safeguard rights such as health, housing, food, education, justice, and
personal security.
 Governments should work towards providing these essential services to all
individuals within their jurisdiction.
5. Core Elements of Good Governance:
 Transparency: Openness and accessibility of government actions, decisions, and
information.
 Integrity: Ethical behavior, honesty, and upholding moral principles.
 Lawfulness: Compliance with laws and regulations, ensuring fairness and justice.
 Sound Policy: Formulating effective policies that address societal needs and
challenges.
 Participation: Involvement of citizens in decision-making processes and policy
development.
 Accountability: Being answerable for actions, decisions, and the use of resources.
 Responsiveness: Governments being attentive and responsive to the needs and
concerns of citizens.
 Absence of Corruption and Wrongdoing: Fostering an environment free from
corrupt practices and unethical behavior.
Principles of Good Governance
1. Participation:
 All sectors of society should have the opportunity to be actively involved in
decision-making processes on important issues.
 Enabling environments should be created where relevant information is shared in a
timely manner, allowing people to express their opinions freely.
Social Accountability and Empowerment
 Active citizens play a crucial role in fighting corruption by raising awareness,
sensitizing the population, and holding politicians accountable through
monitoring.
 Social accountability means that public and private institutions respond to
societal concerns and willingly share information for public scrutiny.
Barriers to Citizen Participation
 Barriers that can hinder citizens from engaging in the fight against corruption
include lack of knowledge, resources, information, legal support, government
repression, censorship, and media control.
2. Rule of Law:
 The rule of law ensures the existence of legal frameworks, law and order, an
independent and effective justice system, enforcement of property rights and
contracts, implementation of human rights norms, and constitutional constraints on
executive power.
 Laws should be responsive, fair, and impartially enforced to meet the needs of
society.
3. Transparency:
 Transparency allows the scrutiny of decision-making processes by those in power
through the availability of information.
 It requires officials to make information accessible, and independent judiciary,
responsible press, and active civil society play important roles.
4. Responsiveness:
 Institutions and processes should serve all stakeholders promptly and appropriately,
protecting the interests of all citizens.
 It involves identifying and addressing discriminatory practices affecting minority
groups, promoting gender responsiveness, and ensuring the participation of all
genders in governance.
5. Accountability:
 Every person or group should be responsible for their actions, especially when they
affect the public interest.
 Decision makers in government, private sector, and civil society organizations
should be answerable to the public and other institutional stakeholders.
6. Consensus Orientation:
 Existing systems should serve the best interests of society, considering different
viewpoints and the potential impact on different groups.
 It requires taking into account diverse perspectives and reaching a common
understanding.
7. Government Effectiveness and Efficiency:
 Public service delivery should focus on quality and standardization.
 The bureaucracy should be professionalized, government efforts should prioritize
essential functions, and redundancies or overlaps in operations should be
eliminated.
 PUBLIC SERVANT

Y a private contractor has been won the tender for building a flyover in a city. Subsequently,
however, due to faulty material , the flyover collapses, Besided criminal sanctions, discuss
whether ‘Y’ can be classified as a public servant. What will be his liability

Definition of Public Duty : As per Section 2(b) of the POCA, 1988 ‘public duty’ means a duty
in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest.
In State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Shah the Supreme Court observed that evidently, the
language of Section 2(b) of the PC Act indicates that any duty discharged wherein State, the
public or community at large has any interest is called a public duty. Hence, this definition
should be extended to semi-Government authorities where the employees are entrusted with
public duty.

Definition of Public Servant: Additionally, as provided in Section 2(c)(i) any person in the
service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government by fees or commission
for the performance of any ‘public duty’ shall be considered as a ‘public servant’ under POCA.
In G.A. Monterio v. State of Ajmer it was held that genuine test to find out if a person is a
public servant is whether he is in pay or remuneration of Government and whether he is
endowed with the execution of a public duty and in case if both these preconditions are fulfilled
then the nature of office does not make a difference.
In it was observed in the case of Govt. of AP v. Venku Reddy, that while construing the
definition of “public servant” in Section 2(c) of POCA, the Court should adopt a purposive
approach as would give effect to the intention of the legislature.
In one case, BK Sen v. Babu Rajeshwari Prasad, a constable working in a court, accepted
gratification from certain witnesses on the inducement that the identification of property for
which they had come would be expedited. It was held that he was guilty. Whether a public
servant is in a position to do the official act, favor or service at the time of demand is immaterial.

Liability of Y
As per Section 13 of the POCA, a public servant commits the offense of criminal misconduct
if:
 They dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriate or convert for their own use any
property entrusted to them or under their control, or allow someone else to do so.
 They intentionally enrich themselves illicitly during their time in office.

Explanation 1: It is presumed that a person has intentionally enriched themselves illicitly if

they or someone on their behalf possess or have possessed, at any time during their tenure,
pecuniary resources or property that is disproportionate to their known sources of income, and
they cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for it.
Explanation 2: "Known sources of income" refers to income received from lawful sources.

Punishment: A public servant convicted of criminal misconduct is punishable by

imprisonment for a term not less than four years but may extend up to ten years, along with a
fine.

As per Section 13(b) of the POCA, a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
misconduct if the person intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office.
  Intentional Enrichment: As per the explanations laid down in the provision a person
shall be presumed to have intentionally enriched himself illicitly if he or any person on
his behalf, is in possession of or has, at any time during the period of his office, been
in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources
of income which the public servant cannot satisafattorily account for.
 Known Sources of Income: As per another explanation under the provision, the
expression ‘known sources of income’ means income received from any lawful source.
 Punishment: Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than 2 [four years] but which may
extend to 3 [ten years] and shall also be liable to fine.

Penalties for Illegal Gratification

Pelanty for Public Servant

 As per Section 7 of POCA, any public servant who obtains or accepts from any
person, an undue advatage, with the intention to perform his public duty dishonestly
or cease to perform his public duty at all or influence any other public servant in
dishonest performance of his public duty, shall be liable for the offence of bribery.
 It is immaterial whether such public servant obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain
the undue advantage directly or through another person.
 As per Section 7 such person receiving undue advantage in the form of illegal
gratification is liable for imprisonment for a term of mimum 3 years and maximum 7
years and fine.
 As per Explanation 1 added under Section 7 obtaining, accepting or attempting to
obtain an undue advantage is in itself an offence even if the performance of a public
duty in not improper.

Person Bribing

Pelanty for Person Bribing

 Section 8 of POCA provides that any person who give or promises to give an undue
advantage to another person with the intention to induce or reward a public to perform
public duty improperly commits the offence of bribery.
 It shall be immaterial whether the person to whom an undue advantage is given or
promised to be given is the same person as the person who is to perform, or has
performed, the public duty concerned
 Such person bribing a public servant shall be liable for imprisonment for upto 7 years
or fine or both.
 However, if a person is compelled to pay such undue advantage, and reports such
action to law enforcement authorities within 7 days from the date of giving the undue
advantage, the person shall not be held liable for bribery.
 Additionally, if a person after informing the law enforcement agencies, gives or
promises to give to another person undue advantage in the form of bribery, in order to
assist the law enforcement agencies in their investigation, shall not be held liable
under Section 7.
 If offence of bribery, as per Section 7, is committed by a commercial organization, such
organization shall only be liable to pay fine.
 Unlawfully Buying or Bidding of Property
Explain S. 169 IPC: Public Servant Unlawfully Buying or Bidding for property with the help
of relevant case laws

Section 169 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offense committed by a public
servant who unlawfully buys or bids for any property. This provision aims to prevent corruption
and abuse of power by public officials in matters related to property transactions. The section
makes such actions by public servants punishable under the law. This explanation will provide
an overview of Section 169 IPC along with relevant judicial interpretations and landmark
judgments.

Scope of 169 IPC

It is important to note that Section 169 IPC specifically applies to public servants. Private
individuals do not fall within the ambit of this provision. However, their actions may be
covered under other relevant sections of the IPC, such as cheating or criminal breach of trust.

Elements of Section 169 IPC

To establish the offense under Section 169 IPC, the following elements must be satisfied:
The accused must be a public servant.
The public servant must be legally bound not to purchase or bid for certain property.
The accused purchases or bids for the property in violation of the legal obligation.
The purchase or bid can be made in the accused's own name, in the name of another, jointly,
or in shares with others.

Interpretation and Judgments

R. Sai Bharathi v. J. Jayalalitha (Tansi case), it was held that in order to make a public servant
liable for unlawful purchase of property under Section 169, there must be some statutory law
or rules/regulations framed thereunder and not mere administrative instructions or guidelines
prohibiting a public servant from purchasing certain property. That the accused was a public
servant and the properties were purchased by the firm in which she was a partner, would. be
insufficient to establish a charge under Section 169.

Punishment
Punishment—Simple imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both and
Confiscation of property, if purchased—Non-cognizable—Bailable—Triable by
Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.