Public Management Research Conference

Proactive Investigations of Corruption:

(un)ethical aspects

June 4, 20011

Syracuse

Alexey Konov

National Research University – Higher School of Economics (Moscow, Russia)

Proactive investigationsProactive investigations

Definition:

Proactive investigation is a process of creating a controllable and observable situation that provides a targeted person with an opportunity for improper or illegal conduct.

Such terms as “proactive investigation techniques”, “sting operations”, “covert facilitation” or “undercover methods” are used interchangeably.

2

Effectiveness vs. EthicsEffectiveness vs. Ethics

Similar to other “confrontationless” crimes corruption offences are underreported.

Main reasons:

• Corruption frequently benefits all parties involved;

• Many types of corruption violations have no individual victim;

• When there are individual victims they could be afraid to report corruption.

3

Sting operations in 2010Sting operations in 2010

Operation Guard Shack – the largest police corruption case in the FBI’s history

FCPA Sting – the largest sting operation against private companies

Cash for Access – 3 ex-ministers caught in TV Sting Operation

4

Research goalsResearch goals

To understand the structure of the arguments against proactive investigations of corruption;

To offer new perspectives to discussing those arguments;

To show the decision-makers the objections they risk to meet when proposing certain solutions;

To rank different types of proactive investigations according to their ethical acceptability.

5

Ethical aspects of proactive investigationsEthical aspects of proactive investigations

Fundamental problems Design issues

1. Do unethical means (e.g. deception) may be used to achieve ethical ends?

2. Is it appropriate to hold a person morally responsible for the crime manufactured by investigator?

3. Is it appropriate to punish a person not for corruption, but for corruptibility?

• Is it important for the circumstances created in a sting operation to be as similar as possible to real life?

• Is “opportunity creation” is more appropriate than “offering a crime”?

• What inducements should be considered improper?

• What target selection strategies should be used?

• Whether invasion of privacy in a sting operation should be permitted?

6

Preliminary conclusionsPreliminary conclusions

Ethics of proactive investigations appears to be a promising topic for research within the administrative ethics field

In order to incorporate proactive investigations topic into administrative ethics it is necessary to bridge the gap that exists between administrative ethics literature and legal literature.

Analysis of fundamental ethical claims against proactive investigations frequently ends up with moral uncertainty and precludes that a choice should be made between competing values and doctrines.

The choice of one specific tactical solution from wide array of alternatives is frequently explained by its ability to mitigate fundamental ethical problems.

7

THANK YOU!

8

Punishment for corruptibilityPunishment for corruptibility

What exactly a person arrested in a sting operation is punished for?

He (she) does not bring actual harm but rather makes an (impossible) attempt to bring harm.

He (she) is punished for violation of a moral obligation manifested in an improper act and threatening to infringe publicly protected interests.

Is it appropriate to punish for corruptibility?

Compliance-integrity continuum may provide a possible solution.

Punishment of those arrested in sting operations appears to be more appropriate within an integrity paradigm than within a compliance paradigm.

9