Transcript Proactive investigations

Public Management Research Conference
Proactive Investigations of Corruption:
(un)ethical aspects
Alexey Konov
National Research University – Higher School of Economics (Moscow, Russia)
June 4, 20011
Syracuse
Proactive 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. 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 2010
Operation Guard Shack – the largest
police corruption case in the FBI’s history
Cash for Access – 3 ex-ministers
caught in TV Sting Operation
FCPA Sting – the largest sting
operation against private companies
4
Research 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 investigations
Fundamental problems
Design issues
1. Do unethical means (e.g.
deception) may be used to achieve
ethical ends?
• Is it important for the circumstances
created in a sting operation to be as
similar as possible to real life?
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 “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 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 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