Uncovering Corruption: Strategies to Prevent the Concealment of Ill-Gotten Gains

In a report to the Government Inspectorate, voters from Da Nang city offered feedback on the government’s anti-corruption efforts. Specifically, they urged for more frequent and stringent implementation of anti-corruption measures. They also suggested considering additional sanctions and measures to recover ill-gotten assets and proposed stricter handling of corruption cases.

Additionally, voters recommended re-examining the mechanisms and processes for training and educating the Party’s cadre of officials. They also emphasized the importance of timely and transparent communication with citizens regarding the progress of corruption cases and asset recovery, to prevent misinformation and public unrest.

In response to the voters’ feedback, the Government Inspectorate acknowledged the ongoing efforts to recover assets, alongside the detection and strict handling of corruption and economic crimes. Authorities have focused on verifying and implementing measures to seize and freeze the assets of corruption offenders from the investigation stage onwards, preventing the legalization and dissipation of such assets. Additionally, they have encouraged voluntary repatriation of illicit assets and reparations for damages caused by corrupt acts.

According to the inspectorate, the 2018 Law on Anti-Corruption clearly states that corrupt assets must be recovered, confiscated by the state, or returned to their legitimate owners or managers. Asset recovery is considered one of the criteria for evaluating anti-corruption efforts. The law also emphasizes international cooperation in this regard, with Vietnamese authorities working alongside foreign counterparts to seize, freeze, confiscate, and repatriate corrupt assets to their rightful owners.

While asset recovery rates have improved year after year, the Government Inspectorate recognizes that it remains a challenge in Vietnam’s anti-corruption efforts. This is mainly due to the large amounts of money involved, the lack of assets or low-value assets of convicted individuals, the dissipation or concealment of assets during prolonged legal proceedings, and unclear asset ownership. In some cases, offenders have fled the country, and mutual legal assistance has faced obstacles.

To address these challenges and improve asset recovery rates, the inspectorate affirmed that authorities will continue to strengthen efforts to recover misappropriated assets in corruption and economic crime cases. This includes detecting and rectifying violations related to asset recovery, particularly in asset valuation and auction processes during enforcement. Enhanced coordination and proactive measures will be implemented to maximize the recovery of public assets lost to corruption and economic crimes.

The inspectorate also emphasized the importance of international cooperation in criminal proceedings for asset recovery, as well as receiving and processing foreign requests for legal assistance in recovering corrupt assets, and vice versa.

To prevent the dissipation of assets, the inspectorate suggested a combination of solutions, including improving the honesty and responsibility in asset and income declarations by officials, and imposing stricter penalties for violations in this regard. Additionally, they proposed promoting cashless transactions and reducing cash usage in high-value purchases to facilitate income monitoring and tracing of dissipated assets.