Illicit enrichment: are ministers exempt from its provisions?

Elie Ferzli –

It is not enough for the House of Representatives to pass the Illicit Enrichment Act today. The content of the law determines the seriousness of the legislator in the fight against corruption. Therefore, preventing ministers from taking criminal responsibility for any illicit enrichment process, under the pretext of violating the constitution, will be an excuse for theft.

The plenary session of the House of Representatives is held today in case the opportunity to form a government is missed for the foreseeable future. This means that the council must take the initiative to the greatest extent possible to meet the demands of the reform. It is true that it will not be able to issue reform decisions that were supposed to be issued by the previous government or that had been formed, including the appointment of an electricity regulator and the tendering of service stations … but Parliament has an important role in the approval of many reform laws, among which Capital Control and banking secrecy stand out. Public procurement, the independence of the judiciary, and the appointment of the Anti-Corruption Commission … are laws that, if passed, would have met the majority of donor demands that tie any aid or loan to pass these reforms.

The first item on the agenda for today’s legislative session is the Illicit Enrichment Bill. The idea is not new, it dates back to 1953. In that year the legislative decree was approved, which aimed at that time to combat the illicit enrichment obtained by the employee or the person in charge of the public service. In 1954, the legislative decree was followed by a law regarding the permits that must be presented. In practice, however, almost 50 years passed without the two laws being applied. Therefore, in 1999 a new law was enacted to combat illicit enrichment and the two previous laws were canceled, but the third legislation was intended to be the same as its predecessors, for two reasons: to impose a high bond on those who report ( 25 million pounds) and not criminalize illicit enrichment isolated from criminal or civil offenses. Where did the enrichment come from? After 21 years, a new proposal arises to combat illicit enrichment, which seeks to avoid the obstacles faced by the three previous laws, and seeks to identify itself with the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which Lebanon signed in 2008, and which He called on member states to enact laws that criminalize any increase. On the assets of any government employee in a way that you cannot justify.

Therefore, the project, which was approved by the joint commissions on June 3, 2020, includes a definition of criminal and civil crimes under which the employee and the person in charge of the public service acquire money illegally. It also specifies the penalty for this crime (from three to seven years with a fine of twenty million to one hundred million pounds, in addition to the seizure of the money from the convicted person), and obliges all public officials, judges and any public official to present a declaration of assets when beginning to work and upon termination of service, or When a complaint is received against you The law also determines the party to which the permit is deposited.

Canaan: illicit enrichment is not part of “labor obligations”

In the subcommittee that emanates from the mixed committees chaired by Deputy Ibrahim Kanaan, the first amendment touched the name of the law, so it became: “The law for the disclosure of disclosure and financial interests and the punishment of illicit enrichment ”, Confirming that permission is the key to implementing the law (prepared a form for the declaration). The committee also found that the collateral submitted by the complainant was reduced from £ 25 million to £ 3 million. He also highlighted the need for the crime of illicit enrichment to be considered outside the concept of breach of duties and subject to the jurisdiction of the Judiciary. This paragraph of article 11 of the project, although it was approved unanimously in the subcommittee, when it was transferred to the joint committees, a controversy arose in this regard. Some considered that it constitutes a violation of articles 70 and 71 of the constitution, so that “we will be facing a constitutional reform and not before a legal article of an ordinary law, with the need for this matter to adhere to the content of article 78 of the Constitution (speaking of the principles of constitutional reform) ”. This observation, which was mentioned in the report of the mixed committees, may be a minefield that detonated the fourth attempt to pass a law that criminalizes illicit enrichment. The commissions did not abandon this article, which was approved by the subcommittee, but neither ratified it. Rather, he left the matter to the general assembly, which will have to decide today. In article 70 of the constitution, it is indicated that if the minister or prime minister fails to fulfill their functions, the House of Representatives must accuse him, and the indictment can only be issued with a two-thirds majority, provided that the trial takes place before the Supreme Council to judge presidents and ministers. The chairman of the subcommittee, Ibrahim Kanaan, considers that financial crimes or illicit enrichment cannot be covered by the “labor obligations” referred to in article 70, since no constitutional text can complicate the process of the trial of a minister or responsible for a crime he has committed.