Combatting High‑level Corruption in Eastern Europe

The transition of Eastern European countries from communist regimes to democracy has been accompanied by economic and political transformations, but these processes were often marred by instability and institutional weaknesses, creating fertile ground for corruption to thrive on. In addition, weak rule of law and ineffective law enforcement have created a culture of impunity, where corrupt officials operate without fear of consequences.

This has provided opportunities, particularly in EaP countries, for politically well-connected business people (often known colloquially as “oligarchs”) to extend their reach beyond the economic sphere and exert influence on political and public institutions. In some Eastern European countries, these circumstances have also enabled avenues for organised criminal structures to cultivate and protect their illicit activities with the aid of corrupt officials. In turn, efforts to combat high-level corruption meet resistance from high-level officials and powerful stakeholders, who benefit from the status quo and undermine anti-corruption efforts either by ensuring that they do not prioritise the fight against high-level corruption, through subverting anti-corruption reforms or by weakening specialised institutional frameworks created to tackle this form of corruption.

Most Eastern European countries have yet to clearly define high-level corruption. It is vital that countries in the region send a strong political signal that tackling this problem is a priority of their anti-corruption agenda and that this is reflected in both their policy and strategic documents.

The growing trend in the region of creating specialised law enforcement and judicial anti-corruption institutions has proven to be an important step in combatting high-level corruption. The impact these institutions have is particularly felt in countries that have chosen to create an autonomous institutional ecosystem focusing on investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating high-level corruption.

However, to ensure that these specialised anti-corruption institutions are effective, it is important to provide them with, and to respect, the necessary level of independence and autonomy, sufficient resources and specialised staff for dealing with complex cases. These aspects remain an area of concern with respect to many countries in the region.

While some countries have begun to use modern tools for international co-operation in high-level corruption cases, such as joint investigative teams or parallel investigations, international co-operation is a key challenge for many specialised anti-corruption institutions, which must rely on other law enforcement agencies in order to carry out mutual legal assistance requests, and countries should look to ensure these institutions are able to independently formulate mutual legal assistance requests and engage with their foreign counterparts. Similarly, there is a need for specialised anti-corruption institutions to modernise their confiscation and asset recovery practices to be able to successfully recover illicit assets held by high-level officials abroad, and prosecute legal persons involved in complex corruption schemes.

Criminal justice institutions in many countries within the region encounter significant legislative challenges that act as substantial barriers to prosecuting high-level corruption cases. These hurdles encompass insufficient statutes of limitations and terms of pre-trial investigation, as well as complex regulations on the immunities of high-ranking officials. These issues necessitate diligent attention by enacting respective amendments aimed at fortifying combat against high-level corruption.

Several countries in the region have reinforced the capacity of their specialised anti-corruption institutions to detect high-level corruption by creating internal analytical departments, digitalising public registries (e.g. beneficial ownership, public procurement, asset declarations) and introducing whistleblower protection frameworks. However, in most countries, there is a need to further modernise and strengthen these institutional and legal frameworks. Efforts should be made to fully utilise the work of investigative journalists and the media along with the information collected through asset declarations, which present a valuable source for detecting high-level corruption.

Specialised anti-corruption institutions can also aim to develop coalitions or networks by engaging with civil society organisations, the media and businesses to counterbalance external pressure exerted over these institutions in particularly sensitive cases, maintain public trust in these institutions, which is a crucial element to their long-term survival, and bring about the reforms needed in order effectively combat high-level corruption.

International organisations assume an important role in supporting countries within the region in their endeavours to combat high-level corruption. Notably, in certain circumstances, such as European integration, the international community possesses substantial influence to advocate for a spectrum of economic, political and governance reforms within the region, including anti-corruption initiatives. This often leads to substantive legislative and institutional transformations. There is also an emerging practice of applying various international non-judicial restrictive measures to high-level or influential persons involved in serious corruption, which is often employed in the absence of appropriate law enforcement reaction in the jurisdictions of their origin where respective corruption actions were committed.