CORRUPTION

Interview with Jessica Tillipman
The Panama Papers have served as an impetus for change
around the world and, most recently, at the Anti-Corruption
Summit in the UK
International Affairs Forum
26
quite some time. The Panama Papers exposed
individuals and companies that had been hiding
assets and beneficial ownership information for a
variety of reasons, such as trying to avoid taxes,
attempting to conceal illicit activity, or even trying
to hide assets from divorce proceedings.
One of the easiest ways for individuals who
have benefitted from corruption to hide assets
is through off-shore anonymous companies.
In these cases, one anonymous company can
transfer funds to another anonymous company
and it is very hard to follow where the money
has actually gone. A very difficult aspect of anticorruption
prosecutions is following the money
because of the protections afforded to these offshore
anonymous accounts. Though, to be clear,
it is pretty easy to hide assets and establish
anonymous shell companies in the United States
as well.
Groups like Transparency International, Global
Integrity, Global Financial Integrity, and OXFAM
have been pushing for years to establish global
registries which would require companies to
disclose beneficial ownership information. The
release of the Panama Papers validated what
these organizations have been arguing for a
long time—that this is a serious problem and it
needs to be remedied. The Panama Papers have
served as an impetus for change around the
world and, most recently, at the Anti-Corruption
Summit in the UK. We have also seen a reaction
in the United States, where policies regarding
beneficial ownership have been discussed.
The Panama Papers also disclosed a lot of
information about people who have been hiding
money for years, some perfectly legally, some
not so legally. One of the interesting things
about the Panama Papers is that the reaction
from countries in which citizens have access
to information and a free media was vocal and
immediate. In Iceland, the Prime Minister had
to step down and David Cameron experienced
significant criticism for his father’s off-shore trust
in Panama. As I mentioned earlier, there was
little to no fallout in countries like China and
Russia where media is censored, civil society is
weak, and citizens have little recourse.
An important outcome from the Panama
Papers is that they have given prosecutors
and investigators a roadmap to trace funds,
companies, and records that may lead them to
illegal activity. Some of the individuals involved in
the FIFA scandals were mentioned in the release
of the Panama Papers, so that will certainly
be helpful to the US prosecution. Although the
Panama Papers have had a positive impact on
the global fight against corruption, there is still a
long road ahead and I don’t foresee prosecutions
in the near future.
Any final thoughts?
We have entered an interesting period in the
global fight against corruption. We have seen
several recent policy pronouncements from the
US government over the past year: not only
the Pilot Program, but the Yates Memorandum
as well. The “Yates Memo” has identified the
prosecution of individuals as a priority for the
Justice Department. Most FCPA cases involve