U

Summary

UNCAC Coalition

An international network of civil society organizations at the national, regional and international level advocating for the ratification, implementation and transparent and inclusive monitoring of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).

Founded in 2006 and based in Vienna, the UNCAC Coalition consists of around 350 civil society organizations from 100 countries. The Coalition concentrates on the convention's key issues including access to information, asset recovery, beneficial ownership transparency and protection of whistleblowers and anti-corruption activists. The Coalition further advocates for the recognition of the rights of victims of corruption, and the recognition of grand corruption as an international crime.

The Coalition holds events, publishes reports, develops policy proposals, and delivers guidance and training to governments and civil society about UNCAC. It also advocates for the inclusion of civil society in all UNCAC meetings and for the contribution of civil society organizations in the UNCAC review process, although some governments remain strongly resistant to this.

LR

Unexplained wealth

Assets held by a person that clearly exceed what they could reasonably be expected to own through lawful acquisition.

The closely-related concept of illicit enrichment is defined in Article 20 of United Nations Convention against Corruption as “a significant increase in the assets of a public official that he or she cannot reasonably explain in relation to his or her lawful income”.

BC

Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs)

A legal mechanism for non-conviction based asset forfeiture.

The presence of unexplained wealth can form the basis for civil or criminal action in cases where a predicate offence cannot be identified or proven. Civil powers such as “unexplained wealth orders” (UWOs) focus on assets rather than the conduct of individuals. Some jurisdictions favour the use of these tools over criminal seizure powers, as they provide for a “rebuttable presumption”. In such a scenario, assets are initially frozen and only deemed recoverable in cases where a respondent does not comply with a UWO. Such reverse burdens of proof have proved controversial due to a perceived incompatibility with a respondent's right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. The “rebuttal presumption” therefore has the advantage of providing an avenue for civil recovery of assets, as well as constituting an investigative tool for enforcement agencies, while preserving the rights of the respondent.