News and blog
Read and listen to news, insights and ideas from our team and global partners
Progress towards open blockchain intelligence standards for investigations, compliance and supervision
Investigating corruption and other financial crimes often requires authorities in different countries to piece together information held by different agencies and private companies. Recovering the proceeds depends on their ability to share, understand and act on that information. When cryptoassets are involved, blockchain intelligence tools can help investigators trace funds and identify links to individuals or services. But agencies may use different tools, each with its own terminology, data formats and analytical methods. Comparing findings or passing an investigation to another authority can involve substantial additional work. Shared standards would make this cooperation easier. Developing them requires technical expertise and sustained engagement among stakeholders with different responsibilities, interests and needs. Not an easy task, but essential if we are to keep up with the speed and global scale of financial crime involving cryptoassets. A breakout session at the 10th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets in Luxembourg examined progress towards these standards, building on a previous breakout at the 2025 conference in Vienna. Breakout organisers Bernhard Haslhofer and Allison Owen of the Complexity Science Hub Vienna contributed to this Q&A on the discussion and next steps in the Open Blockchain Intelligence Standards initiative. Why does standardisation need a collective effort? Investigators need findings they can share across borders and use in court. Supervisors and cryptoasset service providers CASPs need information they can rely on for risk assessments and compliance decisions. Tool providers need to meet those requirements while protecting their methods and commercial interests. Agreeing standards means working through these needs together. Technical experts can propose definitions and formats, but the people producing and using the information need to help shape them. The Basel Institute on Governance brings these stakeholders together through the Global Conference, co-organised with Europol and UNODC and hosted in 2026 by the Luxembourg Bureau de gestion des avoirs. It provides a neutral platform to discuss problems openly and work on practical solutions. This reflects the approach behind anti-corruption Collective Action: bringing private-sector and other stakeholders together around a shared need, even where their interests differ. All major tool providers were in the room and actively engaged, alongside public authorities and other specialists. There was clear interest in the work and plenty to discuss, though reaching agreement will require continued participation. Isn’t variety in the blockchain analytics industry good for innovation and competition? Yes – but there is a big “but”. Without shared standards, providers use different terms and definitions to describe similar information, and present it in different formats. These differences impose a “translation tax”: the time and resources needed to compare outputs, explain terminology and reconcile findings across tools. This does not necessarily stop an investigation, but it can slow cooperation and create unnecessary work. Standardisation does not mean giving up companies’ ability to innovate and compete or disclose their “secret sauce”. Common terminology and data formats would make their outputs easier to compare and review while allowing providers to retain their own methods. Who needs blockchain intelligence standards? Everyone who produces or uses blockchain intelligence, though for different reasons: - Investigators: Common data formats and terminology would make it easier to share findings between tools, and to improve inter-agency and cross-border cooperation. - Policymakers: Requirements to use blockchain analytics tools need clear definitions and meaningful criteria for assessing their quality and suitability. A topical example is a reference in the U.S. Clarity Act to “industry standard distributed ledger-analytics tools”, when no such industry standard currently exists. - Expert witnesses, prosecutors and judges: Consistent terminology and clearer documentation would help all parties understand and scrutinise blockchain intelligence used in court, including the defence. - Supervisors: Data from blockchain intelligence platforms can feed into a risk-based approach for supervision of CASPs. Standard data formats and terminology would ease automation and the efficiency of this process. - CASPs: Exchanges and other cryptoasset service providers need to understand the basis for findings that inform compliance decisions. If their tool produces different findings from a supervisor’s tool, they need to know why. What progress has there been? At the breakout, providers described efforts to make the sources and reasoning behind their findings more transparent, improve attribution reports and preserve supporting material. Attribution is the link between a blockchain address and a real-world individual or entity, such as a sanctioned actor or an exchange. There has also been progress in publishing definitions and documenting how addresses, wallets and their operators are described. These contributions are useful, but individual providers’ approaches do not yet amount to shared standards. What is the Open Blockchain Intelligence Standards initiative? Bernhard Haslhofer presented the initiative, which includes draft terms and definitions for: - Basic blockchain concepts: Objects such as addresses and transactions. - Custody and control: Who holds the cryptographic keys used to control assets and on whose behalf. - Wallet roles: How wallets are used, for example to receive deposits or hold funds. - Computational methods: How addresses are grouped or “clustered” on the assumption that they are controlled by the same entity. - Attribution: How an address or group of addresses is linked to a real-world entity, and what supports that link. The aim is to develop standards that work for all stakeholders while respecting companies’ proprietary methods and intelligence. What are the next steps? The immediate priority is to refine the shared vocabulary through contributions from tool providers, public authorities, CASPs and technical experts. The open process, which is planned to continue over the next months with both live meetings and discussions on GitHub, will allow contributors to discuss drafts, challenge definitions and work towards agreement. Further work will be needed to test and implement the standards. This work to develop open standards and interoperability dovetails with an initiative of the Global Coalition to Fight Financial Crime and its Digital Asset Task Force. Presented by DATF Co-Chair Dimitrij Gede during the breakout, the Attribution Center concept aims to make attribution data available to public authorities such as financial intelligence units and law enforcement agencies. With access to more comprehensive information attributing crypto wallets to read-world entities, they would more easily be able to identify illicit activity and produce actionable intelligence from suspicious transaction reports. Agreed standards and interoperability are essential to making that ambitious idea a reality. We hope that both projects succeed, and fast. Learn more - Interested in contributing to the standards project? Check out the OBIS web page and related GitHub forum. - Learn more about the 10th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets
Peru and Ecuador join forces against transnational organised crime
The Attorneys General of Peru and Ecuador have signed an agreement establishing a joint investigation team to pursue a major transnational organised crime investigation spanning both countries. Signed on 29 September 2026 in Peru’s Sacred Valley, on the margins of the General Assembly of the Ibero-American Association of Public Prosecutors AIAMP , the agreement culminates a complex bilateral process supported by the Basel Institute on Governance’s International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR . ICAR already provides technical assistance to the investigations in Peru and Ecuador and will continue that support within the joint framework. Why is a joint investigation team needed? It helps solve a simple but increasingly urgent problem. Organised criminal groups can operate across borders as integrated structures, while criminal justice systems remain largely confined within national boundaries. Those boundaries can become barriers to effective prosecution in complex transnational cases. Joint investigation teams help narrow that gap by enabling prosecutors and investigators from different jurisdictions to plan investigative steps, coordinate evidence gathering and develop a common strategy. A high-level commitment to investigate together The agreement was signed during a closed high-level session held alongside the AIAMP meeting, bringing together senior prosecutors and international cooperation officials from both countries. Peru was represented by Attorney General Tomás Gálvez, together with senior prosecutors responsible for international cooperation, organised crime and asset recovery. Ecuador was represented by Acting Attorney General Leonardo Alarcón and the head of the prosecution service’s international affairs office. ICAR’s Latin America team facilitated the session and will continue supporting implementation under its longstanding cooperation frameworks with the prosecution services of both countries. Attorney General Tomás Gálvez emphasised: The agreement is important, but it is only the starting point. What matters now is that the authorities trust each other and work together. These criminal organisations do not respect borders, and neither country can face them alone. We need close and constant cooperation. If we do not act now, violence will continue to grow, citizens will be at greater risk and the State will lose control in places where criminal groups are already trying to impose their own rules. Gálvez also thanked the Basel Institute for its longstanding support and for helping to facilitate and provide technical assistance to the establishment of the joint investigation team. Acting Attorney General Leonardo Alarcón likewise emphasised the importance of sustained institutional backing. Thanking his Peruvian counterparts for their reception, he committed the Ecuadorian prosecution service to supporting an investigation whose scale and cross-border character require close cooperation between the two institutions. Alarcón asked his international cooperation team to maintain close coordination on the case and acknowledged ICAR’s contribution to bringing the two prosecution services together around the new investigative framework. In depth: Joint investigation teams in Latin America Joint investigation teams represent a welcome development in investigative practice, particularly for complex cases that cannot be effectively addressed within the boundaries of a single jurisdiction. Putting them into practice in Latin America, however, is not always straightforward. Unlike Europe, the region has no harmonised legal framework governing their establishment and operation. Each arrangement must therefore be built around the applicable international instruments and the procedural rules of the participating countries. This requires a careful balance. Joint work must respect the powers, procedures and safeguards of each sovereign State while remaining consistent with international standards of cooperation. That balance is not always easy to achieve, but it is particularly important where the seriousness and urgency of the crimes under investigation demand a faster and more integrated response. Challenges around evidence Evidence provides a good example of trying to strike that balance in practice. A joint investigation can make its collection and exchange considerably more direct, but this must be accompanied by clear rules on documentation, chain of custody and procedural safeguards. Evidence gathered jointly must ultimately withstand scrutiny before a court and be capable of resisting challenges by the defence. Otherwise, a criminal trial intended to determine guilt and responsibility risks becoming a lengthy dispute over whether the evidence can be admitted or relied upon at all. Cross-border cooperation under review Procedural regulation of joint investigation teams remains limited in many countries in the region. In addition, the existence of an agreement to investigate jointly does not, by itself, remove the requirements that normally govern international criminal cooperation between sovereign States. Depending on the measure involved, issues such as dual criminality, specialty, judicial authorisation and other procedural safeguards may still need to be satisfied. How these principles apply will have to be assessed case-by-case as the joint investigation develops, particularly where evidence is intended for use before national courts. In Peru, experience from this and other cases has already informed a proposal, technically supported by the Basel Institute, to introduce specific provisions on joint investigation teams into the Criminal Procedure Code, making use of the Attorney General’s power to submit legislative initiatives. The aim is to provide greater legal certainty for future joint investigations while preserving the flexibility that makes the mechanism useful in practice. Asset recovery built into the joint investigation A notable feature of the agreement is that asset recovery is incorporated into the joint investigative framework from the outset. Under the agreement, Peru and Ecuador established a common framework on how to coordinate the identification, tracing, securing and eventual confiscation of assets across both jurisdictions, rather than leaving these questions to a later stage of the investigation. This gives practical effect to a principle widely recognised in organised crime investigations across the region: disrupting criminal organisations also means targeting the financial structures that sustain them. Oscar Solórzano emphasised: In the face of increasingly complex and global crime, cooperation between states is the only way to respond effectively. We need to make efficient use of all the bilateral and regional cooperation mechanisms at our disposal and overcome the traditional dichotomy between criminals operating in an organised fashion and criminal justice systems operating in silos. That is the spirit of this joint investigation team. The aim is to achieve concrete results through coordinated operations and procedures that enable us to go after criminal networks and, at the same time, dismantle the financial structures that sustain them.” In a cross-border investigation, a coordinated asset recovery strategy allows authorities to assess, as the case develops, which legal tools available in each jurisdiction offer the best prospect of tracing, securing and ultimately recovering assets. Clear rules can also help them anticipate how measures will be coordinated and how confiscated assets may eventually be disposed of or shared under the applicable legal framework. Broader relevance to asset recovery outcomes in Latin America For ICAR and the wider Basel Institute, this is particularly relevant. Our long-standing work on asset recovery and international cooperation in Latin America provides a strong basis for this more integrated form of support. It also requires closer links with partners that can help address practical challenges arising in joint investigations. The Basel Institute is currently concluding a memorandum of understanding with IberRed aimed at strengthening support for the secure exchange and transfer of information and evidence. These efforts reflect how ICAR combines operational support with applied knowledge drawn from real cases and cooperation processes. Learn more - See the Peruvian Government press release in Spanish : Ministerio Público y Fiscalía General de Ecuador conforman equipo conjunto contra la criminalidad organizada transnacional. - Learn more about the Basel Institute's asset recovery work and current programmes in Latin America.
Diagnosing priorities for stronger asset recovery in Romania
A new diagnostic by the Basel Institute on Governance’s International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR will help Romania target reforms and technical assistance to strengthen its ability to recover illicit assets. The report, Enhancing and Modernising the Romanian Asset Recovery System, was presented at an event hosted by Romania’s National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets ANABI in Bucharest in September 2026. It provides an independent assessment of the system and recommendations to improve its effectiveness. The event brought together senior Romanian officials and Swiss partners, reflecting high-level support for strengthening the asset recovery system. Participants included Switzerland’s Ambassador to Romania, Massimo Baggi, State Secretary at the Ministry of Justice Ioan Turc and ANABI Director General Elena Grăniceru, alongside representatives of national authorities, European and international partner institutions and civil society. Understanding the barriers to asset recovery To target support where it is most needed, ICAR experts examine how institutions recover assets in practice and what holds them back. The approach examines gaps against European and international standards alongside their underlying causes and the national context. In Romania, this involved desk research, interviews with practitioners and a follow-up visit to validate the findings with national authorities. The assessment covers the full asset recovery process, from investigation and asset tracing to confiscation, management and disposal. Romania has made significant progress, including establishing ANABI and developing the ROARMIS digital system for monitoring seized and confiscated assets. Yet a gap remains between the value of confiscation orders and the amounts ultimately recovered. The report examines contributing factors across the system, including constraints on financial investigations, fragmented asset management responsibilities and limited integration of information systems. Understanding these connections helps authorities and donors identify priorities and direct resources where they can make the greatest difference. It also supports reforms that strengthen cooperation between institutions and improve the system as a whole. Priorities for Romania’s next phase of reform The recommendations will inform Romania’s implementation of the new EU Directive on asset recovery and confiscation and its national asset recovery strategy for 2027–2031. Elena Grăniceru, Director General of ANABI, stated: Today's event brought together, around the same table, all the institutions involved in the identification, seizure, confiscation, management and recovery of the proceeds of crime, alongside our Swiss, European and international partners. The assessment carried out by the experts of the Basel Institute on Governance provides us with an objective benchmark for strengthening Romania's asset recovery system, and our partners' commitment to continue supporting us confirms the strategic nature of this undertaking. ANABI will continue to work with all competent institutions to translate the recommendations into concrete measures. ICAR Director Iker Lekuona confirmed our ongoing assistance: It was a privilege to conduct this assessment, building on our first review of Romania's asset recovery system in 2013. More than a decade on, it is really encouraging to see the progress Romania has made. Commissioning an independent assessment and making its findings public is a further demonstration of the Romanian authorities' commitment to continuous improvement. We look forward to continuing to support them in building an increasingly effective, coordinated and sustainable asset recovery system. How ICAR helps strengthen asset recovery systems The Romanian diagnostic illustrates how ICAR combines legal and operational expertise with a detailed understanding of national institutions to tailor its support. ICAR provides similar hands-on technical assistance to more than 40 agencies across two dozen countries worldwide. The diagnostic forms part of the Swiss-Romanian Cooperation Programme, supported by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. The initiative also includes training and eLearning programmes for practitioners. Learn more - Read the report on ANABI’s website. - Learn about ICAR’s train-the-trainer programme for Romanian practitioners. - See how ICAR has supported Romanian authorities in developing high-quality eLearning courses.
Keeping business integrity in motion: building trust and resilience through Collective Action
What happens when different stakeholders, such as businesses, governments, civil society, international organisations and academia come together around shared integrity challenges? The 6th International Collective Action Conference, held in Basel in June 2026, offered a powerful answer: Collective Action gives actors the conditions they need to tackle integrity challenges together that no single one of them could address alone. Under the theme “Business integrity in motion,” the conference brought together 154 participants from 103 organisations across more than 40 countries – a mix that reflects a central reality of today’s integrity landscape: corruption cuts across borders, sectors and institutions, so isolated responses rarely go far enough. Collective Action pools the knowledge, resources and influence of different actors around shared challenges and creates opportunities to address them together. This was at the heart of the opening keynote by Hanne Juncher, Director of Security, Integrity and Rule of Law at the Council of Europe: Collective Action is not just one tool among many. It is one of the most effective responses we have to corruption in today’s interconnected world. The discussions throughout the conference explored what it takes to translate that potential into practice – from the role of boards in driving business integrity and the opportunities and risks of technology, to measuring compliance and incentivising integrity among SMEs. Celebrating those who put Collective Action into motion The International Collective Action Awards provided a tangible illustration of this approach. The 2026 winners showed two complementary ways of driving change. Developing practical solutions to concrete integrity challenges The 2026 Collective Action Inspirational Newcomer Award went to CoST Malawi, for its Infrastructure Transparency Initiative Red Flags Algorithm – an initiative that brings together diverse stakeholders and uses technology to strengthen transparency and accountability in infrastructure governance. The initiative demonstrates how collaboration can become a practical tool for identifying and addressing integrity risks. By bringing actors together around public infrastructure data and developing and embedding a tailored algorithm into its publicly available infrastructure procurement platform, CoST Malawi is helping shift transparency from simply publishing information towards actively using data to identify potential risks and strengthen accountability. For the CoST Malawi team, the recognition was about much more than an award: This award is a proud moment for the CoST Malawi team and a testament to what can be achieved when diverse stakeholders unite around a common purpose. Collective Action is at the heart of the CoST approach, and this recognition reflects the commitment, dedication and partnership of everyone involved in promoting transparent, inclusive and accountable infrastructure governance in Malawi. Building the networks, capabilities and trust needed to sustain change The Gretta Fenner Outstanding Achievement in Collective Action Award went to the Alliance for Integrity, in recognition of its sustained contribution to advancing Collective Action and promoting business integrity. In particular, for building one of the world’s largest business integrity Collective Action networks encompassing companies, business associations, governments and civil society organisations across 16 countries. Through it, they have supported hundreds of trainers and companies in strengthening compliance and anti-corruption practices, with a strong focus on SMEs. The work of Alliance for Integrity demonstrates how networks connect actors who might otherwise work in isolation, while training builds the capacity to act and sustained engagement helps build the trust needed for collaboration to continue. As Alliance for Integrity reflected after the award: We are deeply honoured that the Alliance for Integrity won the Gretta Fenner Outstanding Achievement in Collective Action Award. While the award was presented to the Secretariat, we see it as recognition of the entire Alliance for Integrity network, including our regional hubs, local partners, trainers, companies and all those who contribute their time, expertise and commitment to advancing business integrity. The Secretariat holds the award, but it represents the collective work of our network. That is why the award is now travelling across our hubs and communities. It has already been to Paraguay and South Africa, with many more stops to come. Each stop is an opportunity to celebrate the people and partnerships that make the Alliance what it is, and to recognise the importance of local engagement in turning Collective Action into meaningful change. For us, the award is a shared symbol of the work being done across the network. It belongs to everyone who contributes to building trust, strengthening capacity and bringing businesses, governments and civil society together around a shared commitment to integrity. We are proud to hold it at the Secretariat, but even more proud to share it with the network that made this recognition possible. Together, the two winners demonstrate different ways Collective Action can create meaningful change. CoST Malawi built a new solution and showed how collaboration can generate innovative responses to specific integrity risks. Alliance for Integrity showed how building the relationships and capacity can create the conditions for change to take hold. From conversation to continued collaboration The conference gave participants room for discussion, opportunities to build relationships and explore further collaboration. Practitioners and researchers exchanged experiences across countries and sectors with a focus on how Collective Action initiatives can remain relevant, adaptable and impactful over time. The conference was supported by a diverse group of organisations from across the global Collective Action community of practice, including the Alliance for Integrity, TEID, Maritime Anti-Corruption Network MACN , UNODC, OECD, Transparency International and UN Global Compact. Their support, alongside that of the Siemens Integrity Initiative and conference sponsors AtkinsRéalis and Koenig & Bauer Banknote Solutions SA, reflected the breadth and strength of the community coming together to advance Collective Action. As the conference closed, one message stood out: business integrity is increasingly a collective endeavour. Tackling corruption and strengthening trust requires actors to move beyond isolated commitments and find practical ways to work together. The challenge for all of us now is to keep momentum going – expanding partnerships, adapting to new challenges and turning collaboration into lasting improvements for businesses, governments and citizens. Learn more ::: links - Report from the 6th International Collective Action Conference - Collective Action at the Basel Institute :::
Peru to reform key asset recovery law with Basel Institute support
Peru’s Attorney General, Tomás Gálvez, has established a multidisciplinary Commission to propose comprehensive reform of the country’s non-conviction based forfeiture framework. The Basel Institute on Governance has been appointed as the Technical Secretariat to the commission, as an extension of our longstanding cooperation with Peru’s Public Prosecutor’s Office Ministerio Público del Perú . Non-conviction based forfeiture – in Peru in the form of extinción de dominio legislation – allows the state to recover assets linked to illicit activity outside of criminal proceedings. By preventing criminal wealth from being hidden, transferred or reinvested, it can strengthen asset recovery and help disrupt the financial foundations of organised crime and corruption. About the Commission Chaired by the Attorney General, the Commission brings together senior prosecutors and representatives of institutions responsible for financial intelligence, law enforcement, asset recovery, taxation and public registries. It will also hear directly from specialised prosecutors, lawyers, judges and academics about the challenges they face and their proposals for reform. The Commission will meet twice a week and aims to produce a legislative proposal within three months. Its broad and inclusive approach is designed to deliver legislation that is both effective and respectful of human rights. Technical assistance for legal reforms Oscar Solórzano, Head of Latin America for the Basel Institute’s International Centre for Asset Recovery, will serve as the Commission’s Technical Secretariat, together with Deputy Head Walther Delgado. This is an important opportunity to support a balanced reform that strengthens Peru’s ability to recover illicit assets while upholding due process, protecting legitimately acquired property and reflecting international standards. These are critical aspects to ensure the law’s legitimacy, as Oscar Solórzano argued in 2024 in a Working Paper: Targeting illicit wealth through non-conviction based forfeiture: Identifying human rights and other standards for Latin America. Timeline of Peru’s non-conviction based forfeiture law The journey of Peru’s extinción de dominio framework makes an interesting case study in the development and use of laws designed to help combat corruption and organised crime. The Basel Institute has been closely involved for more than a decade, under programmes of the Swiss SECO-funded Programa GFP Subnacional, whose asset recovery activities are coordinated by Sergio Jiménez Niño, and the Basel Institute’s International Centre for Asset Recovery. The Peruvian experience provides a concrete example of a non-conviction based confiscation system that, following a period of significant implementation, is now undergoing a process of reassessment and adaptation in response to a substantial legal and political backlash framed largely around constitutional guarantees, due process and the protection of fundamental rights. The following timeline provides some insight and sets the context for the debates to come: 2018–2023: Building and testing a specialised system Peru’s current extinción de dominio framework was established by Legislative Decree 1373 in 2018, replacing the previous pérdida de dominio regime with an autonomous, property-based judicial process for recovering assets linked to illicit activity without requiring a prior criminal conviction. A specialised judicial and prosecutorial system was subsequently established across the country. Over the following years, the framework moved from legislation to practice. Prosecutors and judges developed experience, jurisprudence emerged and institutions worked to harmonise criteria. The Basel Institute supported this process through training, technical advice, case-based assistance, international cooperation and the development of reference material such as a two-part Compendium of Jurisprudence on Extinción de Dominio. The team also organised national conventions for specialised prosecutors and judges to harmonise understanding and application of the law across Peru. The system delivered significant results, recovering assets worth well hundreds of millions in US dollars and allowing Peruvian decisions to be recognised and enforced in several cases internationally. But implementation also brought difficult legal and practical questions to the surface, particularly concerning the autonomy of extinción de dominio from criminal proceedings, property rights, temporal application, evidentiary rules and procedural safeguards. 2024–2025: Constitutional scrutiny and legislative change In 2024, a constitutional challenge brought by Peru’s Ombudsman placed central elements of Legislative Decree 1373 before the Constitutional Court. At the same time, Congress was considering substantial legislative changes to the system. The Basel Institute set out technical arguments to inform the discussion, among others in public articles and a series of recorded debates. In May 2025, Law 32326 substantially amended the framework. The changes affected, among other things, the autonomy and scope of extinción de dominio, evidentiary requirements and limitation periods. The Public Prosecutor’s Office subsequently challenged the constitutionality of several of those amendments – a pending case that remains relevant to the current reform process. Then came Judgment 135/2025 of the Constitutional Court. The Court declared parts of the original framework unconstitutional and established binding interpretative criteria on issues including property rights, due process and the relationship between extinción de dominio and criminal proceedings. It ruled, in particular, that Legislative Decree 1373 could only apply to circumstances occurring after its entry into force. Importantly, the judgment did not bring extinción de dominio to an end. It established constitutional limits that the reform must respect, while also leaving room for legislative choices on important aspects of the system. 2026: From successive changes to comprehensive reform This is the legal and institutional landscape inherited by the new Commission. It must consider: - the original architecture of Legislative Decree 1373; - the amendments introduced by Law 32326; - the binding constitutional parameters established by Judgment 135/2025; and - the unresolved constitutional questions concerning the 2025 amendments. Beyond correcting individual provisions of the law, the Commission must grapple with the question: What model of non-conviction based forfeiture should Peru have, taking into account its constitutional framework, international standards and the criminal reality the mechanism is intended to address? Four areas at the heart of the reform The Commission has organised its work around four thematic areas. Each addresses a set of issues that has emerged from the experience of applying the law, the legislative changes and the Constitutional Court’s judgment. 1. Nature, scope and autonomy What should be the purpose and scope of non-conviction based forfeiture? When should it be available, what assets should it cover and how autonomous should it remain from criminal proceedings? The discussion also concerns its relationship with conviction-based confiscation and other asset recovery mechanisms. 2. Temporal application, legal certainty and protection of rights How should the framework address temporal application and limitation periods while protecting property and fair trial rights, bona fide third parties and victims? What consequences should subsequent criminal decisions have for assets already forfeited? 3. Procedure, evidence and due process What rules are needed for financial investigations, interim measures, burdens and standards of proof, rights of defence and judicial review? These questions go directly to how an effective asset recovery mechanism can operate within clear procedural guarantees. 4. Effectiveness International cooperation, enforcement and asset management. A successful system must also work beyond the courtroom. This area covers international cooperation, recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions, early information exchange, execution of confiscation decisions, management and preservation of assets, restitution and asset sharing, and coordination between the institutions involved in the asset recovery process. The Commission is addressing these areas progressively. It began in September by listening to specialised extinción de dominio prosecutors from across Peru about the problems encountered in practice and the effects of the legislative reform and the Constitutional Court judgment. National and international experts are then being invited to examine the different thematic areas before the Commission moves into deliberation and legislative drafting. Value of a multidisciplinary, participatory approach This approach is particularly valuable because many of the questions now being examined in Peru are not new. The autonomy of non-conviction based forfeiture, its relationship with criminal proceedings, retroactivity, property rights, evidentiary standards and due process have historically been among the main grounds on which such systems have been questioned around the world. What makes the Peruvian experience unusual is the possibility of observing these questions in real time. Rather than examining them retrospectively, the Commission can consider how they have arisen in a mature system, listen to those who have applied the law, hear different legal and institutional perspectives and assess possible solutions while the framework itself is being reconsidered. In that sense, Peru provides a particularly interesting opportunity to revisit in practice issues that have accompanied non-conviction based forfeiture internationally for decades. These are also central to the Basel Institute’s Working Paper 54: Targeting illicit wealth through non-conviction based forfeiture: Identifying human rights and other standards for Latin America, which examines how effectiveness, human rights, procedural safeguards and international standards can be reconciled in the design and application of these mechanisms. A reform against the clock The Commission is working under an exceptionally demanding timeframe. It has only three months to develop a comprehensive proposal on issues involving constitutional rights, criminal policy and the practical effectiveness of asset recovery. The short deadline reflects a deliberate sense of urgency. After months in which the reform process had largely stalled, Attorney General Tomás Gálvez has decided to use his legislative initiative to move it forward and seek a workable proposal as quickly as possible. Organised crime and illicit economies have not stood still in the meantime, and Peru needs an effective legal framework to target the assets that sustain them. That urgency is also reflected in the way the Commission is working. It meets twice a week, bringing together specialised prosecutors and national and international experts to examine the four thematic areas, test different approaches and progressively build consensus. The methodology requires intensive legal and comparative analysis, but also negotiation between different institutional perspectives within a highly compressed timeframe. The task is difficult precisely because both considerations are real: the urgency of strengthening Peru’s response to organised crime, and the need to ensure that the resulting framework is constitutionally sound, effective and sustainable.
Latin American practitioners join forces against evolving financial crime
Cryptoassets are transforming the work of investigators, prosecutors and asset recovery specialists across Latin America. At a dedicated workshop in Luxembourg, more than 30 practitioners came together to share how they are responding to the challenge – with practical solutions, strong regional leadership and a readiness to learn from one another. The workshop was co-organised by the Basel Institute on Governance and the UK National Crime Agency NCA . It was hosted by Luxembourg’s Bureau de gestion des avoirs as a side event to the 10th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets. Participants came from prosecution services, police forces, financial intelligence units, supervisory authorities and the judiciary. As members of the Latin America Crypto Community of Practice, they share a determination to confront the rapid growth of cryptoassets and their exploitation by organised crime. Regional leadership in action The workshop placed the region’s own expertise at its centre. Practitioners from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Peru presented cases involving cryptoassets and asset recovery. They shared the approaches they had tested, the obstacles they had encountered and the lessons they had learned. The discussions reflected the tremendous effort taking place across Latin America. Practitioners are tackling complex technical, legal and operational questions, often while the risks, technologies and criminal methods continue to evolve. Maria Cordeiro, Senior Specialist, Asset Recovery at the Basel Institute and coordinator of the Latin America Crypto Community of Practice, said: The commitment and creativity of practitioners across Latin America are remarkable. They are not waiting for perfect laws, unlimited resources or ready-made solutions. They are getting to grips with difficult cases, testing practical approaches and helping one another move forward. That passion and leadership are exactly what this community is designed to support. Working through shared challenges Participants worked together on practical challenges related to the seizure, confiscation, custody, management and sale of cryptoassets. The discussions were frank and focused on finding workable solutions. Held in Spanish and under the Chatham House rule, the workshop provided a trusted space in which practitioners could speak openly and learn from their peers. The group also explored ways to strengthen cooperation against organised crime, illicit trafficking and other threats involving cryptoassets. These crimes operate across borders, making strong professional relationships and rapid information exchange essential. The workshop was opened by Oscar Solórzano, Director for Latin America at the Basel Institute’s International Centre for Asset Recovery. Perla, a subject matter expert from the UK National Crime Agency NCA , co-moderated the session. Partnerships and looking forward We thank the NCA for co-organising the workshop under its Illicit Finance programme in Latin America and the Luxembourg Bureau de gestion des avoirs for hosting it so generously. We are also grateful to the NCA, the US Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs INL in Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru, and the International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program ICITAP in Colombia for funding the participation of practitioners in the workshop and the Global Conference. We also thank current sponsors of our Latin America Crypto Community of Practice for their support for this practitioner-led exchange: Kodex, Asset Reality, Tradias, VerifyVASP, Inca Digital, Coinbase, TRM Labs and CAT Labs. The workshop showed the value of bringing committed practitioners together around real cases and shared challenges. Discussions are already underway about a dedicated Latin America Crypto & Asset Recovery Conference in 2027.
African expertise takes centre stage at crypto and asset recovery workshop
Around 40 public-sector practitioners gathered in Luxembourg on 17 September 2026 for the Africa Crypto & Asset Recovery Workshop. The event put African experience, innovation and talent at the heart of discussions on cryptoasset investigations and asset recovery. Held as a side event to the 10th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets, the workshop brought together specialists from financial intelligence units, law enforcement agencies, prosecution authorities, regulators and asset recovery bodies. Participants represented more than 15 African countries. The Basel Institute on Governance co-organised the workshop with the SecFin Africa. It was hosted by Luxembourg’s Bureau de gestion des avoirs. Learning from African experience The workshop was designed around peer learning. Practitioners from Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and South Africa presented real cases to their regional peers. They spoke openly about the obstacles they had encountered and the practical approaches they had developed to overcome them. The workshop took place under the Chatham House rule. Participation was restricted to public-sector officials to provide a safe space for candid discussion, questions and learning. This practitioner-led approach is central to the Africa Crypto & Asset Recovery Network. The Network recognises that valuable expertise and creative solutions already exist across the continent. Its role is to help practitioners share this knowledge, learn from one another and build trusted relationships across institutions and borders. As H.E. Ambassador Mary Chirwa, Ambassador of Zambia to the Benelux countries, said in her closing remarks at the main conference: I can speak for Africa: it may not have the same resources as other regions, but it has large, young and technologically astute populations – quick to embrace new technologies, question established approaches and find imaginative solutions. Practical tools and international cooperation The workshop also introduced practical tools that can support investigations and asset recovery. - Alexandru Donciu, Virtual Assets Specialist at the Basel Institute, demonstrated free and open-source tools for conducting on-chain investigations. - A representative of the French Gendarmerie and France’s Agency for the Management and Recovery of Seized and Confiscated Assets AGRASC presented ASAC. The application guides magistrates and investigators through procedures for tracing, seizing and confiscating criminal assets. - A Europol representative illuminated the work and approach of the European Financial and Economic Crime Centre and its collaborations with global law enforcement partners. The contributions from international partners highlighted the importance of connecting strong regional networks across continents. Cryptoassets move globally and effective investigations depend on cooperation that does the same. Connections that last beyond Luxembourg Many of the participants also attended the main Global Conference on 15–16 September. This gave the large African delegation opportunities to exchange experience with hundreds of peers from law enforcement, policymaking, research and the private sector. These face-to-face connections matter. They build the trust that makes it easier to pick up the phone when an urgent cross-border case arises. Our sincere thanks go to SecFin Africa and to the workshop’s co-moderators, Philippe Pacaud, Operational Coordinator at SecFin Africa, and Simon Marsh, Head of Africa at the Basel Institute’s International Centre for Asset Recovery. SecFin Africa is funded by the European Union, France and Germany. We also gratefully acknowledge the organisations supporting the Africa Crypto & Asset Recovery Network: Kodex, Asset Reality, Tradias, VerifyVASP, Coinbase, TRM Labs, CAT Labs and iSanctuary. Their support helps make this public-sector community and its activities possible while preserving a trusted and product-free space for practitioner exchange. The enthusiasm in Luxembourg also raised an exciting possibility: a dedicated Africa Crypto & Asset Recovery Conference in 2027. Watch this space.
New tools and partnerships strengthen the response to criminal use of cryptoassets
Criminal use of cryptoassets is spreading across the threat landscape as these technologies become more accessible and integrated into global financial systems. But this pressure is also accelerating innovation and collaboration among those fighting back – across law enforcement, industry, research and policy. The strength of that combined response was on show at the 10th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets on 15–16 September 2026. Co-organised by Europol, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime UNODC and the Basel Institute on Governance and hosted this year by Luxembourg’s Bureau de gestion des avoirs BGA , the conference brought 450 specialists from nearly 90 jurisdictions to the European Convention Center Luxembourg. More than 2,000 people registered online. Iker Lekuona, Director of the Basel Institute’s International Centre for Asset Recovery and co-chair of the conference’s first day, said: We are proud to help bring together such an impressive community of experienced and emerging experts from the public and private sectors, representing so many countries and backgrounds. The energy was palpable. It will help spread and scale the effective tools and approaches shared here, and drive progress on common standards and innovative models of law enforcement and public-private cooperation. Innovation on show Cases presented at the conference illustrated how cryptoassets now feature in cyber attacks, sanctions evasion, terrorist financing, sabotage and political interference. Other sessions exposed the human cost of scams, trafficking and “wrench attacks”, in which criminals use violence to force cryptoasset transfers. Yet the sessions also showcased new ways in which authorities and their partners are responding. The hybrid conference – with the second day reserved for public authorities – showcased: - Advanced tools and techniques for identifying, tracing and seizing illicit cryptoassets, and for dismantling the criminal and money laundering networks behind them. - Cross-border cooperation that is enabling authorities to identify, freeze and secure cryptoassets before they can be moved beyond reach. - New public-private partnerships for sharing operational intelligence on active cases, as well as strategic intelligence on emerging threats and indicators that can help others detect similar activity. - New legal powers, procedures and technologies for securing and managing seized cryptoassets and preserving their value through to final recovery and return to victims or the state. Several of these advances can benefit cases that do not involve cryptoassets. Network analysis, faster intelligence-sharing and closer coordination between investigators, prosecutors and asset recovery specialists can strengthen wider financial investigations and asset recovery efforts. Collaboration builds trust The conference also marked an important step in efforts to develop common baseline standards for blockchain intelligence. A technical breakout brought together representatives of blockchain analytics providers, law enforcement agencies and research organisations. Participants explored how common terminology, data formats and analytical approaches could make blockchain intelligence more consistent and interoperable. This matters because investigators, prosecutors, financial institutions, crypto exchanges, regulators and supervisors increasingly rely on the information these tools produce. Clearer standards can support more consistent customer due diligence and more reliable investigative leads. They can also help ensure that evidence can be explained, challenged and tested in court. A separate breakout led by the Wolfsberg Group examined common problems in suspicious transaction reporting involving cryptoassets. Financial institutions, cryptoasset service providers and public authorities discussed how to make reports more consistent, efficient and useful to investigators. The sessions demonstrated that collaboration goes beyond individual cases. It also means building shared standards and systems that can strengthen broader efforts against crimes involving crypto. On the subject of trust and collaboration, H.E. Ambassador Mary Chirwa of Zambia, added in her closing remarks: Virtual participation greatly expands access, but meeting in person remains essential to building trust. When an urgent cross-border case arises, it helps enormously if the person receiving the call is someone you have already met. Progress, but no room for complacency Significant blind spots remain. Criminal methods continue to evolve fast, regulation and enforcement remain uneven, and many authorities still lack the skills, tools or legal powers they need. But the cases presented on the conference stage and the solutions explored in its breakout rooms showed that authorities and their partners are already adapting their tools and working methods. The priority now is to scale what works: expand trusted regional and international networks, agree common standards, invest in practical capacity building and make effective models of public-private cooperation easier to replicate. About the conference The 10th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets took place on 15–16 September 2026 at the European Convention Center Luxembourg and online. Three side events on 17 September deepened the practical discussions: - A hybrid Cryptoasset Management Roundtable, co-organised by Luxembourg’s BGA and the Basel Institute, brought together specialist asset management and recovery professionals to share insights and co-develop guidance on the effective management and liquidation of cryptoassets. - A workshop for African public-sector authorities saw more than 40 practitioners from 18 African countries exchanging cases, typologies and practical approaches with their peers. The workshop was a collaboration of the Basel Institute-led Africa Crypto & Asset Recovery Network and the SecFin Africa project, co-financed by the European Union. - A parallel Latin America Crypto & Asset Recovery Workshop, co-organised by the Basel Institute and the UK National Crime Agency under its Illicit Finance project, provided a similar space for around 30 practitioners from 10 countries across Latin America. Learn more - Learn more about the conference at: baselgovernance.org/10crc. - View selected recordings from the conference on the 10 Global Conference YouTube playlist. Photos: Neumann Jérôme Photography.
New Norway-backed initiative to strengthen forest integrity
Illegal logging and mining are often enabled by corruption: officials looking the other way for personal gain, companies using their influence to bend or ignore rules, and criminals – along with their profits – being protected. Forests cannot survive if those crimes are allowed to thrive. A new Norway-funded initiative, “Leveraging Partnerships to Tackle Forestry-related Corruption and Crime”, targets the problem at its roots. Under the banner “Together for forest integrity”, the initiative will work with authorities, businesses and civil society, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities in Indonesia and Peru, to tackle the corruption that enables forest crime. It will also turn practical experience from both countries into tools and lessons that can be used elsewhere in the world. Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative NICFI is funding the project, which will last until the end of 2028. The Basel Institute’s Green Corruption programme leads the project consortium with TRAFFIC, Transparency International and WWF. The goal is to disrupt the corruption that drives forest crime, from illegal logging and timber trafficking to illegal mining and fraud linked to carbon markets. By creating obstacles to corruption, the project aims to strengthen forest governance, contributing to the protection of forests and the climate for all. Start with the people who know the problem Effective solutions need both local knowledge and specialist expertise. National and local partners in Indonesia and Peru will help shape the work around the problems they see, the reforms they need and the approaches most likely to last. The consortium will bring technical expertise and experience from different countries and sectors to support locally identified priorities. It will: - work with public authorities, businesses and civil society to identify priority corruption risks and strengthen prevention; - help build capacity to detect, investigate and respond to forestry-related corruption and financial crime; - work with civil society, Indigenous Peoples and local communities to strengthen independent monitoring on forestry-related corruption. Local ownership is central to the approach. The aim is to build systems, skills and tools with the people who will continue using them long after the project ends. Local partners will also help develop knowledge products, so that the programme captures and shares their experience and expertise. Test ideas, then help the good ones travel Indonesia and Peru are strategically important forest countries where corruption linked to logging, mining and other pressures on forests can have major consequences. But the project will also serve as an incubator and a platform to exchange experiences. Some approaches will work better than others. The point is to test them in practice, learn quickly and turn the strongest into useful models for others. With our global reach, the consortium will share practical tools and lessons from Indonesia and Peru, as well as experiences from other parts of the world. We will connect practitioners involved in conservation and anti-corruption, and provide a space for exchange and mutual support to help practitioners learn and adapt effective approaches. The Countering Environmental Corruption Practitioners Forum will help carry that learning further. Launched by the Basel Institute, TRAFFIC, Transparency International and WWF in 2022, the Forum now brings together more than 800 members from the anti-corruption and conservation communities to exchange experience, tools and ideas. The project will also share these experiences in international fora, with the aim of fostering further dialogue and action to address the linkages between corruption and forest threats. Backed by Norway The project brings together Norway’s long-standing commitment to forest protection with the consortium’s anti-corruption, conservation and enforcement expertise, and the knowledge of partners working closest to the problem. We are grateful to the Government of Norway and Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative NICFI for funding the project and for entrusting the Basel Institute with leading its implementation. Can locally shaped approaches in Indonesia and Peru make it harder for corruption to enable forest crime, and can the best of those approaches work elsewhere too? We believe so, and look forward to working together to show how. Learn more - Interested in the project and wider community? Join the Countering Environmental Corruption Practitioners Forum for free to stay informed and take part in future events and discussions.
Would businesses still choose good governance if nobody required it?
For much of the last two decades, the direction of travel on corporate governance appeared relatively clear. Governments and international organisations were asking more of businesses, while investors were paying greater attention to how companies were run. Anti-corruption compliance programmes became more established, and expectations around responsible business conduct continued to expand. The direction of travel is no longer obvious. Geopolitical fragmentation and concerns about regulatory burden are changing the conversation. In some parts of the world, there has been a total retreat from the ESG agenda. This has reopened questions about what should be required of businesses and what they might choose to do voluntarily. Would businesses still choose good governance if nobody required it? Some undoubtedly would. Others might not. The answer depends, at least in part, on what businesses believe governance is for. If businesses invest in governance and compliance structures primarily because somebody requires them to, then reduced regulation weakens the incentive to make that investment. If, though, stronger governance helps organisations make better decisions, its value looks different. This question is particularly interesting for small and medium-sized enterprises SMEs , which mostly face fewer formal governance requirements than larger or listed companies. It was also at the centre of a recent webinar delivered by the Basel Institute on Governance for the Malaysian Institute of Management MIM as part of its anti-corruption certification programme. Focusing particularly on SMEs, the session explored what governance and compliance mean in practice and how internationally recognised principles can be applied without creating unnecessary bureaucracy. It also looked at the relationship with organisational culture and at what happens when an integrity challenge is bigger than any one company. The discussion provided the starting point for many of the reflections in this article.
Why it’s worth investing in international anti-corruption research – three cheers for the FALCON project
For three years, the Basel Institute's Prevention, Research and Innovation team worked with 24 other research partners from across Europe on the ambitious Horizon Europe FALCON Fight Against Large-scale Corruption and Organised Crime Networks project. Our consortium brought together expertise in social science and research, technology development and law enforcement. We worked closely together to innovate the fight against corruption and organised crime by designing data-driven risk indicators and AI-enhanced solutions. This massive research project generated many useful “deliverables” – corruption intelligence, risk indicators, practical tools, policy guidance – that anti-corruption and counter-crime practitioners can directly apply in their work. Perhaps more importantly, the research and interactions have helped us all understand corruption better – and provided the evidence we need to innovate anti-corruption methods. This is bringing real benefits to our technical assistance to governments and organisations seeking to find smarter ways to prevent and combat corrupt and criminal networks, in Europe and beyond. It’s an example of why international, multidisciplinary anti-corruption research projects are worth the investment even in times of tightened belts and budget cuts. As the project winds down, here are four lessons we’d like to share with others. We also offer our warm thanks to the consortium leaders and partners, and to the EU institutions and individuals who continue to promote deep research into corruption and crime. Lesson 1: Understanding how corruption evolves helps anti-corruption practitioners keep up FALCON provided clear examples of how – and how quickly – corruption and crime adapt and evolve. Traditional understandings of corruption focus on a fairly static list of behaviours like bribery or embezzlement. In fact, FALCON research demonstrated how corruption occurs in complex systems, playing out through resilient networks of actors, institutions and incentives that evolve within equally complex political, economic and social contexts. Each new enforcement measure, detection tool or regulation changes the behaviour of those trying to circumvent it. When challenged, criminal actors adapt, prompting authorities to respond with further reforms. It's a never-ending dance of push and shove that we observed in a range of different settings. For example, in our research for the FALCON project, we have seen that criminal actors: - adapt their corruption and criminal strategies in response to strengthened enforcement see our articles on the evolution of corruption and on corruption and crime at the Kapitan Andreevo border ; - relocate their illicit activities elsewhere see our Working Paper 58 on corruption as a facilitator of drug trafficking in the port of Rotterdam ; and - apply counter strategies , such as undermining reform efforts and dismantling or weakening anti-corruption institutions and policies; or even - weaponise the anti-corruption apparatus against rivals look out for our forthcoming report on backlashes to anti-corruption reforms . How to keep up? Our approach, which we refined during the FALCON project, is to always base anti-corruption and counter-crime interventions on a strong understanding of underlying criminal dynamics. Map the stakeholders and their relationships, interests and incentives. Identify risks and problems that could arise. From there, legal reforms, grassroots initiatives, technology and everything else can function best as a flexible anti-corruption toolbox. We assemble and revisit tools as the context shifts and our knowledge advances. Lesson 2. Use AI, but understand its limitations A key point often forgotten amongst the technology optimism is to treat tech tools, including the ones built as part of the FALCON project, as inputs to expert human judgement, not as substitutes for it. A risk indicator or dashboard score can flag suspicious activities that require a closer look, but it can't tell you why an anomalous pattern exists or what to do about it. We must check an AI model's output against contextual knowledge and other evidence, and keep in mind what it was and wasn’t calibrated to detect. The same caution applies to AI. AI tools can be useful for analysing huge quantities of data and detecting patterns that point to corruption. But an AI could just as easily facilitate corruption as help you to tackle it, so make sure human judgement stays in the driving seat. Lesson 3. Reach beyond the bubble to identify synergies or unintended consequences It can be tempting for anti-corruption researchers to work only within the anti-corruption community, and may seem more efficient. But the truly multidisciplinary FALCON research consortium showed how closely crimes and corruption are interlinked. Look at them separately and you miss the true picture. Intervene to prevent one problem, and you might have unintended impacts on another. An example from our research at the border between Türkiye and Bulgaria: - Beefing up border control capacity against trafficking can result in criminals relying even more on corruption to avoid detection. - Conversely, stronger enforcement against corruption can lead to traffickers using more sophisticated criminal strategies to get illicit goods safely across the border. Before designing any intervention, we should assess how increased pressure in one policy area may affect others, including through the displacing of risks. Anti-corruption programmes are more effective when we ask these questions from the outset and coordinate more meaningfully with those working on related issues like organised crime and security. Lesson 4. Use strategic foresight – systematically anticipate new risks and changed contexts Our work on foresight and anticipatory governance has enhanced how we approach political economy assessments, including in projects unrelated to FALCON. We have long found it important to consider what could shift the terrain – a new law, technology, conflict or other – and what this would mean for a planned anti-corruption intervention. Now we have found tools and systems to do this systematically and periodically. The approach helps our partners to revisit anti-corruption frameworks, track emerging risks and anticipate unintended consequences. That’s key to mitigating them and adapting in good time. It also tangibly improves monitoring and evaluation frameworks, as we are not only reporting on what happened in the past, but adapting to what is up ahead. What’s next? The FALCON research project provided not only the practical guidance and reports it promised, but also a far more detailed understanding of how corruption and crime interlink and smarter tools to act on them both. As the project closes, we are grateful for the partnership, energised by what we've learned and ready to expand and apply them in our technical assistance to governments and development partners worldwide. The FALCON project was funded under the European Union’s Horizon Europe Framework Program Grant Agreement ID 101121281. The Basel Institute’s involvement in the project was funded by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation SERI . Views and opinions expressed are those of the author s only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union, the European Research Executive Agency or SERI.
Bringing local voices into Peru’s decentralisation debate
How can a country ensure that national policies, budgets and administrative systems respond to realities on the ground – often in local communities and territories far beyond the capital? This question is at the centre of a series of regional policy dialogues taking Peru’s decentralisation debate beyond Lima. Held under the banner “The State in the Territory: New Pathways for Decentralisation” El Estado en el Territorio: nuevas rutas para la descentralización , the dialogues bring regional and local perspectives into the development of national policy proposals for improving decentralised government. The Basel Institute’s Subnational Public Financial Management Programme Programa GFP Subnacional – funded by the Swiss Economic Cooperation since 2015 – is leading the initiative with additional support from the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. We are happy to partner with three leading Peruvian academic and research institutions: the Institute of Peruvian Studies, Grupo Propuesta Ciudadana GPC and Universidad del Pacífico. The first dialogue took place in the city of Piura in northwestern Peru. Public officials, specialists, academics and civil society representatives held technical discussions on multilevel governance and the coordination of the state’s administrative systems. Why decentralisation needs local voices Decentralisation can bring decision-making closer to people and make public services and investment more responsive to local needs. But transferring responsibilities is not enough. Regional and local governments also need adequate resources, institutional capacity and administrative systems that work across different levels of the state. This is a challenge in many countries. National policies and systems need to provide consistency, while leaving enough room to respond to different regional circumstances. Without that balance, decentralisation can result in fragmented policies and spending rather than more effective government. Listening to people who work with these systems on the ground is therefore essential. Their experience can reveal where national policies support local delivery, where they create obstacles and what could work better. Understanding territorios The word territorio reflects this approach. In Spanish, it means more than a geographical area. It describes the ties between people, institutions and the places in which they live. It also carries political and social meaning. Local identities, inequalities and economic and environmental conditions all affect how people experience the state. In the debate about decentralisation, territorio therefore highlights a desire to gain a ground-up understanding of people’s realities in order to inform state reforms. Concrete outcomes from the Piura dialogue Piura offers an especially relevant setting for the first regional dialogue. Its major infrastructure needs and its experience of climate-related shocks, reconstruction and disaster risk management illustrate the limits of fragmented public action. They also underline the need for stronger coordination across sectors and levels of government. The discussion centred on a policy paper draft by Carlos Vargas, Director of the Basel Institute’s Subnational PFM Programme. It highlighted the need to strengthen coordination across planning, budgeting, public investment, procurement and implementation. Participants also stressed that decentralisation reform should go beyond the transfer of responsibilities across levels of government. A key priority is to ensure that the State’s administrative systems work together more effectively at the local level. This would enable public institutions to respond in a more coordinated and coherent way to local needs and priorities. As Carlos Vargas said: Piura shows that decentralisation is not only about transferring functions, it is about connecting systems, resources and capacities so that public action responds to local priorities and citizens’ needs. How regional experience will inform national policy The contributions from Piura and other regional dialogues in Arequipa, Cusco, Loreto and Lambayeque will inform a revised version of the policy paper and a wider set of recommendations for Peru’s national policy debate. Each dialogue will examine a different aspect of the relationship between decentralisation, public management and territorial development. If decentralisation is to work for people across Peru, regional and local experience must help shape it.
From private sector compliance to a Financial Intelligence Unit: how specialised education supported this shift
"I wanted to have more impact in helping my country prevent and combat money laundering." In her role as an Anti-Money Laundering Analyst at a commercial bank, Hortensia Uupindi felt that something was missing. After reporting suspicious transactions, she could not see what happened next. This curiosity evolved into a career objective: to transition into a role where she could take a more active part in combating financial crime and safeguarding the integrity of the financial system. With this in mind, she decided to enrol in the postgraduate programme "CAS Combating Financial Crime Through Asset Recovery", delivered by the Basel Institute on Governance together with the University of Basel. In this interview, she shares her experience on taking the course, the ways it contributed to her professional growth and how it helped her transition into her current role at the Financial Intelligence Unit of Namibia. You were working in the compliance department at a commercial bank. What motivated you to take this programme? Working as an Anti-Money Laundering Analyst really opened my eyes to money laundering and its links to real-world financial crimes. Like many countries, Namibia also faces ongoing challenges with predicate offences such as corruption, fraud and tax evasion. At the bank, whenever we identified suspicious behaviour, we reported it to the Financial Intelligence Unit FIU . But we did not get to see what happened after that. At that time, I was familiar with the term “asset recovery”, but I did not understand how the entire value chain worked, with all its processes and challenges. Joining the FIU had always been one of my career aspirations. I was eager to learn more about asset recovery and strengthen my ability to contribute to my country's efforts to prevent and combat money laundering. The programme immediately caught my interest, and I knew it was an opportunity I could not miss. A few months ago, I successfully transitioned into my new role as a Compliance Analyst at the Namibian FIU. What change in perspective did this programme bring to your professional career? The course helped me understand the whole asset recovery process and the role I am playing in combating financial crime. It also showed me how to come up with solutions to resolve some of the challenges that slow the process down. That understanding made me appreciate the work I do on a daily basis even more. The aim is to prevent money laundering, but when an offence has already occurred, we want to recover those assets because they are proceeds of crime and make sure they are reinvested for public good. The Fishrot case in Namibia is a clear example of why asset recovery is so important. The funds that were misappropriated could have been used to support education, infrastructure and social development initiatives that would benefit the wider population. Instead, they enriched only a select few individuals. Recovering these assets would make a significant contribution to Namibia’s economy and development. The diversity of the cohort was another important highlight of the programme. I came from a banking background, but we had people from FIUs, anti-corruption agencies, asset management units and other areas. We could see how our different roles connect along the asset recovery chain. All in all, the programme changed my perspective because it gave me a balance between where I was and where I wanted to be. What was a highlight of the programme for you? There were many, both in terms of the content and the career opportunities. I particularly valued learning about international anti-money laundering frameworks and laws governing offences such as corruption and bribery. It enhanced my understanding of how illicit assets are acquired, as well as techniques for identifying and tracing them, before they are frozen, confiscated, recovered and re-used. Career-wise, the programme expanded my horizons. Before, I didn’t know there were so many career opportunities in the anti-financial crime sector. The lecturers and speakers showed us the diversity in this space. You were able to join the programme thanks to the Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund. What did this support mean to you? I was fascinated by the programme until I saw the tuition fees. I couldn’t afford to pay for it in full. Then I saw that a scholarship fund was available, so I applied for both the programme and financial support. Being one of the recipients of partial financial support was a blessing. The course came at the perfect time in my career, equipping me with valuable knowledge and practical skills that have strengthened my professional capabilities. I would really encourage individual donors and organisations to continue supporting the scholarship fund. Capacity building is important, because it's only when skilled people are at the forefront of countering financial crime that a real difference can be made to society. What would you say to other professionals, including those in the private sector, who are unsure whether the programme is worth it? The programme is worthwhile. It has a structure that you don’t often find: a mix of practical experience and deep knowledge, combining lectures with real-world experience. It is beneficial for colleagues who already work in this field, but we also had classmates from other fields who are aspiring to enter the sector. It is friendly both for beginners and experienced professionals. The Basel Institute demonstrated a high level of professionalism throughout the programme. The lecturers were highly knowledgeable and generous in sharing their expertise. They consistently took the time to address our questions and brought in professionals from various sectors to provide additional insights. This programme truly has equipped us to play our part in the fight against financial crime. For anyone contemplating, it is truly a worthwhile opportunity. Thank you, Hortensia, for sharing your story and highlighting the impact this postgraduate programme has had on your professional journey. Learn more ::: links - Discover “Combating Financial Crime Through Asset Recovery” - Postgraduate programme delivered online in partnership with the University of Basel. - Contribute to the Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund - Help train the next generation of anti-corruption professionals. - Discover our offer of short online training courses - Practitioner-led training focused on real-world financial crime challenges. :::
Specialising in asset recovery: why this Argentinian prosecutor decided to take the leap
“When it comes to economic crime, securing a conviction is not always enough. If we do not recover the assets, we are not returning to society what was stolen from it.” This realisation marked a turning point in the career of Julio Petrucci, a prosecutor at the Attorney General’s Office of the Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Driven by this mindset and by his desire to keep pace with the way crime operates today, Petrucci decided to enrol in the postgraduate programme “CAS Combating Financial Crime Through Asset Recovery” delivered by the Basel Institute on Governance together with the University of Basel. In this interview, he tells us about the challenges of his work, the issues demanding greater specialisation and the advice he has for other public servants who, like him, are striving to serve their citizens better. A prosecutor’s work requires constant adaptation. What motivates your daily work and what challenges do you face? My main motivation is to try to do good and to help repair what is broken in society when a crime is committed. In my country, as well as across the region, there are many economic difficulties and high levels of social inequality. Many people who become victims of crime rely on the Public Prosecutor's Office and other public institutions for support. As a prosecutor, I want to be able to provide these victims with answers and practical tools. Over time, I began to realise that my initial training was largely focused on crime in traditional, physical settings. However, crime scenes are often digital or have a strong financial component. That's when I identified the need to look for new tools to strengthen my investigations. It was through this search that I discovered the Basel Institute on Governance and its educational programmes. Why did you choose the Basel Institute programme to specialise in asset recovery? I was particularly interested in the specialised programme on asset recovery for three reasons: - first, because asset recovery is a highly relevant and rapidly growing field; - second, because I could not find other advanced courses offering this level of specialisation in countering financial crime; - and third, because of the international reputation of the Basel Institute on Governance and the University of Basel. What change in perspective did this programme bring to your professional career? The course marked a before and after in my career. In Argentina, asset recovery is still a developing field. Historically, we have analysed criminal cases with the aim of securing convictions. However, when it comes to economic crime, securing a conviction is not always enough. If we do not recover the assets, we are not returning to society what was stolen from it. Throughout the course, I learned not only about the different legal frameworks that exist around the world in this area, but also how to apply them to specific cases. The academic team and the online learning platforms were excellent. All this new knowledge and practical tools are already proving extremely useful in my day-to-day work. They have even contributed to my professional growth in ways that I am not yet able to comment on officially. This was also my first international experience. I got to meet people from different countries and professional backgrounds, which was very enriching. You were able to join the programme thanks to a scholarship. What did this support mean to you? I am a public official in a country facing significant economic challenges. The salaries of public officials like me, both in Argentina and across Latin America, are not particularly high. In this context, I saw that the Basel Institute offered financial support through the Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund and decided to apply for it. From the outset, the team was very receptive. After some interviews, I was awarded a partial scholarship thanks to the funds they had raised, which allowed me to take the course. To donors and benefactors, I would say that their contribution is not just individual support for a student: it is a direct investment in justice systems in our countries. Thanks to their contribution, I now have the tools to investigate complex crimes and recover assets that belong to society. Why would you recommend this training to other prosecutors or investigators in the region? When you work in public service, and especially in a role such as that of a prosecutor, it is very difficult to look beyond what you see in your daily work. But crime is changing. In fact, it has already changed, and if we do not adapt, we will not be able to do our jobs effectively or help repair what is broken in society when a crime is committed. For this reason, I encourage prosecutors and others interested in tackling financial crime to step outside their day-to-day routine and take courses like this. I highly recommend this programme to them, not only because of its academic quality but also because of the quality and dedication of the Basel Institute team. It was an incredible experience. Thank you, Julio, for sharing your story and highlighting the impact this postgraduate programme has had on your professional journey. Julio Petrucci is just one of many talented professionals who have been able to take this course thanks to the Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund. We are deeply grateful to all those who have generously contributed, and continue to contribute, to this fund, especially the International Academy of Financial Crime Litigators, Bonifassi Avocats, Bennett Jones, ECO Strategic Communications and Kellerhals Carrard. Learn more ::: links - Discover “Combating Financial Crime Through Asset Recovery” - Postgraduate programme delivered online in partnership with the University of Basel. - Contribute to the Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund - Help train the next generation of anti-corruption professionals. - Discover our offer of short online training courses - Practitioner-led training focused on real-world financial crime challenges. :::
Asset recovery postgraduate programme: Celebrating our first graduating cohort
How and where can a professional acquire specialised knowledge in asset recovery? A year ago, that question didn’t have an easy answer. Today, it does: with the postgraduate programme "CAS Combating Financial Crime Through Asset Recovery", offered by the Basel Institute on Governance and the University of Basel. This July, we were delighted to welcome the first cohort to our headquarters in Basel and host the 1.5-day hybrid closing event. Here are a few highlights from the programme, and what participants themselves had to say about their experience. A programme unique in its class This Certificate of Advanced Studies CAS was developed to address a longstanding gap in postgraduate education. While aspects of asset recovery are covered in some university courses, there has until now been no similar qualification combining academic learning with practical skills. The programme draws on more than two decades of experience from our International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR , which has worked with authorities around the world to strengthen financial investigations, asset recovery and international cooperation. Graduates receive a CAS degree from the University of Basel, one of Switzerland's leading universities. A global classroom The first cohort brought together prosecutors, investigators, lawyers, anti-money laundering specialists, development practitioners, bankers and policy professionals from 10 countries across Africa, South America, Asia and Europe. The online format with live sessions helped make that possible. It gave participants the flexibility to join from anywhere in the world and balance the course with their day-to-day work – and, just as importantly, to connect with peers working under completely different legal systems. That’s exactly the kind of contact that matters for international cooperation. As one participant from Europe explained: The exchange with other participants working in different jurisdictions was extremely valuable. That was crucial for seeing how asset recovery is approached differently elsewhere, and what options other jurisdictions have. Asset recovery is a global issue now – money moves across the world, so you can't just sit in your office thinking everything stops at the border. The cohort also spanned different levels of expertise, from prosecutors to lawyers working in cybercrime to people just entering the field. As another participant, who works in development cooperation, explains: After having worked for two decades in development cooperation, I realised that if less money was lost to financial crime, countries could decide more autonomously where to invest in their own development. So I got interested in the topic of money laundering, and how we could get better at fighting it. Learning by doing When we asked participants what they found most valuable or unique about the programme, the answer was always the same: its practical approach. Asset recovery is a complex discipline that spans financial investigations, international cooperation, prosecution and the management and return of confiscated assets. Professionals working in this field need not only legal knowledge, but the practical skills that can be applied across different jurisdictions and institutional settings. Over six months, the cohort engaged in interactive online sessions built around real cases and realistic simulated investigation exercises, guided by practitioners who have investigated and prosecuted financial crime themselves. A participant from Uruguay explains: In most certifications, the focus tends to stay on theory and definitions, spending a lot of time discussing ethical and regulatory issues. But in this case, it was so case-specific and applied that by the end, you know what you have to do, you know how to investigate and you know the steps for asset recovery. The final project: a professional opportunity That practical focus culminates in the personal project each participant is now completing in order to graduate: a chance to advance a project from their own work, a side interest or simply an area they want to explore in more depth. One participant is taking the programme to build up a specialised Asset Recovery Office within the Ministry of Justice. It tackles the problem that currently, competence is split between the prosecutor's office and the police, and neither magistrates nor police officers have the same view of the data. Another participant is working on a proposal to bring public-private collaboration to her country's asset recovery efforts. She noticed a clear gap: information that should flow between the two sectors simply wasn't being exchanged. Throughout the programme, she tested her model with instructors, refining it with their feedback. Her final project now sets out how that collaboration could actually work in practice. Discussing future career steps The closing event was also a chance to look ahead to the careers and opportunities this certificate can open. An exclusive panel discussion showcased the breadth of career paths in combating financial crime, bringing together experts from international organisations, the public sector and private industry. The panel featured Kodjo Attisso Coordinator of the Illicit Finance Fusion Center – Africa at UNODC , Federica Maschera Group Financial Crime Engagement Manager at HSBC Holdings plc , Pedro Gomes Pereira Advisor on Anti-Corruption and Asset Recovery and Maria Schnebli Federal Prosecutor at the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland . The panellists shared their career paths and challenges in the various sectors, and the steps they took to get to their current affiliations. Maria Schnebli also gave a keynote speech on international collaboration and the challenges of combating financial crime from a Swiss prosecutor's perspective. This tied in perfectly with the work the students had done throughout the course. The Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund Some students in this cohort could only take the course thanks to financial support. We launched the Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund to help cover tuition costs for talented professionals from low-income backgrounds. We have received, and continue to receive, generous donations from organisations and individuals alike. Julio Petrucci, a prosecutor at the Attorney General's Office of the Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was one of the participants who benefited. As he puts it: To donors and benefactors, I would say that your contribution isn't just individual support for one student – it's a direct investment in justice across our countries. Thanks to your contribution, I now have the tools to investigate complex crimes and recover assets that belong to society. We are deeply grateful to our donors for making these opportunities possible, especially the International Academy of Financial Crime Litigators, Bonifassi Avocats, Bennett Jones, ECO Strategic Communications and Kellerhals Carrard. Another way to build capacity As the first cohort prepares to graduate, the programme marks another step in the Basel Institute's efforts to strengthen global capacity to investigate financial crime, recover stolen assets, and build a new generation of practitioners connected through a worldwide community of practice. Along with our second postgraduate programme, “CAS Mastering Today’s Anti-Corruption Challenges”, it marks our current portfolio of practice related academic programmes to support careers, knowledge and skills development of talented international professionals and practitioners. Congratulations to all the participants of this first cohort. Learn more ::: links - Discover “Combating Financial Crime Through Asset Recovery” - Postgraduate programme delivered online in partnership with the University of Basel. - Contribute to the Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund - Help train the next generation of anti-corruption professionals. - Discover our offer of short online training courses - Practitioner-led training focused on real-world financial crime challenges. :::
How Peru is making asset recovery a frontline tool against organised crime
A joint reflection by Iker Lekuona, Director of the Basel Institute's International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR and Oscar Solórzano, Head of Latin America for ICAR, on how Peru is translating its commitment to combating organised crime into lasting institutional capability. Across Latin America, governments face mounting pressure to respond to organised crime, illicit finance and growing public concerns about security. At the same time, international development budgets are under strain. In this environment, one question keeps resounding: how can countries build capacity to tackle complex criminal threats with greater independence and resilience? For those of us working in asset recovery, the answer lies in institutions. Our goal in building asset recovery capability One of the ambitions behind ICAR’s technical assistance has always been straightforward. We want our partners to reach the point where they no longer rely on us for day-to-day operational support. Our partnerships should evolve towards higher-value strategic collaboration. Technical assistance should leave behind stronger systems, stronger expertise and stronger institutions capable of carrying the work forward independently. This is why recent developments in Peru are particularly significant. A strategic response to financial and organised crime Under the leadership of Attorney General Tomás Aladino Gálvez Villegas, the Public Prosecutor's Office is implementing a series of reforms that embed financial investigation, asset recovery and institutional coordination at the heart of Peru's response to organised crime. The reforms form part of the Sistema Fiscal Integrado de Recuperación de Activos SFIRA or “Integrated Prosecutorial Asset Recovery System”. At a meeting in May this year with Attorney General Gálvez and senior colleagues, we reflected on the challenges posed by modern organised crime and the need for institutions that can respond to increasingly sophisticated illicit financial flows. Regarding the intent behind the reforms, the Attorney General commented: We cannot continue expecting different results while relying on the same institutional approaches. Organised crime has evolved, and so must we. This reform reflects our determination to move beyond declarations of intent and build the permanent capabilities that prosecutors need to confront increasingly sophisticated criminal organisations. Reflecting on impact of the Basel Institute’s technical assistance through ICAR, he said: We value the support that the Basel Institute on Governance has provided over the years, and we invite the Basel Institute, our government institutions and the wider international community to join us in this effort. Confronting organised crime is a shared challenge that requires a shared commitment. This is how we turn commitment into practical action. Having worked closely with the Peruvian authorities for more than a decade, we believe this direction will be transformative for the country and its people. We also believe other jurisdictions can be inspired by this strategic, systemic response. We share some of the reasoning and details below. Organised crime is a financial phenomenon Public debates about organised crime often focus on violence or trafficking. Yet in anti-corruption and asset recovery circles, we all know that criminal organisations survive only because they are able to generate, move, conceal and reinvest enormous sums of money. The financial dimension of organised crime has become increasingly important as criminal groups expand across borders, diversify their activities and develop closer relationships with professional facilitators and corrupt actors. Illegal mining, environmental crime, drug trafficking, corruption and money laundering are frequently connected through the same financial networks. This is one reason why asset recovery has attracted growing attention from governments and international organisations alike. Less-known benefits of focusing on asset recovery Recovering illicit assets is valuable in itself, not least in times of squeezed public budgets and reduced flows of development aid. Confiscated assets can be reinvested in enhancing the capabilities of law enforcement and prosecution authorities. They can also be used to compensate victims and communities affected by corruption and crime. More importantly, the process of conducting financial investigations and pursuing illicit assets helps authorities understand how criminal networks operate, identify those who profit from them and weaken the structures that allow them to endure. This agenda has particular relevance today because it commands broad support across political and ideological divides. Governments may disagree on many issues. The need to tackle organised crime and illicit finance is rarely one of them. What makes the reforms innovative and impactful Experience has also shown that asset recovery cannot remain a specialised activity reserved for exceptional cases. To keep pace with increasingly sophisticated criminal organisations, countries need to move beyond isolated successes and build institutions that make financial investigation and asset recovery part of everyday prosecutorial practice. In Peru, rather than creating another specialised unit, the Public Prosecutor's Office is building an institutional model that brings together the capabilities needed to tackle the financial dimension of organised crime in a more coordinated, multidisciplinary and sustainable way. The model combines specialised operational support for prosecutors, strategic criminal analysis and stronger institutional coordination. At the same time, it seeks to ensure that the knowledge gained through complex investigations is progressively embedded within the organisation. The objective goes beyond success in individual cases. The aim is to strengthen the Public Prosecutor's Office's long-term capacity to investigate, disrupt and recover the proceeds of organised crime. Importantly, the new arrangements will support both international and domestic asset recovery efforts. - International cases remain essential but often require years of litigation and cooperation across multiple jurisdictions. - Domestically, Peru can also do a lot to target criminal assets located within its own borders and to disrupt illicit economies that continue to fuel insecurity and corruption. As part of this effort, the Public Prosecutor's Office is investing its own resources in the new structure, including resources linked to a tripartite asset return agreement between Peru, Luxembourg and Switzerland that was supported by the Basel Institute through ICAR. From technical assistance to national ownership This institutional model reflects capabilities developed over more than a decade of operational cooperation between our ICAR team and the Public Prosecutor's Office. Through joint work on complex investigations, both our institutions developed practical approaches to financial investigation, international asset recovery and multidisciplinary prosecutorial support. The current reforms seek to embed these proven capabilities within the permanent structures of the Public Prosecutor's Office. This will ensure that the knowledge accumulated through years of operational cooperation becomes part of the institution itself rather than remaining dependent on external technical assistance or individual expertise. For donors and development partners, this matters. The value of technical assistance cannot be measured only by assets recovered or training sessions delivered. Its deeper contribution lies in helping institutions develop the confidence, capabilities and structures needed to perform these functions independently and continuously improve them over time. Why this matters beyond Peru Every country must develop solutions that fit its own legal system, institutions and priorities. Yet some lessons travel well. One is that asset recovery works best when it is integrated into broader efforts to combat organised crime rather than treated as a specialised activity operating at the margins of criminal investigations. Another is that sustainable progress depends on institutions. Cases come and go. Leadership changes. Criminal networks evolve. Strong institutions provide continuity. Peru's reforms will not solve every challenge posed by organised crime. No single reform can. But they represent a thoughtful and ambitious attempt to strengthen the state's ability to understand, investigate and disrupt the financial foundations of criminal activity. For us, they also represent something else: evidence that long-term partnerships can create capabilities that endure beyond any individual project. There are few better outcomes for a technical assistance programme than seeing the ideas, methods and expertise it has supported become part of the institutions it set out to strengthen.
2025 Annual Report: Foreword by Elizabeth Andersen and Peter Maurer
We are pleased to launch the Basel Institute on Governance’s Annual Report 2025, highlighting how our teams and partners turned a year of profound disruption into practical action against corruption and financial crime. From record asset recoveries and landmark enforcement outcomes to locally led governance reforms, business integrity initiatives and new approaches to emerging risks, the report reflects the breadth of our work across more than 18 country teams worldwide. In the foreword below, our President Peter Maurer and Executive Director Elizabeth Andersen reflect on the changing global anti-corruption landscape, the resilience of the movement and why our mission is more important than ever. Turning challenges into action The anti-corruption landscape changed dramatically in 2025, as the United States stepped back from its role as a global standard-bearer for anti-corruption and good governance. The U.S. continued support for some international enforcement efforts, particularly associated with transnational organised crime. But it shuttered most international anti-corruption programmes with the closing of USAID, announced a deprioritisation of prosecution of foreign bribery, and assumed an increasingly transactional approach to international relations that downplayed governance concerns. The result, characterised by many as an end to the rules-based international order, has raised significant questions about the future of global efforts to promote and enforce anti-corruption and good governance norms. At the Basel Institute on Governance, the answer is clear. Our work is more important now than ever. Our experience of the past year has validated the Institute’s longstanding approach, focused on empowering partners through hands-on support that produces real, sustainable change. And we are highly motivated to meet today’s challenges with creativity, innovation and resilience. In 2025, historic declines in overseas development assistance reinforced the imperative to safeguard public resources from corruption and recover the proceeds of financial crime and corruption for reinvestment in social goods. At the Institute, we redoubled our efforts toward these ends. - We worked with partners to protect investments in health in Albania, humanitarian assistance in Malawi, education in Peru and reconstruction, transport, energy and defence in Ukraine, to name a few. - Our International Centre for Asset Recovery contributed to the return of a record USD 65.2 million to partner countries, while our Green Corruption programme supported partners in a number of “first-ever” law enforcement wins in the fight against environmental crime. - And our Prevention, Research and Innovation team advanced novel methods to target the social norms underlying corrupt behaviour and ensure that anti-corruption initiatives achieve lasting impact. Experience of the past year has also highlighted the benefits of the Institute’s approach to advancing business integrity. The U.S. decision to deprioritise global anti-bribery enforcement raised concerns of a new race to the bottom that would disadvantage companies refusing to pay bribes. The Institute’s work to advance anti-corruption Collective Action offered businesses an effective response – a proven strategy to build and sustain a level playing field where all stakeholders in a given market or sector commit to and uphold integrity best practices. In 2025, we studied more than 340 initiatives on our online Collective Action Hub to glean lessons learned and provide practical guidance for companies grappling with the shifting compliance landscape. We have been encouraged to see the resilience of the anti-corruption movement in the face of significant headwinds. The United Kingdom, France and Switzerland announced a new joint task force to strengthen their enforcement efforts. The Basel Institute welcomed this initiative and encouraged them to go further. In two working papers and engagement with policymakers, we made the case for repurposing the settlement payments from foreign bribery cases to support anti-corruption reforms. 2025 also saw signs of hope in the streets and at the ballot box, as protestors fed up with corruption and mismanagement generated political transitions in countries across the globe. The Basel Institute stands ready to provide swift support for partners in these transitional moments, which are important windows of opportunity to implement sustainable anti-corruption reforms. In 2025 alone, we launched programmes in support of new governments pursuing accountability and reform in Ghana, Bangladesh, Madagascar and Sri Lanka. Looking forward, we are focused on bringing our expertise to bear on new global corruption challenges, from the race for critical minerals to the surge in defence spending and the transformative effects of crypto and AI. The Institute is developing new initiatives to address the risks and seize the opportunities arising in each of these areas. In sum, there is no denying that developments in 2025 sent shockwaves through the global anti-corruption movement. But, with inspiration from those like the brave Ukrainian citizens who in July 2025 took to the streets of Kyiv to successfully defend the independence of their anti-corruption agencies, our movement is rising to the occasion. At the Basel Institute, we are proud to do our part. We are enormously grateful for the sustained support of our donors, who understand the foundational importance of integrity and good governance. We have great admiration for the perseverance of our partners in government agencies, businesses and civil society organisations across the globe. And we look forward to your feedback on the work described in this report and to working together to take these efforts forward in the year ahead. ::: button Download the Basel Institute's Annual Report 2025 :::
Four priorities for an effective EU Anti-Corruption Strategy
With good governance norms under growing pressure, the EU has an opportunity to show decisive leadership in the fight against corruption. The European Commission’s first EU-wide Anti-Corruption Strategy, building on the recently adopted EU Anti-Corruption Directive, is a chance to strengthen coordination across Member States and realise the promise of the Directive for the EU’s 450+ million inhabitants. Done well, it will reinforce the security, economic prosperity and political stability that underpin Europe’s long-term competitiveness. The Basel Institute on Governance has responded to the Commission’s call for evidence with recommendations drawn from more than two decades of research and hands-on work with governments, law enforcement agencies, businesses and civil society. Our submission highlights four areas that we believe should be central to the new Strategy. These are briefly summarised below, and included in full in the submission. Promote a whole-of-society approach Governments cannot tackle complex corruption risks alone. Businesses, civil society, researchers and affected communities all have a role to play. The Strategy should therefore explicitly endorse Anti-Corruption Collective Action. This approach brings stakeholders together to identify shared risks, agree standards and develop practical mechanisms for compliance and accountability. It has been used to address money laundering risks in the financial services sector, bribery and extortion in ports, corruption in public procurement and integrity challenges in the defence sector. It is widely endorsed by organisations including the OECD, UNODC and UN Global Compact, and already included in many national anti-corruption strategies. Harness data and technology responsibly Artificial intelligence, big data analytics, open-source intelligence and automated risk indicators can help identify suspicious procurement patterns, conflicts of interest, illicit financial flows and hidden relationships. Research through the EU-funded FALCON project, of which the Basel Institute is a consortium member, shows that effective anti-corruption systems increasingly depend on the ability to collect, connect and analyse large volumes of information. The Strategy should support responsible testing of new tools, including through regulatory sandboxes, while also investing in the foundations they require: digitisation, interoperable systems, standardised datasets, machine-readable information and secure cross-border data sharing. Focus on priority risks and high-risk activities Beyond these approaches, our submission highlights four high-risk areas requiring particular attention. - Foreign bribery: Enforcement remains uneven and settlements often fail to address the harm suffered by affected countries and communities. The Strategy should promote stronger enforcement and fairer approaches to compensation and the use of recovered proceeds. - Public procurement: Risks are rising as Europe increases investment in defence, infrastructure, energy security and strategic technologies. Priorities should include stronger transparency, better oversight and data-driven risk assessment. - Borders and customs: Corruption at borders can facilitate smuggling, trafficking, sanctions evasion and tax fraud. Greater automation, data integration and consistent procedures can strengthen prevention and detection. - Financial infrastructure: Shell companies, professional intermediaries, offshore structures and virtual assets can help conceal corrupt proceeds. The Strategy should strengthen links between anti-corruption, anti-money laundering and asset recovery, including through the EU’s new Anti-Money Laundering Authority. Build in an ongoing research, innovation and learning agenda Corruption constantly evolves as actors adapt to new laws, technologies and enforcement practices. Anti-corruption policy must evolve too. Research also shows that anti-corruption laws alone do not change corrupt behaviour. Social norms, political incentives and institutional cultures can sustain corruption even where formal rules are strong. The Strategy should support sustained applied research and create stronger channels for researchers, policymakers, law enforcement, businesses and civil society to exchange evidence and lessons. It should also use differences between national systems as opportunities to test approaches, evaluate results and improve policy across the Union. Learn more - Download the Basel Institute on Governance’s full submission to the European Commission’s call for evidence on the EU Anti-Corruption Strategy. - See complementary perspectives on the EU Anti-Corruption Directive on how it might affect anti-corruption enforcement from a legal and institutional perspective, and on what the Directive reveals about how corruption is evolving in the EU and beyond.
Is this a turning point for asset recovery success in Europe?
Those of us dedicated to fighting financial crime were excited to see the Council of Europe’s recent adoption of an Additional Protocol to the Warsaw Convention, an international treaty on the prevention and control of money laundering and terrorist financing. The Protocol, together with the Warsaw Convention, arguably represents one of the most advanced treaty frameworks on asset recovery. It elevates practices developed in more advanced jurisdictions into binding commitments and raises the baseline for all participating states. It also requires states to rethink their approach to anti-money laundering and asset recovery in several important respects. Among others, it: - places greater emphasis on financial investigations; - strengthens the institutional architecture supporting asset recovery; - obliges states to significantly improve their ability to cooperate in cross-border cases. To achieve these objectives, it introduces a range of operational measures designed to facilitate the tracing, freezing, management and recovery of criminal assets. These include dedicated asset recovery bodies, centralised account registries and enhanced mechanisms for information sharing and international cooperation. This short explainer highlights some of the points that we, at the Basel Institute, find most important and potentially impactful based on two decades of experience of our International Centre for Asset Recovery supporting jurisdictions around the world on anti-money laundering and asset recovery. Why the new Protocol? The 2005 Warsaw Convention – formally the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure, and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism – establishes a comprehensive framework for anti-money laundering and asset recovery. It requires its 39 States Parties to implement anti-money laundering measures, including customer due diligence, suspicious transaction reporting and Financial Intelligence Units. It also requires them to cooperate internationally to identify, trace, freeze, seize, confiscate and return criminal assets. The need to modernise the Convention and respond to evolving forms of illicit finance, digital assets and the increasingly rapid movement of assets across borders drove the adoption of the new Protocol. The Protocol seeks to ensure consistency with emerging international and regional standards, including the Financial Action Task Force Recommendations. It also seeks to make advanced asset recovery mechanisms developed within the European Union framework available across the wider Council of Europe space, which includes 46 European states. Connecting financial intelligence with asset recovery and management The Protocol's main innovation lies in the integration of Financial Intelligence Units, Asset Recovery Offices and Asset Management Offices into a coherent institutional architecture. The integration is designed to support rapid intervention, effective asset tracing and management, and cross-border cooperation. By doing so, it strengthens the role of non-law enforcement actors in tracing, safeguarding and preserving the value of assets. First, under the Protocol, States Parties are required to establish Asset Recovery Offices with powers to trace assets, cooperate directly with foreign counterparts and take immediate action to preserve assets, including crypto, in cross-border cases. Second, States Parties are also required to establish Asset Management Offices responsible for managing frozen and confiscated property and for cooperating with domestic and foreign authorities. Third, the Protocol also strengthens the operational role of Financial Intelligence Units in asset recovery by requiring states to grant them powers to temporarily suspend transactions, accounts and business relationships. Many jurisdictions already permit the temporary suspension of suspicious transactions. However, FATF standards do not require Financial Intelligence Units to have such authority. In practice, these reforms recognise that anti-money laundering and asset recovery are closely interconnected. Early intervention significantly increases the chances of successful asset recovery at both domestic and cross-border level. They also emphasise that asset value must be preserved from freezing to disposal. Achieving this requires empowering specialised authorities responsible for financial intelligence, asset tracing and asset management. Streamlining access to asset and ownership data The Protocol requires the establishment of centralised account registries capable of identifying bank accounts, payment accounts, securities accounts, safe deposit boxes and crypto accounts, along with their beneficial owners and any persons authorised to act on behalf of account holders. Financial Intelligence Units, Asset Recovery Offices and other competent authorities are explicitly granted access to these mechanisms. This creates a dedicated infrastructure for locating assets within a jurisdiction. It also allows the exchange of such information between authorities in cross-border cases. While centralised bank account registries already exist in many jurisdictions, they are far from universal. Moreover, where such systems do exist, they have traditionally focused on bank account information and often do not extend to other forms of financial holdings, such as securities accounts, safe-deposit boxes or crypto accounts. In practice, this addresses a major operational bottleneck. Identifying accounts usually requires multiple requests to banks and other institutions, which increases the length of financial investigations. Centralised registries significantly improve operational efficiency by accelerating asset tracing and reducing the risk of asset dissipation before authorities can act – an approach now being extended to volatile asset classes such as cryptocurrencies. Maximising the value of financial investigations The Protocol establishes a comprehensive framework to prioritise and enhance asset tracing and financial investigations. The Protocol requires competent authorities to be able to conduct financial investigations without delay, independently or alongside criminal investigations at all stages of proceedings. This includes after a confiscation order has been issued. Such investigations are intended to be flexible in scope and may be used to identify the scale of criminal networks, trace and secure assets subject to confiscation, or gather evidence for criminal or asset recovery proceedings. This emphasis on early and adaptable financial investigation underscores the Protocol’s objective of embedding asset tracing and recovery as a routine component of enforcement processes, while preserving discretion for competent authorities in how these tools are applied in practice. Asset management gets the attention it deserves The Protocol encourage states to shift away from perceptions that asset management is a secondary administrative task and instead view it as a necessary, value-preserving core function of asset recovery systems. It obligates States Parties to establish a detailed asset management framework, that includes: - the possibility of selling seized assets before confiscation where property is perishable, rapidly depreciating or requires specialised management that is not readily available, thereby preserving value pending the outcome of proceedings; and - measures facilitating the reuse of seized and confiscated assets. Experience shows that preserving the value of seized assets requires more than legal powers. It also depends on having clear procedures, dedicated resources and expertise. This is particularly true for complex or newer forms of assets, such as cryptocurrencies. The practical side of asset management is an especially important consideration for many of the Basel Institute’s partner jurisdictions, where asset management has often not been prioritised until now. Lessons from the field show that strong asset management depends on the combination of legal frameworks and the capacity to putting them into practice, including specialized institutions for asset management. Practical ways to enhance international cooperation The Protocol introduces several measures designed to strengthen international cooperation between Financial Intelligence Units, Asset Recovery Offices and Asset Management Offices , as well as judicial authorities. On the latter, key measures we highlight as particularly valuable include: First, mandatory standard forms for the transmission and execution of freezing and confiscation requests. Although model templates already exist in a number of international and regional frameworks, their use is often optional. The Protocol seeks to promote greater consistency in requests, reduce delays caused by incomplete information and facilitate more efficient cooperation between authorities. Second, Joint Investigation Teams established for the purpose of tracing and recovering assets liable to confiscation. Joint Investigation Teams provide a mechanism for authorities to work together in real time, exchanging intelligence and evidence directly without relying on formal mutual legal assistance. While they are already envisaged under instruments such as United Nations Convention Against Corruption, United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and EU law, these frameworks primarily focus on the investigation of criminal offences. By contrast, the Protocol innovatively provides for Joint Investigation Teams dedicated solely to asset recovery objectives. Joint Investigation Teams dedicated to financial investigations already operate in practice, but the Protocol provides a clear legal basis and encourages more systematic reliance on them. The combination of proactive domestic investigations and cross-border teams can be a powerful tool bolster the identification and ultimate freezing of criminal assets on a broader scale. A powerful Protocol that can inspire all States – and is hopefully not a paper tiger The Additional Protocol marks a clear shift in asset recovery towards an intelligence-led and institutionally integrated model of enforcement that also seeks to maximise the value of criminal assets that are seized and recovered by the state. Its practical impact though, will depend less on legislative alignment than on whether states can build the specialised institutions, tools, expertise and cross-border cooperation needed to make early tracing, preservation and recovery operationally effective. Depending on existing capacity, this may require legal reform, technical assistance and targeted training. Without this, the Protocol’s significance risks remaining largely theoretical. In any case, even beyond the Council of Europe space, the Protocol provides a clear blueprint for jurisdictions seeking to strengthen their asset recovery frameworks. Its approach is closely aligned with the principles that guide our work with partner jurisdictions outside Europe. The Protocol will provide an additional tool to support countries in designing reforms that are both ambitious and grounded in their specific legal, institutional and operational realities. View key points PDF .
From budgets to bridges: how better public finance management improves lives in Peru and beyond
How public money is managed at the local level has a direct impact on people's lives – from whether children get their school books to the conservation of local environments on which many communities depend for their health and livelihoods. For more than a decade, the Basel Institute on Governance and the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs SECO have partnered with regional and municipal governments across Peru to strengthen public financial management and improve public service delivery. Through the Programa GFP Subnacional, a dedicated team combines practical technical assistance with innovative approaches, including data analytics, digital tools and behavioural interventions. Together, these help governments make better decisions, use resources more effectively and communicate better with the people they serve. In this Q&A, Programme Director Carlos Vargas explains how Programa GFP Subnacional – the Subnational Public Finance Management PFM programme – works, what it has achieved and why its lessons matter beyond Peru. How does the programme help governments deliver better services? Broadly speaking, the programme aims to enhance processes for public service delivery and improve the capacity of subnational governments to use public resources responsibly. In practice, this means really hands-on assistance with things like tax management or budget planning that both covers the required resources e.g. teaching materials and considers what’s needed to deliver a service e.g. enough vehicles to distribute the materials to schools . This in turn ensures that citizens receive public services in the quantity and quality they need and projects are completed within budget and on time. In other words, the programme aims to make a real difference in people's lives – particularly in areas like education, health, biodiversity conservation and the fight against climate change. Our advisors work hand-in-hand with local officials, providing technical assistance, training and support with technology in line with national priorities and systems. What difference has the programme made in terms of revenue generation? The results have been significant. One of the clearest examples comes from Tarapoto in the San Martín region. Through automated WhatsApp reminders, streamlined processes and a new online payment system, the municipality increased property tax collection. The additional revenue helped fund a bridge that now provides around 800 pupils with safe, direct access to their school. In the Municipality of Piura, we helped automate tax collection processes using algorithms and artificial intelligence to better understand taxpayer behaviour. This allowed us to group taxpayers into categories and design tailored communication strategies for each, which helped increase property tax revenue – funds governments need to invest in public services. How about in education or conservation? In education, we have assisted regions to ensure that around 95 percent of school materials now arrive on time before the start of the school year. The programme has also contributed to the timely delivery of vaccines and medicines. On biodiversity conservation, we have supported three regional governments in Peru to establish a baseline for deforestation, drawing on 24 years' worth of data to identify zones that are particularly vulnerable to deforestation and other illegal activities. Based on this, we have developed an early warning system that enables regional governments to act more quickly and direct their limited resources towards the most critical areas rather than trying to cover vast territories. Why are regional and municipal governments so important? In Peru, public spending is highly decentralised – around 35 to 45 percent of the budget is allocated to regional governments and municipalities. These are the entities closest to citizens. If this final link in the chain does not work well, citizens will not receive the services they need. How does better public finance management reduce corruption risks? By improving the efficiency and transparency of processes within public bodies, we limit discretionary power and reduce opportunities for corruption. The programme has generated concrete evidence of this. The regional government of Loreto – Peru’s largest region – for example, rose from 18th to 4th place in the national ranking of corruption prevention capacity after becoming a programme beneficiary. This kind of progress matters, because corruption ultimately undermines the delivery of public services and the responsible use of public resources. What can other countries learn from Peru's experience? We see the Programa GFP Subnacional as a laboratory for public finance innovation. Over more than a decade, it has generated proven tools and approaches that improve efficiency, reduce losses and help ensure the quality of public services. This body of evidence – tested and refined over time – represents a form of global learning. The lessons and best practices the programme generated can be shared not only across Peru but also with other countries, where they can be adapted to local needs. In this sense, the Swiss government's investment in the programme goes beyond impact in a specific region: it is an investment in generating knowledge and innovations that can inform public financial management reforms and help improve public services and the lives of citizens elsewhere.
There’s a gap between what laws say and what people do. How is that useful for anti-corruption work?
In episode 37 of the podcast Sophie au pays des possibles, host and anti-corruption expert Sophie Lemaître conversed with Claudia Baez Camargo, Director of Prevention, Research and Innovation at the Basel Institute on Governance. Claudia leads a specialised team of researchers who leverage behavioural science, political economy analysis and field research to design context-sensitive anti-corruption strategies. Among others, they advance approaches based on understanding and targeting social norms. This Q&A is an edited extract of their discussion on why top-down laws often fail against local realities and how practical, bottom-up solutions can empower citizens to drive real change. Sophie Lemaître: What are social norms, and why is it essential to consider them when addressing corruption? Claudia Baez Camargo: Essentially, social norms are what we perceive as typical, expected or socially accepted behaviour in a given context. For example, if a traffic officer stops you in Mexico – where I was born and grew up – most would offer a bribe to get out of the predicament. Or when accessing healthcare services, people might give a “gift” or bribe before receiving care. If they don't, they fear they won't receive the service or the correct medicine. Even if they are personally against corruption and know the law forbids it, the social expectation can push them to do it anyway. Understanding these expectations is key to designing effective anti-corruption interventions. Sophie: I've heard statements like "Corruption is part of the culture of this country." Can we say some cultures or countries are more corrupt than others? Claudia: I've often been told, across Africa, Latin America, the Balkans or Asia, "Oh, Claudia, it's in our culture. What are we going to do?" But these regions have such vastly different cultures that I doubt culture is the defining factor. In my view, the real drivers are structural. - First, there are resource constraints: living in poverty and unmet need drives corruption. - Second, there are weak state institutions. When the state fails to deliver, it generates incentives to bypass the law just to solve problems, make money or access services. Culture simply adapts around these realities, absorbing corrupt practices through local names and jokes. Social norms apply to concrete, narrow situations – they dictate what we're expected to do. Culture is something we all have an emotional stake in, so calling a culture corrupt is self-degrading and ignores how rich cultures are. I prefer to focus on social norms because they provide a concrete entry point where we can actually act and change things. Sophie: Have you noticed people saying that addressing corruption is a Western thing? Claudia: Government and anti-corruption officials across the board have assimilated the language of good governance, largely because their laws follow UN Conventions. At that level, a Westernised view definitely prevails. At the grassroots, it's completely different. In research in Uganda and Tanzania, we used fictional "vignettes" to ask citizens about their perceptions of public officials, presenting two characters: - One who strictly abides by the law and refuses bribes. - Another who uses their authority to extract resources, but distributes them to their family and community. Stealing in order to share, like Robin Hood. Almost without exception, people said the one stealing and sharing was great, loved and respected, while the law-abiding official was called a traitor who ignored his community responsibilities. From this view, the "corrupt" ones are those who fail to use power to look after their network. Ultimately, there is vast room for interpretation regarding what corruption is, depending entirely on social norms, cultural environments and practical needs. Sophie: How can we induce behaviour change to create a culture of integrity when the situation involves so many social norms, informal practices and other drivers? Claudia: A lot of anti-corruption projects and investments are still very prescriptive. Focusing purely on top-down "best practices" and laws creates an "implementation gap": countries with excellent laws on paper but terrible results in practice. To achieve sustainable change, we must go bottom-up. Working at the subnational or municipal level shows a lot of promise, because it allows local governments to engage directly with constituents, jointly identify priorities and co-design solutions. As scholar Yuen Yuen Ang argues in her work on adaptive political economy, you cannot expect context-defying behaviours to emerge just because you pass a law. We need to use what is already there – local practices, social networks and community groups – to solve problems sustainably without corruption. It does not have to be a textbook Western "best practice", as long as it works. Sophie: Do you have a success story or promising initiative you could share? Claudia: On success stories, once I worked on a project on a remote island in the Philippines where the mayor was a true champion for his community. He even gave his personal mobile number to every citizen. It was a very poor community, but because things were decided collectively, their few resources were visibly used in the best interest of everyone. On promising initiatives, I'm currently supporting a Swiss-funded project in Moldova that takes this bottom-up approach seriously: its first year is dedicated purely to building trust among local stakeholders. Without trust, people can't collaborate or identify joint priorities. Investing in trust, then letting the community take the driver's seat, is essential for sustainability. Otherwise, once funding dries up, everything regresses. Sophie: Anti-corruption progress is slow, and we’re experiencing a global backlash. What keeps you motivated? Claudia: What I love about my job is going to different countries and speaking with mayors, citizen groups, civil society organisations and the private sector – the real people on the ground whose lives would be transformed if there were less corruption. That's what motivates me. Corruption remains a devastating barrier to development and poverty reduction. We often hear we need to "raise awareness", but that isn't true; in almost every context, people already know what's corrupt, suffer from it and dislike it. We simply cannot give up. The climate can be demotivating, but if we're passive spectators, we can say goodbye to the institutions we've fought for. With our actions, we can intervene and change the course of events. Sophie: One final question: how can we as individual citizens play a role in fighting corruption? Claudia: First, by understanding our duties. Good governance is fundamentally linked to democracy, and whether you live in an established or fragile democracy, the legal framework almost always gives citizens instruments to engage with their representatives. If we normalise using these tools to question authority and demand accountability, we strengthen the rule of law and put corrupt actors under scrutiny. If enough people do this, a lot can change. Learn more ::: links - Quick Guide: Social norms and corruption - Research Case Study: Harnessing behavioural approaches against corruption - Blog – Bridging the gap: How behavioural science can strengthen anti-corruption and crime prevention - Article – Corruption and Social Norms: A New Arrow in the Quiver - Episode 37 of Sophie au pays des possibles :::