Anti-Corruption In Myanmar
Legal News & Analysis - Asia Pacific - Myanmar - Regulatory & Compliance
9 September, 2016
1. Domestic bribery (private to public)
1.1 Legal framework
Bribery of public
officials is primarily regulated by the Myanmar Penal Code, Chapters IX
and XIA, and the Anti-Corruption Law 2013 (the “Anti-Corruption Law”).
Other corruption-related offenses and penalty clauses are contained in
numerous laws, such as in taxation, banking and financial laws; the
Myanmar Official Secrets Act 1923; the Defence Services Act 1959; the
Fire Services Law 1997; and the Civil Service Law 2013.
1.2 Definition of bribery
Several offenses related to bribery are created by the Penal Code. The general offense is:
Whoever, being or
expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to
accept, or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any
other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration,
as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or
for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official
functions, favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering or
attempting to render any service or disservice to any person with the
Union Parliament or the Government or with any public servant, as such,
shall be punished.
All offenses under the
Penal Code (except those relating to bribery in connection with
elections) can only be committed by public servants. In theory, however,
the person offering the gratification could be convicted of abetting
the public servant in the crime.
Under the Anti-Corruption Law, “corruption” is defined as follows:
Corruption means doing
directly or indirectly of an authoritative person by abusing his
authoritative position, such as giving, accepting, receiving, attempting
to receive, offering, pledging, or discussing in any way of a
consideration from a person concerned for himself or any other or any
organization in order to do anything, refrain from doing any lawful act,
give a person his legitimate right, or prohibit a person wrongfully
from his legitimate right.
1.3 Definition of public official
The Myanmar Penal Code
has a broad definition of public servants, ranging from government
servants, armed forces personnel, judges and court officials, to the
police and inland revenue officials.
Under the
Anti-Corruption Law, an “authoritative person” means a public servant
who holds authoritative power either by his tenure or by jurisdictional
or administrative authority, a public servant abroad, an existing holder
of a political post, a high official, or an administrator or
representative of any public organization.
1.4 Consequences of bribery
(a) For the individuals involved
If an offense is
committed under the Penal Code, an abettor could be punished with the
same punishment as that for the public official. For the offense
relating to public servants under the Penal Code used as an example
above, this could be a fine, or imprisonment of up to three years, or
both.
Under the
Anti-Corruption Law, any “political post holder” convicted of corruption
is liable to a fine and up to 15 years’ imprisonment; any other
authorized person is liable to a fine and up to 10 years’ imprisonment;
anyone else is liable to a fine and up to seven years’ imprisonment.
(b) For the company/legal entity
No separate penalties
for companies or legal entities are provided under either the Penal Code
or the Anti-Corruption Law. However, under the Myanmar Interpretation
of Expressions Law 1973, the word “person” includes any company, and
therefore the same penalties theoretically apply to companies as to
private individuals. The same position applies under the Penal Code.
1.5 Political contributions
Under the Political
Party Registration Law (2010), there is no limit placed on contributions
to political parties. However, contributions can only be made from
domestic as opposed to foreign sources.
1.6 Limitation applicable to hospitality expenses (gifts, travel, meals, entertainment, among others)
In an effort to reduce
corruption, the new Myanmar government issued on 4 April 2016,
guidelines to government officials regarding gifts that can be accepted.
These guidelines also provide an extremely important guide for foreign
investors in an area where there has previously been very little
guidance. In the guidelines, the basic principle is that a government
officer, member of any commission or committee formed by the government,
or member of the public service may not accept any gift given by virtue
of their official position. There are, however, important exceptions
which will be of interest: (i) gifts not exceeding the value of
MMK25,000 (approximately USD25) may be accepted; (ii) gifts given due to
a family or personal relationship (what “personal relationship” means
is not specified) are allowed; and (iii) gifts not exceeding the value
of MMK100,000 (approximately USD100) may be given on religious occasions
such as Christmas and Thadingyut (end of Buddhist lent festival).
The position is slightly
different where the gift is from a foreign government. In this case:
(i) gifts not exceeding the value of MMK400,000 (approximately USD400)
may be accepted; (ii) travel allowances for official trips may be
accepted; (iii) scholarships and medical expenses may be accepted; and
(iv) other gifts in certain circumstances may also be accepted.
These guidelines provide
a welcome degree of clarity in an area where it has previously been
extremely difficult to gauge what is acceptable gift-giving to
government officials and what is not. Although the guidelines do not
have any clear legal status, they are bound to be extremely influential.
We can only wait if they will have any effect on the application of the
Anti-Corruption Law.
The entertainment of
public officials is not allowed, unless this is in the context of a
seminar, workshop or other similar event. It also has to be remembered
that context is particularly important where public officials are
concerned – a gift by a CEO to a minister would be expected to be of
higher value than that given to lower-ranking officials.
2. Domestic bribery (private to private)
2.1 Legal framework
Domestic bribery is regulated under the Anti-Corruption Law.
2.2 Definition of private bribery
There is no separate
definition of private bribery. At face value, the Anti-Corruption Law
appears intended to apply primarily to public officials. However, on a
broad interpretation, it could encompass what might be termed as private
corruption. The definition of corruption would therefore be the same as
set out in section 1.2.
Authoritative persons who would fall under this category are defined in the Anti-Corruption Law as a director
general or managing director of a state and private joint venture company, board, corporation or other organization.
However, on wider interpretation, authoritative persons could include other high-level officials or managers.
There have not been any
cases that would aid in the interpretation of this provision. However,
we would advise that a cautious approach be taken under the
circumstances. It should be noted that the intention of the legislature
at the time of passing the Anti-Corruption Law was to implement the
obligations of Myanmar under the UN Convention Against Corruption, which
clearly deals with bribery in the private sector. In addition, the
Myanmar legislature have amended the Anti-Corruption Law to include a
wider definition of “corruption,” which implies that private-private
corruption is included.
2.3 Consequences of private bribery
(a) For the individuals involved
Any authorized person is
liable to a fine and up to 10 years’ imprisonment; anyone else is
liable to a fine and up to seven years’ imprisonment.
(b) For the company/legal entity
No separate penalties
for companies or legal entities are provided under the Anti-Corruption
Law. However, under the Myanmar Interpretation of Expressions Law 1973,
the word “person” includes any company, and therefore the same penalties
theoretically apply to companies as to private individuals. The same
position applies under the Penal Code.
2.4 Limitation applicable to hospitality expenses (gifts, travel, meals, entertainment, among others)
There are no specific
limitations applied to hospitality expenses and therefore to a large
extent, what is socially acceptable in the commercial context has to be
relied on as a guide.
The usual value of gift
and entertainment expenses would be up to USD75 for gifts, and the same
amount per head for entertainment. Obviously, what is acceptable can
depend on the context and the status of the individuals involved. As we
have indicated, the government have just released guidelines on gifts
that may and may not be accepted by government officials, which are of
considerably lower value than was previously thought. It is not known
how this guidance might influence the treatment of norms of
private-to-private gift-giving. Because of the newness of the
Anti-Corruption Law and the lack of precedents in this area, we advise
prudence.
3. Corruption of foreign public officials
3.1 Legal framework
The Anti-Corruption Law
3.2 Definition of corruption of foreign public officials
There is no separate
definition of corruption of foreign public officials. The offense is
corruption of authorized persons, and a foreign public official is an
authorized person. The offense of corruption is defined in section 1.2.
3.3 Definition of foreign public official
Under the
Anti-Corruption Law, a “foreign public service man” is defined as “a
person who is appointed or selected by any foreign country legislation,
administration or judiciary officer, a person who works in a board,
commission, corporation or other organization formed to carry out the
duties of a foreign country and an authorized person who works on behalf
of an international organization.”
3.4 Consequences of corruption of foreign public officials
(a) For the individuals involved
A foreign public service
man is liable to a fine and up to 10 years’ imprisonment; anyone else
is liable to a fine and up to seven years’ imprisonment.
(b) For the company/legal entity
No separate penalties
for companies or legal entities are provided under the Anti-Corruption
Law. However, under the Myanmar Interpretation of Expressions Law 1973,
the word “person” includes any company, and therefore the same penalties
theoretically apply to companies as to private individuals. The same
position applies under the Penal Code.
3.5 Limitation applicable to hospitality expenses (gifts, travel, meals, entertainment, among others)
As we have advised in
Section 1.6 above, new government guidelines severely limit the value of
gifts that may be given to Myanmar government officials. The new
guidelines are, however, silent in relation to foreign government
officials. However, as corruption of foreign government officials is
covered by the Anti-Corruption Law, we would suggest that, given the
lack of clarity in this area, the prudent course is to follow the same
guidelines in relation to foreign public officials and limit gift-giving
accordingly. Entertainment should also be limited in the same manner,
and only to that connected with seminars and workshops.
4. Facilitation payments
Neither the Penal Code
nor the Anti-Corruption Law recognizes facilitation payments.
Facilitation payments could be interpreted as a “gratification” under
the Penal Code, or more likely, as corruption within the wide definition
of corruption under the Anti-Corruption Law.
5. Compliance programs
5.1 Value of a compliance program to mitigate/eliminate the criminal liability for legal entities
Under Myanmar law,
because of the lack of clarity on liability of corporate bodies, it is
advisable to have a compliance program in the event that the company was
found liable under the Penal Code or Anti-Corruption Law.
However, many foreign
companies operating in Myanmar have compliance programs for a number of
other reasons, primarily for governance, or because they are potentially
liable under anti-corruption legislation within their respective
jurisdictions (e.g., FCPA, UK Bribery Act), where the existence of a
compliance program may at least mitigate the offense.
5.2 Absence of a compliance program as a crime
The absence of a compliance program is not recognized as a crime in Myanmar.
5.3 Elements of compliance program
(1) Clear policies and procedures should be established to ensure compliance.
(2) Employees should undergo training explaining:
(i) relevant legislation;
(ii) company policies and procedures developed in (1) above; and
(iii) situations in which difficulties could occur.
(3) The effectiveness of the program should be monitored and adjustments be made where necessary.
(4) Employee training should be repeated at least annually.
(5) There should be whistleblowing procedures and protection.
(6) Individuals and companies that you intend to conduct business with should be checked against the
Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list.
(7) Consideration
should be given to having compliance provisions in all material
contracts affecting the business, such as compliance with the
Anti-Corruption Law, the FCPA and the UK Bribery Act.
6. Regulator with jurisdiction to prosecute corruption
The police investigate
any alleged offense under the Penal Code, which would then be prosecuted
by the Prosecution Department of the Attorney General’s Office.
Offenses under the
Anti-Corruption Law are investigated by a team under a special “Bribery
Eradication Commission” established by the Anti-Corruption Law.
Qualifications
Our advice above is qualified by the following:
(1) Myanmar has
had a number of different governments/administrations that have had a
different approach to the promulgation and maintenance of its basic
laws. This, together with the mixed use of English and the Myanmar
language in the writing of these laws, as well as their style and
coverage, has meant that they are not always complete or consistent.
Thus, there are many areas that are not adequately dealt with and have
not been the subject of judicial determination. Furthermore, there are a
number of new laws and regulations being introduced for which there is
no prior point of reference. This provides significant limitation on the
ability to give definitive advice.
(2) Our advice is
based upon the laws, decrees, rules, regulations and official
notifications of Myanmar that are available to the public as of the date
of publication. There may be new or amended laws, decrees, rules,
regulations or official notifications, or unofficial or internal
guidelines, which exist but which are not published or which are not
generally available to the public, and the existence of the same may
affect the advice herein.
(3) Only a
limited number of court judgments are published or made available to the
public, and the judicial interpretation of the laws of Myanmar is
uncertain. Thus, there may be unpublished opinions or decisions of the
courts of Myanmar that may affect the advice expressed herein.
(4) Our advice is
only based upon the laws of Myanmar and we have not considered the laws
of any other jurisdiction in rendering our advice.
(5) While we may
refer to policies, practices and customs policies in our advice, these
are only in relation to prevailing policies, customs and practices of
which we are aware. It is possible that there are other policies,
practices and customs or changes than those known to us, and which may
affect the advice expressed herein.
(6) Administrative
interpretation or implementation of the laws of Myanmar is not always
consistent or certain and may vary from case to case or with respect to
the same facts.
THE ANTI CORRUPTION LAW-ENG by Than Han on Scribd
Particulars to be noted in Filing complaint
The
following particulars shall be included without fail complain letter in
order to be effective in complaining to the commission by the aggrieved
person.
- The complained case if the corruption case arisen in the period after 17th Sept, 2013.
-
Complaint shall not be made about corruption under outside knowledge by
hearing from outside and public news from the vicinity and shall
describe important evidence to be able to support in time of making
necessary investigations.
- In
the event of the mater to be investigated, the following particulars of
the aggrieved complained shall be stated to be able to communicate and
investigates if necessary whether or not the aggrieved person is real
and for prior protection of complaint from misusing of the name of
others.
- Name
- Signature
- Citizenship Scrutiny Card Copy
- Fully Address to contact
- In
the event of sending the copy of complain letter to the commission, the
commission will not be able to take action and so direct complaint shall
be addressed to the commission.
Complaint modes and processes to the commission
If the aggrieved person
is willing to complain about the corruptions, complaint may be made in
writing to the commission under the following modes.
- Direct complaint to the commission by the aggrieved person;
-
Complaint to any of the work committee constituted under this law,
operation board, preliminary scrutiny team and investigation team by the
aggrieved person;
The Commission, if a
complain letter has arrived, scrutinize whether or not the complaint can
be investigated under section 21 and section 16(o) and whether or not
to be in line with or the complaint that cannot be investigated under
section 22.
Investigation of the
commission to be able to take action under the law or the particulars to
be able to make investigation has been provided in the Anti-Corruption
Law Section 21 as follows.
“In
respect to the following matters, the commission may investigate or make
to investigate to be able to take action under the law.
Assignment duty of the investigation and submission form the state president;
Assignment
duty for the investigation and submission from the relevant parliament
chairman with regard to submission of the proposal under the law from
the parliament representative to take action against current political
rank holder pursuant to section 43, sub-section (b).
To take action against the committee of corruption, the aggrieved person-
- Complaint to the commission,
-
Complaint to the work committee, Operation board, preliminary scrutiny
board and any of the investigation body formed under this law;
-
Transfer and sending the foregoing complaint to the commission in terms
of the complaint to the relevant government department, any of the
government organization;"
In the section 16(o),
“Performance of other duties given by the state president, Union
Parliament House Speaker, Upper House Speaker or lower House Speaker"
has been provided and assignment of the duty has been given to
investigate whether or not to infringe with the law of Anti- Corruption
subject to the above-cited law section 16(o).
The particulars of the investigation have been enacted in the section 22 of Anti – Corruption as follows.
“The commission shall not investigate the following matters-
(a)The matter of complaint has been the matter investigated by the commission.
(b) Lack of imperative evidences in the complaint
(c) Lack of new important evidence in further complaint."
Under section 22 (b), it
is necessary to have important evidence is every letter of complaint.
It has been enacted that the commission is not to investigate against
the letter of complaint lacking any evidence and reference.
Under the section 21,
section 16(o) and Section 22, in the event that the commission
investigate whether or not to be consistent with this section upon the
letter of complaint, the contents of letter of complaint has to be
studied and screened in details. Subsequent to discussion review,
decision has been given whether or not to consecutively investigate.
In respect of
corruption, the complaint, in the event that, report easily against the
letter of complaint without thoroughness and certainty, under section
46, shall be awarded for being able to face the suit again. In the
section 46, and under section 44, in the event of willful complaint or
report with the aim of losing dignity or grievance to anyone else
unreasonably from the complaint or informer, they will be taken action
under the law, it has been enacted. It is not a threat to the complaint
not to done complain from section 46 and if has been enacted to be
mutually fair under the nature of the law. In the long-exercising Penal
Code for many years currently, also in the event of false information
and complaint, it has been enacted that action may be taken.
Screening the letters of
complaint sent to the commission, it has been found that majority of
the letter of complaint has been reported the following matters.
- Complaint on the matter not concerned with corruption,
- Matter to be talked on the institution of suit in the court under the law;
- Frequent complaints under personal hatred,
- Matter of being performed firm the relevant Ministry and Region, State Governments;
- Despite naming corruption, lack of particulars referring to corruption in the contents of the letter of complaint;
- Overall written complaint without any evidentiary proof by writing and stating only on a sheet for corruption.
-
Complain to the commission implying and uniting to claim for encumbrance
instead of tackling financial scandals each other on the institution of
suit in the Court;
- Subsequent to complaint, revocation of letter by the complainant himself on compounding and re-adjusting each other;
- By writing and twisting to be petitioned and with laden agenda of own fault;
- Anonyms letter of complaint without stating signature or name of complaint;
To be able to take
effective action from the commission against corruption under the law,
it is necessary to complain the matter reasonably referring to
corruption from the public in time of complaining.
Also, some people have
written letter of complaint by acquiring charge as broker and it is
known on the study that they have cheated the un-acknowledgeable public
who are aggrieved and it is necessary to have full awareness and avoid
from the same sort of persons.
The case of some
complain letters has been in the process of trial and appeal in the
court and letter of complaint has been sent to the commission in advance
prior to the proclamation of order from the court as prior prevention
therefrom. Out of the foregoing letters of complaint, it has been
transferred and sent to the Supreme court of the Union to be known such
necessary matter in order to have carriage of justice from the superior
court prior to miscarriage of justice. However, the commission avoid the
interference matter of the judiciary with special are to affect
jurisdiction of the relevant judges under the law.
The commission studies
carefully the letter of complaint submitted and in the event of
absolutely irrelevant letter with the commission and unable to transfer
and send the matters to the relevant government ministers, states and
regions, it has been filed with attachments. Despite being unrelated the
letter of complaint to the corruption and bribery, in the event of sort
of matter having to be performed by the relevant executive and
department, it has to be transferred and sent to the relevant ministry,
region or state to provide assistance is someway on the services with
the aim of supporting for the proper administration system of the
government relevant ministry and to be able to tackle amicably on
difficulty on grievances experience by the complainant, public. Due to
attaching great importance on performance from the relevant ministries
and government, it has been studied and found that satisfaction and
amicability has been achieved in certain matters.
In the event of letter
of complaint consistency with section 21, section 16(o) and of
infringement with the provisions of section 22, of the matter actionable
and investing story and corruption, decision has to be passed for
investigation and it has been ongoing.
A suit instituted in the
court shall be in conformity with the provision of law as well as
requirement of reasonableness upon evidences. In addition to hearing and
knowledge from outside, through the information from the surrounding,
it is unlikely to institute the suit success will be achieved
effectively on the suit instituted and sound with evidentiary documents
stipulated in the CPU following from the court and evidence Act.
Particulars to be noted in Filing complaint
The
following particulars shall be included without fail complain letter in
order to be effective in complaining to the commission by the aggrieved
person.
- The complained case if the corruption case arisen in the period after 17th Sept, 2013.
-
Complaint shall not be made about corruption under outside knowledge by
hearing from outside and public news from the vicinity and shall
describe important evidence to be able to support in time of making
necessary investigations.
- In
the event of the mater to be investigated, the following particulars of
the aggrieved complained shall be stated to be able to communicate and
investigates if necessary whether or not the aggrieved person is real
and for prior protection of complaint from misusing of the name of
others.
- Name
- Signature
- Citizenship Scrutiny Card Copy
- Fully Address to contact
- In
the event of sending the copy of complain letter to the commission, the
commission will not be able to take action and so direct complaint shall
be addressed to the commission.
Complaint modes and processes to the commission
If the aggrieved person
is willing to complain about the corruptions, complaint may be made in
writing to the commission under the following modes.
- Direct complaint to the commission by the aggrieved person;
-
Complaint to any of the work committee constituted under this law,
operation board, preliminary scrutiny team and investigation team by the
aggrieved person;
The Commission, if a
complain letter has arrived, scrutinize whether or not the complaint can
be investigated under section 21 and section 16(o) and whether or not
to be in line with or the complaint that cannot be investigated under
section 22.
Investigation of the
commission to be able to take action under the law or the particulars to
be able to make investigation has been provided in the Anti-Corruption
Law Section 21 as follows.
“In
respect to the following matters, the commission may investigate or make
to investigate to be able to take action under the law.
Assignment duty of the investigation and submission form the state president;
Assignment
duty for the investigation and submission from the relevant parliament
chairman with regard to submission of the proposal under the law from
the parliament representative to take action against current political
rank holder pursuant to section 43, sub-section (b).
To take action against the committee of corruption, the aggrieved person-
- Complaint to the commission,
-
Complaint to the work committee, Operation board, preliminary scrutiny
board and any of the investigation body formed under this law;
-
Transfer and sending the foregoing complaint to the commission in terms
of the complaint to the relevant government department, any of the
government organization;"
In the section 16(o),
“Performance of other duties given by the state president, Union
Parliament House Speaker, Upper House Speaker or lower House Speaker"
has been provided and assignment of the duty has been given to
investigate whether or not to infringe with the law of Anti- Corruption
subject to the above-cited law section 16(o).
The particulars of the investigation have been enacted in the section 22 of Anti – Corruption as follows.
“The commission shall not investigate the following matters-
(a)The matter of complaint has been the matter investigated by the commission.
(b) Lack of imperative evidences in the complaint
(c) Lack of new important evidence in further complaint."
Under section 22 (b), it
is necessary to have important evidence is every letter of complaint.
It has been enacted that the commission is not to investigate against
the letter of complaint lacking any evidence and reference.
Under the section 21,
section 16(o) and Section 22, in the event that the commission
investigate whether or not to be consistent with this section upon the
letter of complaint, the contents of letter of complaint has to be
studied and screened in details. Subsequent to discussion review,
decision has been given whether or not to consecutively investigate.
In respect of
corruption, the complaint, in the event that, report easily against the
letter of complaint without thoroughness and certainty, under section
46, shall be awarded for being able to face the suit again. In the
section 46, and under section 44, in the event of willful complaint or
report with the aim of losing dignity or grievance to anyone else
unreasonably from the complaint or informer, they will be taken action
under the law, it has been enacted. It is not a threat to the complaint
not to done complain from section 46 and if has been enacted to be
mutually fair under the nature of the law. In the long-exercising Penal
Code for many years currently, also in the event of false information
and complaint, it has been enacted that action may be taken.
Screening the letters of
complaint sent to the commission, it has been found that majority of
the letter of complaint has been reported the following matters.
- Complaint on the matter not concerned with corruption,
- Matter to be talked on the institution of suit in the court under the law;
- Frequent complaints under personal hatred,
- Matter of being performed firm the relevant Ministry and Region, State Governments;
- Despite naming corruption, lack of particulars referring to corruption in the contents of the letter of complaint;
- Overall written complaint without any evidentiary proof by writing and stating only on a sheet for corruption.
-
Complain to the commission implying and uniting to claim for encumbrance
instead of tackling financial scandals each other on the institution of
suit in the Court;
- Subsequent to complaint, revocation of letter by the complainant himself on compounding and re-adjusting each other;
- By writing and twisting to be petitioned and with laden agenda of own fault;
- Anonyms letter of complaint without stating signature or name of complaint;
To be able to take
effective action from the commission against corruption under the law,
it is necessary to complain the matter reasonably referring to
corruption from the public in time of complaining.
Also, some people have
written letter of complaint by acquiring charge as broker and it is
known on the study that they have cheated the un-acknowledgeable public
who are aggrieved and it is necessary to have full awareness and avoid
from the same sort of persons.
The case of some
complain letters has been in the process of trial and appeal in the
court and letter of complaint has been sent to the commission in advance
prior to the proclamation of order from the court as prior prevention
therefrom. Out of the foregoing letters of complaint, it has been
transferred and sent to the Supreme court of the Union to be known such
necessary matter in order to have carriage of justice from the superior
court prior to miscarriage of justice. However, the commission avoid the
interference matter of the judiciary with special are to affect
jurisdiction of the relevant judges under the law.
The commission studies
carefully the letter of complaint submitted and in the event of
absolutely irrelevant letter with the commission and unable to transfer
and send the matters to the relevant government ministers, states and
regions, it has been filed with attachments. Despite being unrelated the
letter of complaint to the corruption and bribery, in the event of sort
of matter having to be performed by the relevant executive and
department, it has to be transferred and sent to the relevant ministry,
region or state to provide assistance is someway on the services with
the aim of supporting for the proper administration system of the
government relevant ministry and to be able to tackle amicably on
difficulty on grievances experience by the complainant, public. Due to
attaching great importance on performance from the relevant ministries
and government, it has been studied and found that satisfaction and
amicability has been achieved in certain matters.
In the event of letter
of complaint consistency with section 21, section 16(o) and of
infringement with the provisions of section 22, of the matter actionable
and investing story and corruption, decision has to be passed for
investigation and it has been ongoing.
A suit instituted in the
court shall be in conformity with the provision of law as well as
requirement of reasonableness upon evidences. In addition to hearing and
knowledge from outside, through the information from the surrounding,
it is unlikely to institute the suit success will be achieved
effectively on the suit instituted and sound with evidentiary documents
stipulated in the CPU following from the court and evidence Act.
THE ANTI CORRUPTION LAW-ENG by Than Han on Scribd
THE ANTI CORRUPTION RULE-ENG by Than Han on Scribd
UNITED NATION CONVENTION AGAINR CORRUPTION ~en by Than Han on Scribd
Receiving Complaint letter
1. From the opening of the Commission Office on 10th March 2014 to 30th
June 2017, Commission received 3298 complaints addressed and copied to
the Commission. The number of complaint by States and Regions are as
follows;
No
|
States and Regions
|
Number of Complaint
|
|---|---|---|
a
|
Nay Pyi Taw
|
116
|
b
|
Kachin State
|
39
|
c
|
Kayar State
|
6
|
d
|
Kayin State
|
39
|
e
|
Chin State
|
24
|
f
|
Saging Region
|
353
|
g
|
Tanintharyi Region
|
25
|
h
|
Bago Region
|
373
|
i
|
Magway Region
|
119
|
j
|
Mandalay Region
|
614
|
k
|
Mon State
|
175
|
l
|
Yangon Region
|
907
|
m
|
Rakhine State
|
51
|
n
|
Shan State
|
226
|
o
|
Ayeyarwaddy Region
|
371
|
Total
|
3438
|
2. The classification of the above complaints the Commission received are as follows;
No
|
Subject of the Complaint
|
Number of the Complaint
|
a
|
Complaint of Corruption (including the assignment of duty)
|
75
|
b
|
Misconduct
|
701
|
c
|
Farmland (Management of Farmland)
|
503
|
d
|
Land Requisition
|
130
|
e
|
Civil Case
|
112
|
f
|
Criminal Case
|
70
|
g
|
Judicial Affairs
|
507
|
h
|
Departmental Case
|
1003
|
i
|
Misappropriation
|
54
|
j
|
Personal Case
|
269
|
k
|
Withdrawal of Complaints
|
14
|
Total
|
3438
|
- Acting condition of complaint letter
The condition of taking action the complaints
3438 complaints that are from 10-3-2014 to 30-6-2017
No
|
Complaint
|
Number
|
Total
|
Remark
|
|
(a)
|
Investigation
|
46
|
|||
1
|
Complaints that are taken action
|
31
|
|||
2
|
Complaints that have no evidence of illegal
|
4
|
|||
3
|
Still investigated
|
11
|
|||
(b)
|
Transferring to relevant States and Regional Government
|
806
|
|||
1
|
Complaints that request to reply
|
196
|
|||
2
|
Complaints that not request to reply
|
610
|
|||
(c)
|
Filing
|
2854
|
|||
1
|
Addressing to President, Vice President and Speakers of the Parliaments
|
487
|
|||
2
|
Addressing to related Ministry and State and Regional Government and does not related to the Law
|
502
|
|||
3
|
Complaint on the case which are still on trial
|
208
|
|||
4
|
No important evidence in the complaint
|
243
|
|||
5
|
No new important evidence in the subsequent complaint
|
345
|
|||
6
|
Anonymous letter bearing the complaint
|
122
|
|||
7
|
Copy
|
581
|
|||
8
|
Having received the response
|
24
|
|||
9
|
Happening before the enactment of the Law
|
72
|
|||
(d)
|
Under Scrutiny
|
2
|
|||
Total
|
3438
|
||||
Taking action on the (31) complaints that are investigated
Prosecution
(21) Cases
No.
|
Section
|
Accused Person
|
Remark
|
1.
|
ACL 55
|
-
|
|
2.
|
ACL 56
|
16 persons
|
One person was punished with imprisonment for 10 years and fined 50000 kyats.
One person was punished with imprisonment for 21 years.
One person was punished with imprisonment for 10 years.
One person was punished with imprisonment for 3 years.
Six persons are being prosecuted.
Six persons were charged with Cr P C 87/Cr P C 88.
|
3.
|
ACL 56/63
|
2 persons
|
One person was punished with imprisonment for 2 years.
One person is being prosecuted.
|
4.
|
ACL 57
|
9 persons
|
Two persons were punished with imprisonment for 7 years.
Three persons were punished with imprisonment for 2 years.
Four persons are being prosecuted.
|
5.
|
ACL 57/63
|
1 person
|
One person was punished with imprisonment for 2 years.
|
Taking action by the relevant
departments in line with the section 30(b) of Anti-Corruption Law
67 persons
No.
|
Penalty
|
Number
|
Remark
|
1.
|
Caution by letter
|
15 persons
|
|
2.
|
Withholding of Increment
|
-
|
|
3.
|
Withholding of Promotion
|
13 persons
|
three persons are (3) years, five are (2) years and five are one each.
|
4.
|
Reduction of Pay in a Time-scale
|
-
|
|
5.
|
Reduction to a lower post
|
-
|
|
6.
|
Recovery of loss
|
-
|
|
7.
|
Suspension
|
1 person
|
|
8.
|
Removal
|
1 person
|
|
9.
|
Dismissal
|
5 persons
|
|
10.
|
Transfer
|
1 person
|
|
11.
|
Inform the relevant department to take action
|
31 persons
|
Recovery from Pay
No.
|
Penalty
|
Number
|
Remark
|
1.
|
Recovery a business man the money
|
1 person
|
(5,760,000 kyats)
|
Complaints that are transferred to the relevant States and Regional (806)
(a) Complaints that request to reply 196 complaints
(b) Complaints that not request to reply 610 complaints
Taking action of relevant department on the complaints that are transferred to
No.
|
Taking Action
|
Transferred
complaint that
request to reply
|
Transferred
complaint that
not request to reply
|
Remark
|
1.
|
Caution
|
20
|
9
|
29 complaints
|
2.
|
Taking Action by the Civil Service regulation
|
30
|
34
|
64 complaints
|
3.
|
Questioning the persons who are concerned with the case
|
28
|
21
|
|
4.
|
No taken action as it has been taken action in line with the Law
|
31
|
35
|
|
5.
|
Making contest in Court
|
11
|
6
|
|
6.
|
No taken action as false information
|
45
|
31
|
|
7.
|
Still investigated
|
1
|
-
|
|
Total
|
166
|
136
|
Those who have been in caution and taken action by civil service regulation
No.
|
Penalty
|
Number
|
Remark
|
1.
|
Caution by oral by Head of Department
|
4
|
|
2.
|
Caution by record
|
58
|
|
3.
|
Confession
|
10
|
|
4.
|
Removal/Suspension
|
17
|
|
5.
|
Withholding of Promotion
|
3
|
|
6.
|
Retirement
|
1
|
|
7.
|
Taking action by Police Disciplinary Law
|
36
|
|
8.
|
Withholding of Increment
|
2
|
|
9.
|
Transferring
|
7
|
|
10.
|
Recovery from Pay
|
9
|
28,663,000 Kyats
|
11.
|
Carrying out to be able to take action in line with Law
|
22
|
|
Total
|
169
|
