LEGISLATIVE STRATEGIES IN COMBATTING CORRUPTION ACROSS CENTRAL ASIAN NATIONS

This article provides a focused analysis of legislative strategies employed in the ongoing battle against corruption across Central Asian nations: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Recognizing corruption as a pervasive impediment to development and governance in the region, the study systematically examines the effectiveness of diverse legislative frameworks and institutional mechanisms adopted by these nations. Through a comparative lens, we assess the successes and shortcomings of anti-corruption legislation, shedding light on the evolution of governance structures and the resulting impact on transparency and accountability. Special attention is devoted to judicial reforms and civil society engagement in shaping the legislative landscape. The article also investigates the efficacy of international collaborations and regional initiatives in fortifying anti-corruption endeavors within Central Asia. By charting the nuanced trajectories of legislative responses, this research contributes to a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between legal frameworks and anti-corruption outcomes. The insights derived from this analysis are instrumental for policymakers, scholars, and practitioners working towards refining anti-corruption strategies in analogous contexts. As Central Asian nations grapple with the persistent challenge of corruption, this study provides a timely examination of legislative strategies that can inform evidence-based policy interventions, fostering a more resilient and accountable governance framework in the region.

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51788/tsul.lr.4.3./LOIW2174

LEGISLATIVE STRATEGIES IN COMBATTING CORRUPTION ACROSS CENTRAL ASIAN NATIONS

ARTICLE INFO Keywords: corruption, Central Asia, legislation, anti-corruption strategies, governance.

Norov Ilkhom Ibroximovich Doctorate student at the University of Regensburg, Member of the Junior Research Group “Legal Transfer and Legal Development in Central Asia,” University of Regensburg ORCID: 0000-0002-7604-3571 e-mail: norov.ilkhom@gmail.com

ABSTRACT This article provides a focused analysis of legislative strategies employed in the ongoing battle against corruption across Central Asian nations: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Recognizing corruption as a pervasive impediment to development and governance in the region, the study systematically examines the effectiveness of diverse legislative frameworks and institutional mechanisms adopted by these nations. Through a comparative lens, we assess the successes and shortcomings of anti-corruption legislation, shedding light on the evolution of governance structures and the resulting impact on transparency and accountability. Special attention is devoted to judicial reforms and civil society engagement in shaping the legislative landscape. The article also investigates the efficacy of international collaborations and regional initiatives in fortifying anti-corruption endeavors within Central Asia. By charting the nuanced trajectories of legislative responses, this research contributes to a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between legal frameworks and anti-corruption outcomes. The insights derived from this analysis are instrumental for policymakers,

E-ISSN: 2181-1024 Volume 4, ISSUE 3 (2023) TSUL Legal Report 33

scholars, and practitioners working towards refining anti-corruption strategies in analogous contexts. As Central Asian nations grapple with the persistent challenge of corruption, this study provides a timely examination of legislative strategies that can inform evidence-based policy interventions, fostering a more resilient and accountable governance framework in the region.

Introduction Central Asia, home to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, has confronted a myriad of challenges in its trajectory from Soviet-era subjugation to independent governance. This journey towards self-determination, however, has been significantly hindered by the persistent specter of corruption. As these nations grapple with the complexities [1, pp. 147–158] of transitioning from authoritarian regimes to democratic governance, the role of legislative frameworks in combating corruption becomes pivotal.

Amidst the evolving global landscape of governance, Central Asian countries find themselves navigating the delicate balance between historical legacies and contemporary aspirations. These nations face a pressing need to fortify their institutions against the corrosive influence of corruption.

This article scrutinizes the intricate relationship between legislative strategies and the pervasive nature of corruption across various sectors in Central Asia. Beyond governmental structures, corruption has insinuated itself into critical domains such as public finance, natural resources, public administration, and healthcare. The nexus between political power and economic interests, often manifested through oligarchs and corrupt networks, poses a formidable challenge to the region’s progress.

Recognizing the paramount importance of analyzing legal frameworks, this study delves into the legislative responses adopted by Central Asian nations in their fight against corruption. The analysis is not merely an academic exercise; it serves as a critical tool for policymakers, shedding light on the effectiveness of existing anti-corruption measures and identifying areas for enhancement. In the dynamic struggle against corruption, a nuanced understanding of legal frameworks is indispensable, guiding the formulation of targeted strategies that encompass preventive and punitive measures.

In the broader context of global anti-corruption efforts, this research contributes not only to the understanding of Central Asia’s historical context and contemporary challenges but also emphasizes the instrumental role of legislative analysis. By deciphering the legal landscape, this study aims to provide actionable insights that can inform the development of robust anti-corruption policies, steering Central Asia towards a future characterized by transparency, accountability, and sustained progress.

Material and methods This research employs a mixed-methods strategy to thoroughly examine the anti-corruption legislation across Central Asian countries. To gather quantitative data, we conducted a systematic review of legal documents, regulatory frameworks, and official reports pertaining to anti-corruption initiatives in these nations. This comprehensive analysis involved scrutinizing legislative texts, policy documents, and annual reports released by anti-corruption agencies and relevant government entities. The quantitative assessment focused on identifying key indicators of anti-corruption performance, including the initiation of

34 TSUL Legal Report Volume 4, ISSUE 3 (2023) E-ISSN: 2181-1024

investigations, prosecution of cases, and successful convictions.

Additionally, we conducted comparative case studies to augment our analysis, delving into specific instances of anti-corruption interventions in selected Central Asian countries. The selection criteria for these cases were guided by their relevance to our research objectives and the diversity of anti-corruption strategies observed within the region.

The triangulation of quantitative data analysis and case studies enhances the robustness of our findings, providing a thorough exploration of the intricate landscape of anti-corruption agencies in Central Asia. This methodological approach ensures a holistic understanding of the subject matter, contributing to the depth and reliability of our research outcomes.

Research results The legislation of the Republic of Tajikistan, namely in accordance with Article 12 of the Law “On the Fight against Corruption” [2], defines administrative offences related to corruption. According to this norm, the following are considered administrative offences:

1. accepting for one’s activities any additional remuneration in the form of money, services, and other forms from government bodies and organizations in which the person does not perform the relevant functions [2] - this offense is essentially duplicated with Article 319 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan “taking a bribe” [3].

2. illegal interference in the activities of business entities, violation of independence and violation of their rights and interests, their illegal liquidation or reorganization, interference in the appointment (election) to position or dismissal of managers and employees of non-state business entities, restriction of competition in the goods market (execution works and services) [2] – with Article 258 “obstruction of legal business activity [3]”; 3. provision of tangible and intangible benefits, services, and benefits to persons authorized to perform government functions, or persons equivalent to them, with the aim of inducing them to the relevant act (action or inaction) in the interests of the person providing these benefits and services [2] - this offense is duplicated with Article 320 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan “giving a bribe” and with Article 325 “bribing an employee [3]”; 4. artificially creating obstacles to individuals and legal entities in the exercise of their rights and legitimate interests, demanding from them documents and information, the provision of which by these persons is not provided for by law, refusing them information or issuing documents, the provision of which is provided for by regulatory legal acts, delay, transfer false or incomplete information, as well as illegal seizure and receipt of title documents belonging to them as collateral [2] - this offense is duplicated with Article 314 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan “abuse of official powers”, with Article 315 “inaction in service”, and with Article 258 “obstruction of legitimate entrepreneurial activity [3]”.

As for the Kyrgyz Republic, the Anti-Corruption Law was adopted in 2012 [4], which also contains offenses that create conditions for corruption, among them:

1. The utilization of official powers to address matters pertaining to personal interests, as well as those of immediate and extended family members (parents, children, spouses, siblings, parents of siblings, and children of spouses) [4], is notably replicated within the statutory framework of Article 337 of the Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic, specifically categorized as “abuse of official powers” [5].

2. Granting undue advantages, not sanctioned by legal provisions, to an individual during their recruitment or promotion within the sphere of state or municipal service bears [4] a striking resemblance to the legal concept outlined in Article 337 of the Criminal Code, commonly referred to as “abuse of official position [5]”.

E-ISSN: 2181-1024 Volume 4, ISSUE 3 (2023) TSUL Legal Report 35

3. providing unlawful preference to individuals and legal entities when preparing and making decisions affecting the interests of these individuals - this offense in the countries of the Central Asian region is defined as “obstruction of business activity” [4], and the Kyrgyz Republic is currently planning to introduce this norm into the country’s Criminal Code [6].

4. The second part of this article states that the commission of any of the above offenses by state and municipal employees, if it does not contain signs of a criminal act, entails the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, including dismissal from their position with subsequent dismissal from state and municipal service.

In Kazakhstan, given that under Article 367 (giving a bribe) [7] of the Criminal Code only individuals are held criminally liable, the liability of legal entities for similar acts, provided for in Article 678 (providing illegal material remuneration by legal entities) of the Code of Administrative Offenses [8], is significantly less strict. However, international experts consider these measures insufficient. According to the report of the fourth round of monitoring of the Istanbul Action Plan, Kazakhstan is recommended to establish effective and efficient liability of legal entities for corruption crimes with proportionate sanctions that will be commensurate with the crime committed, in accordance with international standards and best practices (recommendation 19) [9]. However, this report states that the form of liability of legal entities remains at the discretion of the country’s authorities, but liability provisions must meet standards of efficiency and effectiveness.

Analysis of research results In the countries of Central Asia, despite international standards mandating the criminalization of corruption, the coexistence of parallel systems of administrative and criminal accountability for corruption-related offenses is observed. This phenomenon, in many instances, leads to the duplication of legal norms and overall weakens the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures. Furthermore, these countries often grapple with the efficacy of overarching laws targeting corruption, which, while creating the impression of a robust legal framework, frequently remain inert in reality as their provisions lack substantiation in criminal or administrative legislation.

This phenomenon demonstrates the imperfection and inconsistency of legislation in the region and emphasizes the need to harmonize and strengthen the legal mechanisms used to suppress and punish corruption crimes. Addressing these issues is critical to strengthening the rule of law and compliance with international standards in the fight against corruption in Central Asian countries.

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, as a result of successfully implemented reforms in the field of anti-corruption policy, have improved their places in the corruption perception index, and there is less duplication of liability standards in their legislation.

Turkmenistan’s record is the worst among Central Asian countries, and the country consistently ranks lowest in global rankings of corruption, media freedom, human rights, and freedom of speech. Over the past 10 years, the country has not seen successful anti-corruption reforms.

1) All Central Asian countries, responding to international standards and requirements for the fight against corruption, have introduced criminal liability for giving and receiving bribes [10]. However, it is worth noting that many of them do not identify such actions as offering, promising, requesting, and demanding a bribe as independent crimes. Instead, they resort to the concepts of “attempt” and “preparation” for active or passive bribery. This approach does not meet international standards, and this misunderstanding is reflected in the annual report of the Istanbul Action Plan [10].

A study of these regulatory and law enforcement practices in the countries of Central Asia highlights the imperfections and diversity of legislative approaches in

36 TSUL Legal Report Volume 4, ISSUE 3 (2023) E-ISSN: 2181-1024

this area. The lack of a clear distinction between different forms of corrupt practices can create confusion in law enforcement and make it difficult to effectively prosecute corruption crimes.

These misunderstandings and discrepancies in legislation may hinder the achievement of harmony with international anti-corruption standards. Therefore, to ensure a more effective fight against corruption in the region, it is necessary to consider changes to legislation to eliminate these shortcomings and establish clear standards and criteria for the prosecution of corruption offenses.

2) Some progress has been seen in the region in the process of criminalizing bribery of foreign public officials, with particular attention to Kazakhstan, which has introduced changes, including criminalization, regarding this form of corruption. Despite the progress made in the adoption of new laws, there are some shortcomings in their formulation. In particular, the rules do not cover officials of international organizations who are not citizens of these countries and may contain references to definitions of a public official adopted in foreign countries or international organizations. These legal misunderstandings may create problems in the implementation of anti-corruption laws and may not be consistent with international standards and commitments in this area.

3) In addition to the above-mentioned aspects, it should be noted that in the countries of the Central Asian region, the criminal liability of legal entities for corruption has not currently been established. It should be noted that, according to international standards and many national laws, the criminal liability of legal entities for corruption crimes is an important tool in the fight against corruption.

The absence of such criminal liability for legal entities may limit the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures since corruption is often associated with the activities of commercial organizations. Introducing criminal, administrative, or civil liability for legal entities for corruption can create an incentive for businesses and companies to support more transparent and ethical practices, as well as help prevent corruption in enterprises [11].

In Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, the liability of legal entities for corruption is not criminalized.

Thus, the introduction of criminal liability for legal entities for corruption crimes is one of the important directions for strengthening the anti-corruption system in the Central Asian region. This step could contribute to a more effective fight against corruption and promote compliance with international standards in this area.

4) Despite strict maximum penalties for passive bribery in law, in practice, courts in many Central Asian countries often impose much more lenient and less severe penalties, such as low fines. Particular attention should be paid to the fact that in a number of countries, the practice makes giving a bribe less serious than receiving a bribe. This creates unevenness and disproportion in penalties for active and passive bribery.

It should be emphasized that proportionate and dissuasive penalties are fundamental to ensuring an effective fight against corruption. When penalties for active bribery are too lenient or disproportionate, this may reduce the incentive to prevent corrupt practices and encourage the continuation of such practices. Moreover, the lack of strict enforcement of penalties for passive bribery may create the impression that the crime is not taken seriously, which may also contribute to the spread of corruption.

Thus, in Uzbekistan in 2021, a doctor was sentenced to 5 years in prison for accepting a bribe in the amount of 500 thousand soums (equivalent to 40 US dollars), and at the beginning of 2023, the former khokim (mayor) of the district was sentenced to 3 years of restriction of freedom under the paragraph for “theft by embezzlement or embezzlement on an especially large scale” (Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, dated September

E-ISSN: 2181-1024 Volume 4, ISSUE 3 (2023) TSUL Legal Report 37

22, 1994), “abuse of power or official authority causing especially large damage (Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan)”, “official forgery repeated or by a dangerous repeat offender” (Article 209 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan), “violation of the procedure for the provision of land, committed repeatedly and resulting in the withdrawal of irrigated lands from agricultural turnover (Article 2294 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan)”. This phenomenon caused widespread resonance among the population of the country [12]. Thus, existing misunderstandings and discrepancies between maximum penalties in legislation and their actual application in practice highlight the need for more stringent and proportionate application of penalties for corruption crimes. It also emphasizes the importance of developing and implementing effective anti-corruption measures and ensuring their implementation in the judicial system. It should be noted that the legislation of many countries contains various norms and measures intended for the preliminary stage of identification, search, arrest, and seizure of income and funds related to corruption and the commission of corruption crimes. However, despite the existence of such legal mechanisms, their implementation and use as effective tools in the process of investigating corruption crimes are rarely observed in practice. There are several factors that may influence the low use of these measures in the investigation of corruption cases [13]. The first is the lack of specialized knowledge and skills among law enforcement and judicial authorities to use these measures. The second factor is related to the lack of resources and technical training to conduct operations to seize and confiscate illegally obtained assets. A third factor is the lack of rigor in the application of existing legal standards, which may reduce the incentive for law enforcement agencies to use these measures.

In addition, there is a need to strengthen cooperation between various law enforcement agencies and judicial authorities for the effective implementation of measures for the seizure and confiscation of illegally acquired assets. Attention should also be paid to the importance of training and providing the necessary resources for anti-corruption professionals to more successfully implement these measures. All of the above aspects highlight the importance of not only having appropriate regulations and measures in law but also their implementation in practice, as well as the need for training and cooperation efforts to more effectively combat corruption and confiscation of ill-gotten assets. 5) The issue of broad immunities and their insufficient regulation for some officials in Central Asian countries poses a significant obstacle to the effective investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of corruption crimes in the region. Immunities granted to certain officials may be limited by law enforcement agencies and courts, making it difficult to detect and punish corruption crimes. There are two main aspects of this problem that should be noted. Firstly, there is a problem of insufficient regulation of immunities in legislation, which can lead to the arbitrary provision and expansion of immunities. This can create conditions for abuse and evasion of responsibility for corruption by officials. Secondly, the lack of clear and transparent procedures for lifting immunities can complicate the prosecution and consideration of corruption cases. This may put pressure on judicial independence and create barriers for courts to conduct fair trials. There are no strict international standards in the area of granting immunity. However, the UN Convention against Corruption [14] requires its parties to ensure “an appropriate balance between any immunities or jurisdictional privileges granted to public

38 TSUL Legal Report Volume 4, ISSUE 3 (2023) E-ISSN: 2181-1024

officials in connection with the performance of their functions.

In the countries of Central Asia, immunities are not functional but absolute and cover all actions of a public official, carried out both during the performance of official duties and outside them [15]. For example, if an official, while driving a car, speeds, violates traffic laws, and, as a result, injures another person, he may be protected by his immunity even if he did not have to speed in connection with the performance of his official duties. Officials with immunity can only be arrested if they are caught committing illegal acts.

Rules for lifting immunities are often general in nature and do not contain clear criteria; the process for lifting immunity should also be more transparent. In most Central Asian countries, immunity can be lifted through parliamentary procedures or based on a decision of a constitutional court [16]. These countries need to ensure that these procedures are transparent and open and that immunity for “serious” crimes such as corruption is lifted. These procedures must also allow for the collection of evidence necessary to lift immunity. In other words, they must include normal investigative techniques, including interviewing witnesses and identifying and seizing banking and financial records.

To address this issue, immunity reforms are needed to provide only functional and temporary immunities [17]. Such immunities should be limited to the specific duties and functions of officials and be temporary so as not to interfere with the investigation and trial of corruption allegations. In addition, it is necessary to develop clear and transparent procedures for lifting immunities that are subject to controls and oversight to prevent their abuse.

6) The problem of compliance and effective application of anti-corruption legislation in the countries of Central Asia is an important and pressing issue in the field of combating corruption [18]. Although some of these countries have improved their extradition and mutual legal assistance laws [19], further analysis is needed to identify existing problems and develop appropriate solutions.

Central Asian countries apply the principle of dual criminality and also require a sentence of imprisonment of at least one year for extradition [20]. An important aspect is to assess legal provisions that may hinder cooperation in the fight against corruption. One such aspect may be the provision of “dual criminality,” which may make it difficult to extradite and transfer corruption offenders between countries [21]. This may necessitate the revision and harmonization of legislation in this area.

In addition, it should be noted that the lack of legislation on mutual legal assistance in cases involving the proceeds of corruption poses a serious problem. This may limit the ability of countries to cooperate and share information in the fight against corruption and the recovery of ill-gotten assets.

Countries use different methods to obtain or grant extradition and mutual legal assistance in corruption cases. Bilateral agreements are the usual solution, but multilateral agreements or conventions may be used as an alternative. These agreements can be applied to criminal investigations in general, such as the Minsk Agreement. These may also be conventions that apply exclusively to corruption cases, such as the UN Convention against Corruption [22].

7) It should also be noted that assessing the effectiveness of anti-corruption legislation in Central Asian countries is a complex task. The lack of detailed research and analysis on the application of anti-corruption laws in practice makes it difficult to determine the effectiveness of these laws and their real impact on the level of corruption in the region. For example, in the countries of Central Asia, critical analysis of anti-corruption legislation and the real situation in the country is persecuted, which leads to insufficient research on certain issues. Therefore, to more successfully combat corruption and improve compliance with anti-corruption laws, Central Asian countries should focus on conducting more in-depth analysis and research into the

E-ISSN: 2181-1024 Volume 4, ISSUE 3 (2023) TSUL Legal Report 39

practical application of these laws, as well as improving cooperation in this area.

Conclusion In conclusion, the examination of anti-corruption legislation in Central Asian nations unveils a nuanced landscape that reflects both progress and persistent challenges in the region’s quest for effective governance. The coexistence of parallel systems of administrative and criminal accountability for corruption-related offenses poses a substantial impediment to the region’s anti-corruption endeavors. This coexistence often leads to legal duplication, diluting the impact of anti-corruption measures and revealing the imperfections within the legislative frameworks.

The effectiveness of overarching laws targeting corruption is frequently hampered by a significant gap between appearances and reality. While some Central Asian countries have crafted laws that create the illusion of a robust legal framework, the practical implementation of these laws often falls short due to a lack of substantiation in criminal or administrative legislation. This phenomenon underscores the inconsistency and imperfection of legislation in the region, necessitating a critical examination and reform.

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan stand as beacons of progress, having implemented successful anti-corruption reforms that positively impacted their Corruption Perception Index rankings. Their experiences offer valuable insights into the potential benefits of robust anti-corruption policies. Conversely, Turkmenistan’s stagnant record, consistently ranking lowest in global indices related to corruption, media freedom, human rights, and freedom of speech, highlights the urgent need for reform and effective anti-corruption measures in the country.

Several key areas emerge from the analysis that warrant immediate attention. Firstly, the lack of clear distinctions between different forms of corrupt practices creates confusion in law enforcement and hinders the effective prosecution of corruption crimes. The harmonization and strengthening of legal mechanisms to suppress and punish corruption crimes are imperative to foster compliance with international standards and strengthen the rule of law.

Secondly, the absence of criminal liability for legal entities in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan represents a significant gap in anti-corruption measures. Introducing criminal, administrative, or civil liability for legal entities is crucial to incentivize transparent and ethical practices among businesses, ultimately aiding in the prevention of corruption in enterprises.

Thirdly, discrepancies between the maximum penalties stipulated in legislation and their lenient application in practice necessitate a call for more stringent and proportionate penalties for corruption crimes. Proportionate and dissuasive penalties are foundational to fostering an effective anti-corruption environment.

Moreover, the issue of broad immunities granted to certain officials creates obstacles to the investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of corruption crimes. Reforming immunities to provide functional and temporary shields, along with clear procedures for lifting such immunities, is essential to prevent abuse and ensure fairness in trials.

Additionally, the region’s compliance with and effective application of anti-corruption legislation remain complex tasks. The absence of detailed research and analysis on the practical application of these laws impedes a comprehensive assessment of their effectiveness. Central Asian countries must prioritize in-depth analysis and research, fostering cooperation to combat corruption more successfully.

In essence, addressing these legislative shortcomings is not only imperative for strengthening anti-corruption measures but also for fortifying the rule of law and fostering compliance with international standards in the Central Asian region. The road ahead requires a commitment to legislative refinement, harmonization, and collaborative efforts to eradicate corruption, ensuring justice and transparency prevail in the pursuit of good governance.

40 TSUL Legal Report Volume 4, ISSUE 3 (2023) E-ISSN: 2181-1024