The New Nation - Internet Edition

People are sure about the hard work being done by the investigation agencies to establish corruption cases against highly placed political leaders including two former Prime Ministers. Such a situation was impossible to contemplate in the past

The question being asked is, how advisable it is to implicate persons as co-accused for establishing cases against the principal accused. The corruption cases are hugely difficult to prove in a court of law.

People have no sympathy for the principal offenders. The concern people generally feel is for the fact that by implicating many as co-accused some persons are surely made to suffer unnecessarily. Some of these persons will be more helpful as witnesses. The truth is persons as co-accused cannot help the prosecution.

In conducting the affairs of a company, the officials such as a general manager or a director, certainly carry out normal business activities without involving themselves in any criminal act Benefits of a company are also not enjoyed by the directors only but all the employees. In cases of corruption, the directors and other officials cannot ordinarily be found involved unless their complicity, through active participation is established.

The prosecution should not be determined to find abetors. This is not to suggest that, in the face of hard evidence the persons who gain through corruption though not directly participated, should be spared.

Common intention to resort to corruption involving any transaction made by the main accused should be a serious consideration. Though the merit of the individual cases will be different, holding the remotely connected persons as co-accused as a general principle is not helpful. It becomes more difficult to establish a case when doubtful persons are shown as co-accused. Doubtful cases against co-accused make the case against the main accused also doubtful.

The holder of a bank account, fixed deposit or savings certificates has to nominate a beneficiary, who may not normally know the source of money deposited with the bank. Our social conditions cannot be ignored also in deciding who are to be seen as abetors in such activities. If the holder of the deposit bank account is later subjected to the process of law on charges of corruption, the nominee as a beneficiary cannot, in ordinary course of law, be made a co-accused in a corruption case. The investigating agencies have to establish a prima facie case, on the basis of evidence, against each of the beneficiaries.

We shall urge hard working prosecution people not to be too eager to look for co-accused. It is most important to find dependable witnesses to prove cases against the big offenders. Dependable witnesses will have no doubt some complicity in the corruption.

Because the corruption cases are most complicated and so difficult, it is advisable that the system of plea bargain should be introduced to easily and convincingly punish the corrupt ones. They will not be able to appeal against such conviction.