by Alan Bonnici

Created on: October 25, 2010   Last Updated: March 02, 2012

Corruption is a word quite common in our vocabulary. Corruption leads to a situation in which the corrupt individual or individuals ultimately gain in an unfair manner at the expense of other individuals and society in general.  For some, the word corruption is synonymous with organisations such as the Italian, American, Russian and Chinese Mafias. While it is true that in these groups corrupt practices form an integral part of their modus operandi, the corruption this case study will discuss can be termed localized corruption. Localized corruption rarely makes the national news and on very rare occasions ever gets picked up by the international press even though it exists and costs society considerably.

Movies tend to make it very simple for the audience to understand who the corrupt person is as well as the people involved in the act of deceit; the so called chain of corruption. In the end the good will win and justice will be done. With localized corruption, only a small percentage of the total acts of corruption ever get discovered and far less get successfully prosecuted or resolved. 

In localized corruption cases, the culprit(s) will call upon one or more of the following actions in order to arrive at their ultimate goal:

a.  Special treatment that results in the corrupt individuals being treated considerably more favourably than others.

b.  Insider information that allows the corrupt individuals to have access to information not available to others.

c.  Ability to influence the outcome of events such that these favour them.

d.  Short circuit the system so that procedures applicable to normal people are not enforced / applied.

Sometimes it may be necessary for the corrupt persons to seek the help of third parties in order to arrive at their ultimate goal. Third parties may be inclined to accommodate the corrupt people because of friendship, against payment, without realising what the corrupt person’s intentions are, or because these people are careless. While the first three are self-explaining, an example of the last would be that of a superior signing documents without property reading them or by not password protecting his computer (thereby allowing the villain to enter illegal instructions).

When others discover the act of corruption, they are at a disadvantage. Normally the victims will realise what is happening after the act has been completed. Armed with very little information they have no idea where to start. The first step would be for the victims to send off emails and letters to get a better understanding on what and how things happened. As soon as the criminals figure out what is ensuing, they, together with those who have helped them, will do their best to:

a.  Prevent questions from being answered. Tactics used are to direct those asking questions to other entities that are not involved and which do not have anything to do with the case as well as to quote laws and regulations which prohibit information seekers from seeking public and unclassified documents.

b.  Not reply to questions.

c.   Adjust, alter or destroy any evidence that ties them to the action. It is quite common that files relating to a case of corruption go missing or are incomplete.

In many localized corruption cases those investigating these cases do so at their own expense, time and resources. Others are disadvantaged by a lack of education that makes it impossible for them to deal the bureaucracy built up by those who have an interest to prevent the truth from being known.

Learn more about this author, Alan Bonnici.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.