Legislative Shortcomings In Procedures For Seizing Public Funds Subject To Administrative And Financial Corruption Crimes In Iraqi Legislation

Abstract

Criminal policy in addressing administrative and financial corruption, in terms of legislation, is not limited to focusing only on the substantive aspect of criminal law by criminalizing acts considered corruption cases or amending their regulation. There must also be equal attention to the procedural aspect of criminal law by identifying its shortcomings, addressing them, and developing them in line with the evolving methods of committing crimes. This is because effective regulation of criminal procedures is one of the most influential factors in combating corruption. However, the practical application of some existing criminal procedures against corruption crimes has revealed certain shortcomings in their provisions, given the developments in methods of committing corruption crimes, their spread, and their extensive impacts. Due to the nature of these crimes, there has emerged a need to reconsider the regulation of procedures required for their investigation to limit their effects on public funds. Moreover, some necessary criminal procedures that play an important role in seizing public funds are not included in the current Iraqi legislation. Although the Iraqi legislator, in its keenness to fulfill international obligations and confront corruption crimes, enacted the Integrity Commission Law, incorporating within some of its provisions new procedural rules consistent with the Commission’s work some of which were not previously recognized in the Code of Criminal Procedure nevertheless, the Integrity Commission Law still suffers from legislative shortcomings in the procedural aspect regarding criminal procedures for seizing public funds. There are procedures that it does not regulate at all despite their importance in enhancing the Integrity Commission’s work in addressing administrative and financial corruption and preserving public funds.