High levels of corruption in public works projects and impunity from justice in the Latin American region continue to challenge attempts to successfully eradicate fraud in government dealings   

Odebrecht, one of the most important construction and engineering companies in Brazil, confessed to offering numerous bribes to political leaders, political parties and public officials. Its major aim was to obtain contracts for major public infrastructure projects within the region. The investigation has revealed a complex network of bribery that has become one of the largest corruption scandals in Latin American history. The B budget boosts in the region, thanks to commodities' "golden decade," occurred within a weak precedent for the Rule of Law and therefore lax anti-corruption measures permitted widespread illicit profits for major government contractors and inflated costs for tax payers.

ARTICLE / Ximena Barria [English version] [Spanish version].

Odebrecht is a Brazilian conglomerate that through several operational headquarters conducts businesses in multiple industries. It dedicates to areas such as engineering, construction, infrastructure and energy. Its headquarters is located in Brazil in the city of Salvador Bahia. The company operates in 27 countries of Latin-America, Africa, Europe and the Middle East. Throughout the years, Odebrecht has concluded contracts with governments to build public works, with the majority of its projects in the Latin-American region.

In 2016, United States Department of Justice published allegations which detailed evidence of the company bribing public officials in twelve different countries, ten of them in Latin America: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Peru, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela. As a result, a full investigation was launched after Odebrecht's senior executives confessed to bribery once discovered.

The corporation granted millions of dollars to local public officials from the countries previously mentioned, in exchange for obtaining public contracts to gain benefits from the projects constructed. Its purpose was to obtain a competitive advantage which permitted them to retain local governmental business in different countries.

In order to cover up illegal transactions, Odebrecht created fictitious, anonymous societies in such places as Belize, the Virgin Islands and Brazil. The company elaborated a secret financial structure to camouflage its payments. The investigation of the United States Department of Justice estimated that the bribes accounted for a total of $788 million dollars. Utilizing this illegal method, and contrary to every political and business code of ethics, the company signed one hundred projects generating $3.336 billion dollars in profits.

A weak judicial branch

This issue, also known as the Odebrecht Case, has created major divisions within Latin American societies. Its citizens consider that these acts should not remain unpunished, as countries need a stronger judicial branch to cement a strong and respected Rule of Law.

According to World Bank indicators, none of these ten Latin American countries impacted by this network of bribes hold 60% or more of the standard efficacy of the Rule of Law and control of corruption. Hence, this explains how the construction company was able to successfully bribe politicians.

The judicial independence and its efficacy are essential for the resolution of acts with these characteristics. The correct exercise of justice moulds an appropriate Rule of Law, preventing that illegal acts or other political decisions could infringe upon it. Contrary to this ideal configuration, the countries who were involved in the Odebrecht case, do not possess optimal judicial independence.  

Thus, according to the Global Competiveness Report for 2017-2018, the majority of the countries affected obtained a low score with respect to the independence of their courts. These figures indicate that the countries lack of an effective judicial system to judge the alleged suspects involved in this case. With the case of Panama and the Dominican Republic, they ranked in the places 120 and 127 respectively, according to the judicial independence of a list of 137 countries.

One of the problems suffered by the Judicial Branch of the Republic of Panama is that it has high number of pending cases awaiting trial at the Supreme Court of Justice. This congestion makes it difficult for the supreme court to work effectively. The high number of processed cases doubled between 2013 and 2016, as the Criminal Chamber of the Court processed 329 cases in 2013 and in 2016 they processed 857. Although the Panamanian Judicial Branch has expanded its budget, this has not represented a qualitative increase in its functions. These difficulties could explain the decision of the court to reject an extension of the Odebrecht investigations, although this may imply some impunity. In 2016, there were only two detainees in the Odebrecht case. In 2017, of the 43 defendants who could be involved in the acceptance of bribes valued at $60 million dollars, only 32 were prosecuted.

The Dominican Republic also faces a similar situation. According to a 2016 survey, only 38% of Dominican citizens trust their justice system. The low percentage may be a result of the fact that the Supreme Court judges who were elected are active members of political parties, something that obscures the credibility of justice and its independence. In 2016, Dominican courts only prosecuted one person related to the Odebrecht case, whereas the US Supreme Court estimated that the Brazilian company had given 92 million dollars in Dominican political bribes, one of the highest amounts outside of Brazil. In 2017, the Supreme Court of the Dominican Republic ordered the release of 9 of 10 suspects implicated in the case due to insufficient evidence.

The need for improved coordination and reform

In October 2017, public prosecutors from Latin America met in Panama City to share information on money laundering, especially related to the Odebrecht case. The officials expressed the need to not leave any case unpunished, in order to solve one of the biggest political, economic and judicial problems in the region. Some prosecutors reported having suffered threats in their investigations. The meeting was valued in a positive way, since it highlighted the need in for greater fiscal coordination and legislative harmony in Latin America. However, it is important to note that the Dominican Republic was absent from that meeting.

All awareness of the public ministries of Latin America is essential in view of the correlation observed among the countries affected by the Odebrecht bribes and their poor position in the indices provided by different international organizations and research centers. The ineffective Rule of Law shows in the lack of control over corrupt companies like Odebrecht, where they succeeded in their bribery policy to obtain a competitive advantage.

The shortcomings of the judicial systems in countries such as Panama and the Dominican Republic make it possible for public officials to go unpunished for the crimes they committed. In addition, the Odebrecht case has a great impact in the region, and could still impede the judicial process if effective reforms are not taken in each country.

High levels of corruption and impunity in the region make it difficult to eradicate millionaire bribes in public procurement contracts

The confession of the construction and engineering company Odebrecht, one of the most important in Brazil, of having delivered large sums as bribes to political leaders, parties and public officials for the awarding of works in various countries in the region has been the biggest corruption scandal in the history of Latin America. The B budget increase during the "golden decade" of raw materials occurred in a framework of little improvement in the effectiveness of the rule of law and control of corruption, which led to high levels of illicit deviations in public contracts.

article / Ximena Barría [English version].

Odebrecht is a Brazilian company that conducts business in multiple industries through several operating sites. It is engaged in areas such as engineering, construction, infrastructure and energy, among others. Its headquarters in Brazil are located in the city of Salvador de Bahia. The business operates in 27 countries in Latin America, Africa, Europe and the Middle East. Over the years, the construction company has participated in public works contracts in most Latin American countries.

In 2016, the U.S. Justice department published a research denouncing that the Brazilian company had bribed public officials in twelve countries, ten of them Latin American: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Dominican Republic and Venezuela. The research was developed from the confession made by Odebrecht's own top executives once they were discovered.

The company provided officials in these countries with millions of dollars in exchange for obtaining public works contracts and benefiting from the payment for their execution. The business agreed to submit millions of dollars to political parties, public officials, public candidates or persons related to the Government. Its purpose was to have a competitive advantage that would allow it to retain public business in different countries. 

In order to cover up these illicit capital movements, business created fictitious corporations in places such as Belize, the Virgin Islands and Brazil. The business developed a secret financial structure to cover up these payments. The research of the U.S. Justice department established that bribes in the aforementioned countries totaled US$788 million (almost half in Brazil alone). Using this illegal method, contrary to all business and political ethics, Odebrecht obtained the commissioning of more than one hundred projects, the execution of which generated profits of US$ 3,336 million.

Lack of an effective judiciary

This matter, known as the Odebrecht case, has created consternation in Latin American societies. Its citizens consider that in order for acts of this nature subject not to go unpunished, countries must have greater efficiency in the judicial sphere and take more accelerated steps towards a true Rule of Law. 

From agreement with World Bank indicators, none of the ten Latin American countries affected by this bribery network reaches 60% of effectiveness of the rule of law and corruption control. This would explain the success of the Brazilian construction company in its bribery policy.

Judicial independence and its effectiveness is essential for the resolution of facts of these characteristics. The proper exercise of justice shapes a proper rule of law, preventing the occurrence of illicit acts or other political decisions that may violate it. Although this is the ideal, the countries involved in the Odebrecht case do not fully comply with this due judicial independence.

Indeed, according to the Global Competitiveness Report for 2017-2018, most of the affected countries obtain a leave grade regarding the independence of their courts, which indicates that they lack an effective judiciary to judge the alleged people involved in this case. This is the case, for example, with Panama and the Dominican Republic, ranked 120th and 127th, respectively, in terms of judicial independence, out of a list of 137 countries.

One of the problems suffered by the Judicial Branch of the Republic of Panama is the high issue of files handled by the Supreme Court of Justice. This congestion makes it difficult for the Supreme Court to work effectively. The high number of processed files doubled between 2013 and 2016: the conference room Criminal Court processed 329 files in 2013; in 2016 there were 857. Although the Panamanian Judicial Branch has improved its budget, that has not represented a qualitative increase in its functions. These difficulties could explain the Court's decision to reject an extension of the research, even though this could mean some impunity. In 2016, there were only two detainees for the Odebrecht case. In 2017, of the 43 defendants who could be involved in the acceptance of bribes valued at US$60 million, only 32 were prosecuted.

The Dominican Republic is also at a similar status . According to a survey of 2016, only 38% of Dominicans trust the judicial institution. This low percentage may have been contributed to by the fact that active members of political parties were elected to serve as Supreme Court judges, something that tarnishes the credibility of the judiciary and its independence. In 2016, Dominican courts only inquired about one person, when the U.S. Supreme Court estimated that the Brazilian business had given $92 million in political bribes, one of the highest amounts outside Brazil. In 2017, the Supreme Court of the Dominican Republic ordered the release from prison of 9 out of 10 allegedly involved in the case due to insufficient evidence.

Need for greater coordination and reform

In October 2017, public prosecutors from Latin America met in Panama City to share information on money laundering, especially in relation to the Odebrecht case. Officials expressed the need to leave no case unpunished, thereby contributing to solving one of the biggest political, economic and judicial problems in the region. Some prosecutors reported having suffered threats in their investigations. All of them valued positively the meeting, as it highlighted the need for greater fiscal coordination and legislative harmony in Latin America. However, it is important to note that the Dominican Republic was absent from meeting.

Any awareness of public ministries in Latin America is essential given the correlation observed between the countries affected by Odebrecht bribes and their poor ranking in indexes provided by different international organizations and centers of research. Ineffective rule of law and lack of control of corruption enable companies like Odebrecht to succeed in their bribery policy to gain a competitive advantage. 

The shortcomings of the judicial systems in countries such as Panama and the Dominican Republic, in particular, may make it possible for public officials to go unpunished for crimes committed. In addition, the Odebrecht case, of great magnitude in the region, could further congest judicial activity if effective reforms are not made in each country.