“Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress to the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.”

“Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiturein Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” Research Proposal submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctorate Degree in Law: Financial/Economic Crimes Law & Policy Proposed Research Topic: “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress to the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” .......................................................................................................................................... Name of Candidate: Adv. Justine Sipho Chitengi Student No.: 2925556 Proposed Program: Doctorate in Law Proposed University: To be advised Faculty: To be advised Proposed Supervisor: To be advised .......................................................................................................................................... Declaration I declare that “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” is my own original work, that it has not been submitted for any degree or examination in any other university, and that all the sources I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by complete references. Justine Sipho Chitengi -------------------------------------------------------©October 2011  The applicant, formerly a lecturer of Business Associations Law and the Law of Contract at the University of Zambia and Assistant Dean /Lecturer of Employment Law and Administrative Law at the University of Lusaka, Law School in Zambia, is an Alumnus and Scholar of the prestigious DAAD German- South African Centre of Excellency (class of 2009). His qualifications include: LLM Structured (UWC, RSA in co-operation with HU, Germany); LLB with merit (UNZA, Zambia); BSc. Forestry (CBU, Zambia); PGCert Contracting & Entrepreneurial Training Programme (Northlink College, RSA); PGCert Legal practitioners Qualifying Examinations (ZIALE, Zambia); Lawyers„ Continuous Professional Development Certificate in Conveyancing (LAZ, Zambia); Advocate of the High Court for Zambia (AHCZ); and Conveyancing Lawyer/Conveyancer of the High Court (Zambia). 1 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” Ten Key Words (i) Asset Recovery (ii) Corruption (iii)Economic Crimes Jurisdiction(s) (iv) Financial Havens (v) Forfeiture in Persona (vi) Forfeiture in Rem (vii) Money Laundering (viii) Offshore Banks/Corporations (ix) Property Forfeiture (x) State Sovereignty/ Immunities 2 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” Abbreviations                             All ER: All England Law Report AMLA: Anti-Money Laundering Authority AU: African Union BOZ: Bank of Zambia Cap: Chapter CC: Constitutional Court (South Africa). Crim L.R: Criminal Law Report DEC: Drug Enforcement Commission Ed(s): Editor(s) EU: European Union FATF: Financial Action Task Force GDP: Gross domestic product GwG: Geldwäschegesetz. HC(Z): High Court for Zambia ISS: Institute of Social Security NCC: National Constitution Commission NGO: Non-Governmental Organisations OAS: Organisation of American States OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation And Development PPMLA: Prohibition and Prevention of Money Laundering Act SADC: Southern Africa Development Commission SCZ: Supreme Court of Zambia SSP: Subordinate Court Principal Registry STR(s): Suspicious Transaction Report(s) UBZ: United Bank of Zambia UN: United Nations UNCAC: United Nations Convention against Corruption UNODC: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 3 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” Abstract With the increase in the sophistication of the world economy as a result of globalisation, has dawned the corresponding sophistication and complexities of techniques employed by perpetrators of financial and economic crimes. In essence and cardinal to dawning is the “next to impossible” possibility of recovering the assets and/or forfeiting the properties from perpetrators after a successful conviction. There are so many legal and policy issues surrounding the notion of asset recovery and property forfeiture that are adjudicated as proceeds of crime. Among them is the controversial economic system of financial havens in the Cayman Islands and offshore corporations in certain developed jurisdictions that shield proceeds of crime stashed on their soils by perpetrators from other countries. These shielding jurisdictions take advantage of the international legal concepts such as state sovereignty and state immunities to derive economic benefits from the said illegal proceeds stashed in their jurisdictions at a greater expense to the citizenry of victim states. Another contributing factor is the conflict of laws in enforcing foreign judgements to recover and/or forfeit property and offshore bank accounts held by perpetrators in foreign. Indeed, developing jurisdictions such as Zambia have faced this legal challenge as evidenced in the failure to register the infamous London Judgement against the late former Head of State, Dr. F.T.J. Chiluba.1 Posterity indicates that recovery of assets or forfeiture of property across international borders remains a big challenge to other developing countries apart from Zambia.2 This challenge is worsened by the fact that recipient countries/financial havens are usually not keen to cooperate with the victim countries as they benefit from the ploughing of the illegal monies into their economy. In this regard, many financial haven countries require and insist that as precondition to rendering any form of assistance or cooperation to the victim countries, the victim countries must prove that the assets or property that is a of recovery or forfeiture, respective, were not lawfully obtained. This requirement of proof is deliberately a difficulty one devised by the safe havens to simply protect the perpetrator fugitives in their territories in exchange for induced investment of the dirty proceeds in their economic system at the expense of the victim 1 Attorney General of Zambia for and on behalf of the Republic of Zambia (Claimant) v Meer Care & Desai (a firm) & Others [2007] EWHC 952 (Ch). 2 As espoused by the House of Lords in the 2008 London Judgment against Zambia‟s second Republican President, Dr. Chiluba. Available from the Attorney General‟s Chambers, Lusaka. 4 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” countries. Posterity has shown that certain safe havens have accorded protection to fugitive perpetrators together with their looted property and assets. It is a notorious fact and common parlance in public domain in Zambia that for the over 8 years Zambia’s former Chief of Intelligence Service, Xavier Chungu, had been living in Belgium as a fugitive evading economic crime cases pending against him in Zambian Courts. Yet the Zambian Government could not lay hands on him or his assets or properties for alleged fear of upsetting diplomatic ties and the existing cordial relations between the two countries. The prosed research would look at the feasibility of having the UN compel safe havens that are member states to not only to reject; but also to criminalise unexplained and suspicious increases in the wealth of public officials from other countries who are trying to be fugitives and/or investors in their countries. This will be in line with the stipulations of UNCAC’s article 203 consolidated by article 31(8) which provides for confiscation of such unexplained wealth by a public official who cannot explain the lawful source of his/her wealth. Caution must, however, be taken because such steps may be alleged to be unconstitutional for contravening article 194 which guarantees Zambian citizens to own property. Another legal and policy complexity associated with international Asset Recovery and Property forfeiture is the sophistication, sensitivity and delicacy of the organised economic crimes, generally. In most cases economic crimes usually involve organised structures of Government institutions interacting across sectors and amongst former leaders who are still constant companions of the chief(s) in the Government. Furthermore, asset recovery and property forfeiture are very costly and time consuming processes.5 They both involve forensic accountants, lawyers, and other relevant experts whose services are extremely expensive to hire; in addition to the expenses of translators, travel expenses and expert witnesses’ allowances inter alia. Like most young democrats in developing countries, Zambia had been excited about the fight of graft and ended up investing so much money in the cause that has so far yielded only a handful of convictions whose recovery and/or forfeiture has been critically termed a “futile shoot in the dark” as the cost-benefit analysis falls against litigation.6Having realised these associated huge costs of litigation, perpetrators are 3 See J. Smith, M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, The Recovery of Stolen Assets: A Fundamental Principle of the UN Convention against Corruption (2007) U4 Brief, Vol. 2, Basel, pp 3- 4. 4 Cap 1 of the Laws of Zambia 5 J. Smith M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, op cit, p 2 6 See the editorial comment by the Post Newspaper editor-in-chief, 24 October 2009. 5 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” readily willing to outspend the government using proceeds of the same being threatened of recovery and/or forfeiture. Perpetrators of financial and economic crimes are indeed ready to go an extra mile in their spending to protect their illicit riches from being taken away from them. Usually, they are even prepared and “...prefer to be put behind bars and keep their money than to stay free without the money.”7 7 Per Gaspare Motolo (former Mafia don) cited with authority in J. Smith, M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, op cit, at 2. 6 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” TABLE OF CONTENTS Ten Key Words Abbreviations Abstract Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Research Background 1.2 Scope and Extent of Research 1.3 Problem Statement 1.4 Research Objectives 1.5 Research Question 1.6 Research Significance/Justification 1.7 Literature Review 1.7.1 Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery and/or Property Forfeiture 1.7.2 A Brief Survey of the laws governing forfeiture of Property in Zambia 1.7.2.1 The Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1.7.2.2 The Prohibition and Prevention of Money Laundering Act 1.7.2.3 The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1.7.3 A Critique of the Laws Governing Property Forfeiture in Zambia 1.8 Research Methodologies 1.9 Proposed Research Structure 2.0 3.0 Conclusions/ Proposed Law Reforms Bibliography 7 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” 1.0 Introduction As postulated by the learned authors Mark Pieth, Jack Smith, and Guillermo Jorge, “[A]n asset recovery action is one of the most complex projects in the field of law....”8 This complexity has created a dilemma in the fight against economic crimes; with the situation perpetuated further by the fact that “[T]here is no large body of practitioners with substantial expertise in this area either inside or outside governments”9 especially in developing countries. In the recent past, the legal scene all over the world has witnessed a commendable and apluadable wind of change in the fight against financial and economic crimes; particularly corruption and money laundering. There have been concerted efforts among industrialised, semi-developed and underdeveloped economies with financial investigators tracing stolen assets, forensic accountants unravelling complex transactions and attorneys skilled in multidisciplinary and multi-jurisdictional litigation instituting full- fledged litigations aimed at curbing financial and economic crimes by curtailing perpetrators from enjoying the proceeds of crime. These efforts have been due to the proliferation of a novel branch of law known as “financial and economic crimes law.” This branch of law has in turn formulated the principles, concepts techniques, characteristics, steps and mechanisms aimed not only at preventing the commission of the heinous financial economic crimes; but also the identification, tracing and seizure of proceeds of crime. Overall, this branch of is spearheaded by the appreciation of the need for a law aimed at guaranteeing effective results in combating the aforementioned crimes especially the crimes of corruption, organized crime and money laundering; inter alia. Worldover, this appreciation, buttressed by the need for scrutiny on the international markets following the opening of trade borders via the 1990s‟ liberalised economy philosophies, prompted and propelled the growth of this branch of law. By the late 1990s, a global frenzy to combat corruption and money laundering swept through almost all the nations of the world and landed at fore of the legal scene in all major jurisdictions. Its agenda was brewing in courtrooms, NGO offices, legislatures and newsrooms in most of the regional legal groupings such as the SADC; OAS; and EU; inter alia. For the industrialised and semi-developed jurisdictions, this branch of law 8 9 J. Smith, M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, op cit, at 2 ibid 8 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” has continued to gain grounding and getting more entrenched in their domestic legal systems as evidenced in the forceful and successful national and regional legislations which is vigorously enforced stricto sensu. In Zambia, this was evidenced in the prompt enactment of the Prohibition and Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred to as “the PPMLA.”10 Unfortunately, in the third-world Africa, this fledgling movement to combat financial and economic crimes has largely stagnated owing to three major factors militating against it namely; first, the legal challenges associated with the unique and complexities of the nature of sanctions in this new branch of law different from the conventional and traditional sanctions of criminal law as enunciated in the Zambian case of The People v De Souza and Others11as well as the Botswana case of The State v Kabelo Nketso.12 Secondly, the tolerance and condoning of corrupt practices and money laundering as acceptable methods of conducting business deemed to contribute to the emancipation of the concerned countries‟ economy,13 with their long term detriments seldom and pragmatically recognised because of the high poverty levels in Africa;14 and thirdly, lack of political by most governments to combat financial and economic crimes as most government officials are themselves the main culprits in this branch of crime.15 For all intents and purposes, the proposed research will restrict itself only to the first factor namely; the complexities and challenges posed by the unusual nature of the sanctions hereon practised in a bid to recover or forfeit proceeds of crime. 10 11 Act No. 14 of 2001. CCR SSP/8/2001, unreported. See also L. Fernandez, “Introduction to the Study of Money Laundering” Thursday 30 July 2009) Module AML 812, Lecture Materials: The Law Related to Anti- Money Laundering and Organised Crime, Masters Degree Program, DAAD Center of Excellence, UWC, Cape Town, available with the author. See also M. Pieth, “Preventing Corruption, a Case Study” in M. Delmas-Marty, M. Pieth et U. Sieber, Les Chemins de L’harmonisation Pénale: Harmonising Criminal Law (2007), Collection de L’umr de Droit Compare de Paris, Vol. 15. Universite de Paris, Paris, p 16 12 [1982] 1 122 (Botswana Supreme Court) 13 UBZ Bank‟s closure for alleged money laundering practices by some of its directors and resulting nation-wide outcry and demonstrations by the citizenry for loss of employment by a substantively large section of society. 14 For instance, poverty levels in Zambia have been pegged at 80%. See Kalinda H.T, “Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper: Agriculture and Food Security” (2001) Authoritative Paper presented at the CSPR workshop, held at Mulungushi International Conference Centre in Lusaka, 14-15 March, 2001, p 2. Available at the Ministry of Finance (Head Quarters), Lusaka 15 Munyoro J, “Political Will and the Implementation of Anti- Money Laundering Measures: The Zambian Experience, 2004 to 2006” in C. Goredema (ed), Confronting the Proceeds of Crime in Southern Africa: An Introspection (May, 2007) ISS Monograph Series No 132, Pretoria, p 86. 9 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” 1.1 Research Background Zambia is a landlocked African country with a population of about 12 million. It is a country richly endowed with natural resources such as natural vegetation, very fertile soils, abundant water, and vast deposits of copper, which is the core economic backbone, as well as relatively large deposits of precious minerals. Notwithstanding the abundant natural wealth, like most other developing countries, Zambia‟s citizens are still ranked among the poorest in the world.16 The author opines that situation is attributable, inter alia, to the rampart commission of economic crimes such as corruption and money laundering emanating from the concomitant vice of bad governance. As averred by a Zambian High Court judge, Mr. Justice Anderson Zikonda, it is inarguable that money laundering is one of the major causes of poverty in Zambia;17 typical of most developing countries. It is trite that the problem of economic crimes is, indeed, a universal one as certain economic crimes such as corruption trigger a negative effect on all sectors of life such as reduced life expectancy rates; lack of clean and safe drinking water; and endangered living conditions of the economically-disadvantaged citizenry. By illustration, the 2002 UNODC revealed about US$600 to US$ 1.8 trillion is laundered annually throughout the world;18 with the largest chunk being proceeds of corruption from developing countries. Furthermore, the a Report by the AU estimated US$148 billion to be the average amount of money that African Governments lose annually in corruption; a figure representing 25% of the continent‟s GDP. Furthermore, it is reported that following the Tsunami natural disaster of 2004, the international community gave over US$7 billion in donor aid to the Indonesian Government for purposes of resettling the victims of the said natural disaster. Unfortunately, in the Aceh province alone, over 30% of this donor fund was either laundered of corruptly pocketed by those in power; with other reports estimating that a quarter of the 50, 000 homes that were built for the victims of the said Tsunami were below the basic building standards, hence had collapsed in less than 12 months 16 J.S. Chitengi, Poverty Alleviation and Rural Development via Agro forestry: A case of Taungya Technology at Mwekera (2003) (BSc thesis) Copperbelt University Press, Kitwe, p 1. Available from the Copperbelt University‟s Library, Kitwe. 17 A. Zikonda, The Role of Lawyers in the fight against Corruption (2005) Paper presented at the Lawyers‟ and Judges‟ Workshop on Corruption in Lusaka, 11th July 2003, p 3. Available from the High Court for Zambia‟s Library, Lusaka. 18 Cited in J. Smith, M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, op cit, p 1 10 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” after construction, owing to the fact that the construction contracts were corruptly awarded to sub-standard contractors who used cheap unskilled labour and low quality building materials.19 On a plethora of authorities and indeed as evidenced in the cases of United States v Arvizu20 and Amalgamated Metal Trading Ltd v City of London Police Financial Investigation Unit & Other,21 even developed countries such as the USA and the UK, respectively, are also prone to financial and economic crimes and have since fallen victims to the complexities and challenges of asset recovery and property forfeiture. However, the major difference between the developed and the developing countries is that the former have devised and adopted effective strategies and mechanisms of dealing with the issues of asset recovery and/or property forfeiture22 whereas as the latter are still struggling with the legal challenges and complexities of dealing with the subject. For instance, by employing the technical assistance of the G8 coupled with strategic case planning and management, the US recently spent less than US$1.5 to recover US$6 billion from the perpetrators of the 1980/90 financial and economic crimes.23 1.2 Scope and Extent of Research Financial and Economic crimes Law is a very wide branch of law covering, inter alia, the law related to organised crime, money laundering, anti-corruption law, cybercrime law, fraud and embezzlement. For all intents and purposes, the proposed thesis will be confined to the ambit of asset recovery and property forfeiture in anti-corruption and money laundering law, with particular emphasis on the Anti- corruption Commission Act24 and the Prohibition and Prevention of Money Laundering Act25, respectively. 1.3 Problem Statement The problem herein is twofold namely; Firstly, the remedies of Asset Recovery in Anti-corruption law and Property Forfeiture in Money Laundering Law face a number of challenges and critique from 19 See the Report by the Indonesian Anti-corruption group Gerakan Anti-Kourpsi in J. Smith, M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, op cit, p 1 20 (00-1519) 534 US 266 (2002) 21 [2003]EWHC 703 (Comm) 22 Ibid 23 The savings-and- loan crisis that ravaged the economy of the USA in the 1980s and 90s as reported in J. Smith, M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, op cit, p 2 24 Cap 91 of the Laws of Zambia 25 Act No 14 of 2001 11 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” other branches of law; both substantive and procedural; such as Constitutional law, Criminal Procedure, the Law of Evidence, “Traditional” Criminal Law and Human Rights Law, inter alia.26 This is attributable to the complex, non-routine and unusual nature and/or character of these novel remedies. Their unusual characteristics raise a number of serious legal issues such as: i) Encroachment of the Constitutional right to privacy; ii) Reversal of the burden of proof, contrary to criminal procedure law;27 iii) Tramping of the presumption of innocence, contrary to Constitutional law;28 iv) Contravention of the Constitutional right against self-incrimination (Right to remain silent), contrary to the law of evidence;29 and v) Contradiction of the traditional (retributive) criminal law sanctions of imprisonment and fine instead of property confiscation.30 This is also critiqued to be inconsistent with the constitutionally guaranteed right to own property. The above contentious issues repeatedly arise in the submissions in opposition by the defence counsel whenever the Zambian government attempts to recover and/or forfeit proceeds of crime. Consequently, the conclusions of such trials tend to be mere academic exercises because after a successful trial, the State subsequently faces very serious legal challenges and complexities of enforcing judgements touching on asset recovery or property forfeiture with the ultimate result being a wasted investment of public funds to obtain a judgement which cannot be enforced. See the case of Attorney General of Zambia for and on behalf of the Republic of Zambia (Claimant) v Meer Care & Desai (a firm) & Others,31 which case ended with a conviction of the former head of state, Dr Chiluba, for the crime of money laundering and its predicate offence of corruption; yet the proceeds of the said crimes are still stashed a known 26 J.S. Chitengi, “Pertinent Legal Issues and Impediments Fettering the Successful Prosecution of the Crime of Money Laundering and its Predicate Offences in Zambia: Proposed Reforms” (2009) Masters Degree (LLM) Research Paper, University of the Western Cape Law Faculty, Cape Town, p 27. 27 Relying on the Swiss Supreme Court Judgement of 27 August 1996, cited in La Semaine Judiciare (1997) p 1 28 As averred by the defence counsel in Aaron Chungu, Richard Sakala and Faustin Kabwe v The People, Unreported High Court for Zambia Appeal No. 3 of 2008. 29 See the south African case of The State v Manamela [2000] 5 LRC 65 which ought to have been relied upon in Katele Kalumba v Commissioner of the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC), The Attorney General and Barclays Bank (Z) Ltd, filed in the High Court for Zambia on 9 September 2009, available at the High Court Principle Registry, Lusaka and reported in the Lusaka Times News at www www.lusakatimes.com/?p=17715 30 L. Fernandez, “Prosecutions and Assets Forfeiture” (8 October 2009) Module AML 812, Lecture Materials: The Law Related to Anti- Money Laundering and Organised Crime, Masters Degree Program, DAAD Center of Excellence, UWC, Cape Town, p 2. 31 Op cit. See also J.S. Chitengi, “Pertinent Legal Issues and Impediments Fettering the Successful Prosecution of the Crime of Money Laundering and its Predicate Offences in Zambia: Proposed Reforms,” op cit, pp 14- 16 (footnotes 62, 67 and 75). 12 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” UK Bank account as the complexities and challenges of asset recovery and money laundering have made it almost impossible for the Zambian government to act further. Secondly, there has been a devastating backlog of concluded cases but whose judgements cannot be readily enforced owing to the lacuna in the law on confiscation of property in foreign states. This is equally traceable to the issue of conflict of laws. 1.4 Research Objectives The proposed research will aim at investigating the level of detriment caused by the complexities of the processes of asset recovery and property forfeiture in Zambia. Secondly, it aims at identifying the possible legal measures, from the international regime and legal instruments such as UNCAC32, the Vienna Convention on Money Laundering33 and FATF Recommendations,34 which Zambia may adopt and implement in its domestic laws in a bid to overcome the said complexities and challenges. 1.5 Research Question How may the legal challenges and complexities of asset recovery and property feature, as the core remedies in financial and economic crimes law, be overcome in the third-world African Countries such as Zambia considering their unique and complex character coupled with the fact that the heinous practices of corruption and money laundering are still largely considered to be acceptable modes of livelihood and condoned business activities in certain developing economies? 1.6 Research Significance/Justification The significance of the proposed research lies in its pioneering attempt to formulate and suggest solutions of overcoming the prima facie legal challenges and complexities of asset recovery and/or property forfeiture. On principle, and indeed on a plethora of authorities, it is trite that there is urgent need in Africa to devise and revise workable strategies of reinvigorating and sparking renewed interest in the stagnant fight against financial and economic crimes by finding a lasting solution to one of the major challenges in this fight, namely, difficulties of recovering and forfeiting the proceeds of crime at the end of a successful litigation. 32 33 United Nations Convention against Corruption (2005), New York United Nations Convention on Money Laundering, (1988), Vienna 34 40+8 FATF Recommendations 13 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” Therefore, its justification of the proposed thesis is that it will undertake a research on the subject matter and make recommendations on the tenable and feasible law reforms and strategies to ensure an effective legal regime of recovering and forfeiting proceeds of crime. 1.7 Literature Review There is a paucity of literature on this subject. A brief review of the same reveals a number of legal challenges and complexities that impede the successful recovery of assets and property forfeiture in anti-corruption and anti- money laundering laws, respectively. These impediments have had a negative effect on the fight against the heinous financial and economic crimes world- over.35 1.7.1 The Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery and/or Property Forfeiture Below are some of the identified legal challenges and complexities militating against the successful recovery of assets and forfeiture of assets in financial and economic crimes in Zambia that will be tackled in the proposed research: First and foremost is the challenge of lack of adequately trained experts in the field of financial and economic crimes law. Indeed, most prosecutors in Zambia have never had any formal training in dealing with the complexities of stolen asset recovery and/or property forfeiture. Nevertheless, this challenge is typical of most developing victim developing countries. As averred by the learned scholars, Mark Pieth et al, “[M]ost public officials in victim countries have never been trained in these complexities. Laundered money generally migrates to countries with large financial centres where the laws are usually more restrictive and complex with higher evidentiary and procedural standards than those in victim countries.”36 These rigorous requirements and standards often prove to be too much for poorly skilled prosecutors in Zambia resulting in failed or frustrated attempts to recover corruptly acquired assets or forfeit laundered properties.37 35 See J. Madinger, Money Laundering: A Guide for Criminal Investigators (2006) 2nd edn, CRC Publishers, Florida, p 11. 36 J. Smith, M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, op cit, at 2. 37 See the F.T.J. Chiluba London Judgement [Foreign Judgement Registration] Case (August 2010), HCZ Judgement by the Hon. Mr. justice Evans Hamaundu, with Particular reference to the failure by the prosecutors to register the foreign judgement for purposes of enforcing it in recovering proceeds of crime stashed in London. 14 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” The challenge of conflict of laws in enforcing foreign judgements to recover and/or forfeit property and offshore bank accounts held by perpetrators in foreign countries is also one major problem that Zambia faces in this regard.38 Indeed, recovery of assets or forfeiture of property across international borders remains a big challenge to other developing countries apart from Zambia. This challenge is worsened by the fact that recipient countries (financial havens) are usually not keen to cooperate with the victim countries as they benefit from the ploughing of the illegal monies into their economy. In this regard, many financial haven countries require and insist that as precondition to rendering any form of assistance or cooperation to the victim countries, the victim countries must prove that the assets or property that is a of recovery or forfeiture, respective, were not lawfully obtained. This requirement of proof is deliberately a difficulty one devised by the safe havens to simply protect the perpetrator fugitives in their territories in exchange for induced investment of the dirty proceeds in their economic system at the expense of the victim countries. Posterity has shown that certain safe havens have accorded protection to fugitive perpetrators together with their looted property and assets. It is a notorious fact and common parlance in public domain in Zambia that for the over 8 years Zambia‟s former Chief of Intelligence Service, Xavier Chungu, had been living in Belgium as a fugitive evading economic crime cases pending against him in Zambian Courts. Yet the Zambian Government could not lay hands on him or his assets or properties for alleged fear of upsetting diplomatic ties and the existing cordial relations between the two countries. The author subscribes to the call by other eminent scholars, on the subject matter, for the UN to compel safe havens that are member states to not only to reject; but also to criminalise unexplained and suspicious increases in the wealth of public officials from other countries who are trying to be fugitives and/or investors in their countries. This will be in line with the stipulations of UNCAC article 2039 consolidated by article 31(8) thereof which provides for confiscation of such unexplained wealth by a public official who cannot explain the lawful source of his/her wealth. Caution must, 38 As espoused in the Attorney General of Zambia for and on behalf of the Republic of Zambia (Claimant) v Meer Care & Desai (a firm) & Others case, op cit. 39 Op cit. See also J. Smith, M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, op cit, pp 3- 4. 15 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” however, be taken because such steps may be alleged to be unconstitutional for contravening article 1940 which guarantees Zambian citizens to own property. Secondly is the complexity associated with the sophistication, sensitivity and delicacy of the organised economic crimes. In most cases economic crimes usually involve organised structures of Government institutions interacting across sectors and amongst former leaders who are still constant companions of the chief(s) in the Government. Furthermore, asset recovery and property forfeiture are very costly and time consuming processes.41 They both involve forensic accountants, lawyers, and other relevant experts whose services are extremely expensive to hire; in addition to the expenses of translators, travel expenses and expert witnesses‟ allowances inter alia. Like most young democrats in developing countries, Zambia had been excited about the fight of graft and ended up investing so much money in the cause that has so far yielded only a handful of convictions whose recovery and/or forfeiture has been critically termed a “futile shoot in the dark” as the cost-benefit analysis falls against litigation.42 Having realised these associated huge costs of litigation, perpetrators are readily willing to outspend the government using proceeds of the same being threatened of recovery and/or forfeiture.43 Perpetrators of financial and economic crimes are indeed ready to go an extra mile in their spending to protect their illicit riches from being taken away from them. Usually, they are even prepared and “...prefer to be put behind bars [incarcerated] and keep their money than to stay free without the money.”44 In the long run, however, the massive investments that Zambia has put in the fight against graft may yield enormous benefits from recoveries and forfeitures if certain measures were put in place.45 For instance, after massive investments in this area of law coupled with the unique practice of contingency fee arrangements and concessions with properly skilled private prosecutors has proved to be profitable with 40 41 Cap 1 of the Laws of Zambia J. Smith M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, op cit, p 2 42 See The Post Newspaper, “Editorial Comment” 24 October 2009. 43 Cf: M. Levi, “Criminal Asset Stripping” in A. Edwards and P. Gill (eds), Transnational Organised Crime: Perspectives on Global Security (2003) Routledge Publishers, London, pp 213- 14. 44 Per Gaspare Motolo (former Mafia don) cited with authority in J. Smith, M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, op cit, at 2. 45 The proposed research will investigate the best measures and strategies that Zambia may employ in this regard; hence the justification, inter alia, to undertake this proposed research. 16 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” more than US$700 million recovered from the illicit bank accounts belonging to the late former military ruler, Sani Abacha.46 Third is lack of a universally accepted definition of the term „money laundering‟ and conflicting interpretations and the general issue of conflict of laws.47 For example, certain countries such as South Africa,48 Germany,49 the US50 and the UK51, inter alios, concur with the UNCAC in their practice of relaxed and widened scope of recovery and/or forfeiture mechanisms. They are not restrained from recovery and forfeiture of stolen property by some of the more restrictive traditional safeguards of international cooperation such as the need to prove dual criminality before affecting a recovery or forfeiture.52 In contrast, Zambia like many other developing countries, demands that in the process of identifying, tracing and freezing or seizing of proceeds of crime and property used in the crime, the alleged crime must be a crime as such in both the victim country and the recipient country. In fact, there is conflict of postulation by different scholars in Zambia on whether or not the PPMLA indeed applies the test of dual criminality or single criminality. 53 This conflict of laws has really fettered the efforts by well-intending prosecutors of financial and economic crimes in Zambia as seen in the London Judgement against Zambia former Head of State, Dr. Chiluba. The fourth one concerns the controversies between the routine criminal sanction of retribution as opposed to the unique and peculiar sanctions of asset recovery and property forfeiture in the practice of the novel field of financial and economic crimes law. The field of financial and economic crimes law is relative new to most developing countries54 such as Zambia, and its sanctions with regard to asset recovery and property forfeiture are quite strange and diverged from the routine sanctions of retribution; whereby posing very serious challenges and complexities in the fight against financial and economic crimes. This is owing to the practice of civil forfeiture 46 47 See details in J. Smith, M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, op cit, p 2. L.B. Curzon, Dictionary of Law and Margin Commentaries (1997) revised 4th edn, Pitman Publishing Co, London, p 42. 48 Financial Intelligence Centre Act (FICA), 2003 49 Geldwäschegesetz (Money Laundering Act as amended on 8 August 2002) 50 Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002 51 Criminal Justice Act 52 J. Smith, M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, op cit, p 3. 53 See K.K. Mwenda, Legal Aspects of Banking Regulation: Common Law Perspectives from Zambia (2010) Pretoria University Law Press, Pretoria, p 172. 54 N. S. Okogbule, “Regulation of money laundering in Africa: the Nigerian and Zambian approaches” in Journal of Money Laundering Control (2007) Vol. 10 No. 4, London, p 16. 17 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” actions being brought against the stolen property itself (In Rem Forfeitures); which practice is novel and strange to common law jurisdictions such as Zambia as opposed to other countries such as South Africa and the United States.55Such practice is favourable to the fight against financial and economic crimes because, as submitted by Lovell Fernandez, the standard of proof is lower in civil forfeiture than in criminal forfeiture as the proof of mens rea is irrelevant under civil forfeiture for it the property that is being tried and not the perpetrator.56 As such, even the remotest nexus of the property to the crime is sufficient57 ground to implement either recovery or forfeiture as the case would be. However, the practice in Zambia is fundamentally different with legal position being that, generally, the property that has been seized under the PPMLA for being acquired or derived from proceeds of crimes can only be forfeited to the State after there has been a court order to that effect following a [criminal] conviction of the perpetrator.58 By routine, most jurisdictions allow recovery and forfeiture of assets and property if and when there has been a criminal conviction.59 However, it may not be possible to secure a criminal conviction, yet there might be a prima facie case of stashed proceed of crime. For instance, the perpetrator may have died and yet there is overwhelming evidence and trace of assets or property that they had stolen from the government;60 such proceeds of crime must surely be recovered and/or forfeited. The proposed research will explore all possible avenues of resolving this particularly controversial position. Fifthly, is the challenges associated with diplomatic immunities/relations premised on the international law doctrine of sovereign and exclusive jurisdictions of certain states in which the assets and property that are a subject of seizure are located or stashed. 61 For instance, the former military dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, attempted to escape liability for financial and economic crimes, and any other crime for that matter, by having declared himself as „senator for life‟ so that he could always hide 55 56 J. Smith, M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, op cit, p 3. L. Fernandez, “Prosecutions and Assets Forfeiture” op cit, p 2. 57 J. Smith, M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, op cit, p 3. 58 See K.K. Mwenda, op cit, p 195 59 J. Smith, M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, op cit, p 3. 60 Such as the case of the former Nigerian military ruler, Sani Abacha and Mobutu Sese Seko, the fallen dictator and tyrant of the formerly Zaire 61 Refer to the General Rule on Conflict of Laws, Rules 1-3. See also M. Pieth‟s submissions in the Swiss case of Mobutu Sese Seko. 18 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” behind the veil of legal- status immunity from prosecution(s). Zambia‟s political leaders are seemingly falling prey to this hoodwinking yet exposed gimmick as evidenced in the spirited national debate provoked by the NCC‟s attempt to adopt a new clause in the draft national constitution to the effect that there should be no crime of „abuse of office by public officials.‟62 A comparative analysis of developed jurisdictions shows that by implication and analogy regional efforts in this area are being advanced positively to the contrary.63 Sixth is lack of political will by most African heads of government to enforce asset recovery and property forfeiture sanctions for fear of both souring their political ties with their predecessors, who are the major perpetrators of financial and economic crimes; and for fear of the same fate befalling them in future upon ending of tenures of office.64 Indeed, one of the major problems militating against asset recovery and property forfeiture in Zambia has been lack of political to curb the scourge. As observed by Mark Pieth et al, this problems seems to be universal and not peculiar to certain countries only because certain individual who are in governments are primarily the actual perpetrators, allies of perpetrators or even direct beneficiaries of financial and economic crimes.65 Lastly is the „sound‟ argument of selective and vindictive prosecutions constituting the universally condemned practiced of victors‟ justice. This was raised by the defence counsel in the case of Aaron Chungu, Richard Sakala and Faustin Kabwe v The People66as well as in the previous case of the United Bank of Zambia (UBZ) v Attorney General (2004)67 Nevertheless, a few legislative provisions have made attempts to rectify the situation and ease the challenges and complexities herein identified,68 above, as evidenced from the survey below: 62 63 See The Post Newspaper, 13 August 2010. See the European Commission Money Laundering Directive. 64 See the Chiluba acquittal by the Zambian courts and the subsequent refusal by the High Court to have the London Judgement registered against him as a result of alleged strong ties he has with the then incumbent President, Rupiah Bwezani Banda. 65 Cf: J. Smith, M. Pieth, and G. Jorge, op cit, p 1. 66 Op cit 67 This matter was never pursued to trial as the Bank was wound- up just before commencement of trial. 68 See K.K. Mwenda, Anti- Money Laundering Law and Practice: Lessons from Zambia (2005) UNZA Press, Lusaka. 19 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” 1.7.2 A Brief Survey of the laws governing forfeiture of Property in Zambia In Zambia, the issues of both asset recovery and property forfeiture in the fields of anti-corruption law and anti-money laundering law, respectively, collectively known as financial and economic crimes law are covered in a number of legislations. 1.7.2.1 The Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act This Act provides for offences in relation to property connected with dangerous drugs, and the seizure and forfeiture of property, inter alia. For instance, Section 3 criminalises the use of property in the commission of Schedule 1 offences; that is money laundering and its predicate offences. Equally, sections 4 and 5 prohibit the concealment of illegal property and provides for the forfeiture of property. Section 26 provides for the seizure of businesses that are used to perpetrate the heinous vice of money laundering. Furthermore, section 32 proclaims that any forfeited property shall vest in the State, whereas section 43 provides for seizure of property if requested by a foreign state. 1.7.2.2 The Prohibition and Prevention of Money Laundering Act69 On the authority of Section 15, property may be seized if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is derived from money laundering. Sections 17 and 20 stipulate that property, which has been seized, may be liable to forfeiture by the court and it shall vest in the State. Section 19 provides for the monitoring and tracking, that is surveillance of any property that is reasonably suspected to be used as an instrumentality in the commission of the crime of money laundering. 1.7.2.3 The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act70 Under this Act, possession of property obtained through trafficking is prohibited and punishable with imprisonment of up to 10 years.71 Section 24 empowers the relevant authorities to enter, search and seize property, upon any premises; which property is liable to forfeiture. The said property must have been used in the commission of a financial and/or economic crime.72 Furthermore, such forfeiture of property to the State is only allowed upon a successful conviction.73 69 70 No. 14 of 2001 Cap 96 of the Laws of Zambia 71 Section 21 72 Section 31 73 Sections 34 and 39 20 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” 1.7.3 A Critique of the Laws Governing Property Forfeiture in Zambia Both the Banking and Financial Services Act74 and the Banking and Financial Services (Bureau de Change) Regulations,75 confer powers on the Bank of Zambia to act as the Regulatory Authority76 but they do not vest powers on it to seize and forfeit property derived from proceeds of money laundering. The said powers are, instead, vested in the security wings of the Government.77 One would expect the opposite to be the case considering the gist and spirit of advancing positive policy in the national response to financial and economic crimes as seen in the Bank of Zambia Anti-Money Laundering Statutory Instrument.78 Research Methodologies The study will be based on a comparative analysis of the jurisprudence handed down by courts in the developed countries in comparison and contrast with those from the developing countries such as Zambia. An attempt will be made to also evaluate the position obtaining in Germany, the US, Switzerland, the UK, and South Africa on the one hand; and Zambia on the other. More than this, the desktop research will draw heavily on international and regional anti-money laundering and anti- corruption instruments, national legislation within the comparator regions, conference reports, and the findings of research conducted by the Institute of Security Studies in South Africa and the OECD in Geneva. 1.9 Proposed Research Structure The research paper will be divided into four main parts comprising of different chapters. The first part will deal with preliminary matters of inducement and will serve as the introduction. The second part will explore and expatiate on the relevant law applicable to the said issues identified in the first part and will be concerned mostly with literature review on the success stories from the comparator developed jurisdictions . The third part will be an „application‟ part assessing the applicability, to Zambia, of the laws and strategies employed in the successful comparator jurisdictions; with the 74 75 Cap 387 of the Laws of Zambia 2003 edition 76 Part II 77 See Sections, 3 & 15, inter alia, PPMLA, op cit. 78 No 14 of 2002 21 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” last part constituting of the conclusion and recommendation chapters on how best to bridge the gaps and lacunae in the law on the subject matter in Zambia. 2.0 Conclusions/Recommendations The author opines and avers that from the foregoing, and indeed on principle, it is imperative that solutions to the problem herein stated must be put in place as a matter of urgency as Zambians are still impoverished and mortality rates are shockingly high owing to abject poverty of the citizenry; yet national resources that were plundered by the former regimes(s) still lie unrecovered in off-shore banks and other financial havens. Inevitably, there is need to simplify the process and legal procedures involved in the identification, tracing and forfeiture/ recovery of proceeds of crime for the economic emancipation of the citizenry deeply wallowing in abject poverty. It is a notorious fact, from the foregoing, that due to the said high levels of poverty coupled with weak institutional and legal frameworks, there are absolutely no properly trained experts in Zambia that can adequately handle and mange the complex enterprise of asset recovery and/or property forfeiture. Equally, there is need to improve the policy environment in this regard so as to adhere to international norms and dictates of the United Nations as per the 1991UN Global Programme Against Money Laundering.79 Seemingly, Zambia is not up to date hereon for the fore-identified issues of lack of political will or total impunity to disregard the implementation of certain positive Governmental pronouncements.80 79 80 UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (UN-ODCCP), Vienna. See, for instance, Bank of Zambia Anti-Money Laundering Directives, 2004 edition. 22 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” BIBLIOGRAPHY (A) PRIMARY SOURCES Table of Cases Cited 1. Aaron Chungu, Richard Sakala and Faustin Kabwe v The People, Unreported High Court for Zambia Appeal No. 3 of 2008. 2. Amalgamated Metal Trading Ltd v City of London Police Financial Investigation Unit & Other, [2003]EWHC 703 (Comm) Attorney General of Zambia for and on behalf of the Republic of Zambia (Claimant) v Meer Care & Desai (a firm) & Others [2007] EWHC 952 (Ch) Chiluba London Judgement [Foreign Judgement Registration] Case (August 2010), HCZ Judgement by the Hon. Mr. justice Evans Hamaundu. Katele Kalumba v Commissioner of the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC), The Attorney General and Barclays Bank (Z) Ltd, filed in the High Court for Zambia on 9 September 2009, available at the High Court Principle Registry, Lusaka and reported in the Lusaka Times News at www www.lusakatimes.com/?p=17715 State v Manamela [2000] 5 LRC 65. Swiss case of Mobutu Sese Seko Swiss Supreme Court, Judgement of 27 August 1996, in La Semaine Judiciaire (1997), 1 The People v De Souza and Others CCR SSP/8/2001, unreported 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The State v Kabelo Nketso [1982] 1 122 (Botswana Supreme Court) 11. United Bank of Zambia (UBZ) v Attorney General (2004) HCZ 12. United States v Arvizu (00-1519) 534 US 266 (2002) List of International and Regional Charters, Conventions and Protocols 1. European Union:  European Commission Money Laundering Directive. 2. United Nations:  United Nations Convention against Corruption (2005), New York.  United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000), Palermo. 23 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.”  United Nations Convention on Money Laundering, (1988), Vienna. List of Miscelleneous International Instruments  40+8 FATF Recommendations  General Rule on Conflict of Laws, Russia List of National Statutes 1. Germany:  Geldwäschegesetz (Money Laundering Act as amended on 8 August 2002). 2. South Africa:  Financial Intelligence Centre Act (FICA) of 2003. 3. United Kingdom:  Criminal Justice Act. 4. USA:  Proceeds of Crime Act of 2002. 5. Zambia:  Anti- Corruption Commission Act, Cap 91 of the Laws of Zambia.  Banking and Financial Services Act, Cap 387 of the Laws of Zambia.  Banking and Financial Services (Bureau de Change) Regulations, 2003edition  Bank of Zambia Anti-Money Laundering Statutory Instrument No. 14 of 2002.  Constitution Act, Cap 1 of the Laws of Zambia.  Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1989.  Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Cap 96 of the Laws of Zambia.  Prohibition and Prevention of Money Laundering Act No. 14 of 2001. List of Directive 1. Zambia:  Bank of Zambia Anti-Money Laundering Directives of 2004. 24 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” List of United Nations Official Programme Document 1 UN Global Programme Against Money Laundering, UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (UN-ODCCP), Vienna, 1991. (B) SECONDARY SOURCES List of Books and Journal Articles Consulted 1. J. Madinger, Money Laundering: A Guide for Criminal Investigators (2006) 2nd edn, CRC Publishing Co, Florida. 2. J. Munyoro, “Challenges of Combating Money Laundering in Bureaux de Change” in C. Goredema (ed), Money Laundering Experiences: A Survey (2006) ISS Monograph Series No. 124, Cape Town. 3. J. Munyoro, “Political Will and the Implementation of Anti- Money Laundering Measures: The Zambian Experience, 2004 to 2006” in C. Goredema (ed), Confronting the Proceeds of Crime in Southern Africa: An Introspection (2007), ISS Monograph Series No 32 of 2007, Trident Press, Cape Town. J.S. Chitengi, “Pertinent Legal Issues and Impediments Fettering the Successful Prosecution of the Crime of Money Laundering and its Predicate Offences in Zambia: Proposed Reforms” (2009) Masters Degree (LLM) Research Paper, University of the Western Cape Law Faculty, Cape Town. J.S. Chitengi, Poverty Alleviation and Rural Development via Agro forestry: A case of Taungya Technology at Mwekera (2003) (BSc Thesis) Copperbelt University Press, Kitwe. Available from the Copperbelt University‟s Library, Kitwe. J. Smith, M. Pieth and G. Jorge (eds), “The Recovery of Stolen Assets: A fundamental Principle of the UN Convention against Corruption” (2007) No 2, U4 Brief, Basel. K.K. Mwenda, Anti- Money Laundering Law and Practice: Lessons from Zambia (2005) UNZA Press, Lusaka. K.K. Mwenda, Legal Aspects of Banking Regulation: Common Law Perspectives from Zambia (2010) Pretoria University Law Press, Pretoria. L.B. Curzon, Dictionary of Law and Margin Commentaries (1997), revised 4th edn, Pitman Publishing Co, London. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. M. Levi, “Criminal Asset Stripping” in A. Edwards and P. Gill (eds), Transnational Organised Crime: Perspectives on Global Security (2003) Routledge Publishers, London. 11. M. Pieth, “Preventing Corruption, a Case Study” in M. Delmas-Marty, M. Pieth et U. Sieber, Les Chemins de L’harmonisation Pénale: Harmonising Criminal 25 “Assessing the Legal and Policy Redress of the Challenges and Complexities of Asset Recovery as well as Property Forfeiture in Developing Jurisdictions: A Case of Corruption and Money Laundering in Zambia.” Law (2007), Collection de L’umr de Droit Compare de Paris, Vol. 15. Universite de Paris, Paris. 12. N. S. Okogbule, “Regulation of money laundering in Africa: the Nigerian and Zambian approaches” in Journal of Money Laundering Control (2007) Vol. 10 No. 4, London. Annual Reports, Lecture Materials, Seminar Papers and Workshop Papers 1. A. Zikonda, “The Role of Lawyers in the fight against Corruption” (2005) paper presented at the Lawyers‟ and Judges‟ Workshop on Corruption in Lusaka, 11 July 2003. Available at the High Court for Zambia‟s Library, Lusaka. H.T. Kalinda, “Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper: Agriculture and Food Security” (2001) paper presented at the CSPR workshop, held at Mulungushi International Conference Centre in Lusaka, 14-15 March 2001. Available at the Ministry of Finance (Head Quarters), Lusaka. L. Fernandez, “Introduction to the Study of Money Laundering” (Thursday 30 July 2009), Module 812, Lecture Notes: The Law Relating to Organised Crime and Money Laundering, DAAD Masters Degree Programme, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, available with the author. L. Fernandez, “Prosecutions and Assets Forfeiture” (8 October 2009) Module 812 Lecture Materials: The Law Related to Anti- Money Laundering and Organised Crime, Masters Degree Program, South African- German Centre of Excellence, UWC, Cape Town. 2. 3. 4. Official Speech 1. Honourable Chief Justice of the Republic of Zambia, Mr Justice Ernest Linesi Sakala, during his speech on the Call Day for the Newly Admitted Advocates on 19 December 2008 at the Lusaka Supreme Court of Zambia. Available at the Chief Justice‟s Chambers, Lusaka. List of Press Releases 1 The Post Newspaper, 13 August 2010. 2 The Post Newspaper, “Editorial Comment” 24 October 2009 Website Visited 1. www.lusakatimes.com/?p=17715, accessed on 23 July 2011 End of Proposal 26