View previous stories
	Getting away with It: Majority believe Corruption will Go Unpunished by World Justice Project, agencies   The world is no stranger to images of private opulence paid for with public money. The sprawling private residences and lavish compounds of deposed national leaders have become a common sight, showing there’s no shortage of corrupt leaders using government money for personal benefit—and getting away with it.   What we see in the media may be just the tip of the iceberg, however. New data suggests that consequence-free corruption is a widespread, corrosive force on governments around the globe.   According to survey results from our 2014 World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, a majority of people—62 percent of individuals worldwide—believe that a high-ranking government officer guilty of using public money for personal benefit will face no punishment for their conduct.   While corruption hurts governments, impunity—the inability to root out corruption by punishing offenders—compounds the problem. Though almost all countries have laws against corruption, those laws are only effective if they are enforced: if offenders face reprimand and prospective offenders are deterred. Without that mechanism, corrupt practices are allowed to flourish, and public trust in government institutions declines.   To measure impunity in corruption, our poll asked people in 99 countries what would happen when it is public knowledge that a government official is taking government money for private benefit.   Question:   “Assume a high-ranking government officer is taking government money for personal benefit. Also assume that one of his employees witnesses this conduct, reports it to the relevant authority, and provides sufficient evidence to prove it. Assume that the press obtains the information and publishes the story. Which one of the following outcomes is most likely?"   Respondents were given three outcomes: the official is punished; it is investigated but no conclusion is made; or the complaint is ignored entirely.   Together, the large majority of respondents said that the official would not be punished, even under the condition that evidence of wrongdoing is strong and the matter is in the press. Two-thirds of all countries had overall pessimistic outlooks on whether offenders would be held accountable   Successes and failures to punish exists across regions   These results suggest a global distrust in accountability systems meant to maintain ethical government. Instead citizens across regions believe governments most often begin investigations in to complaints, only to let the culprit off.   Though there is relative similarity in responses across regions, there are also certainly standouts on both ends of the spectrum—and they’re geographically diverse. The top countries all poll with over 75% confidence that corruption will be punished, and hail from four different continents: Botswana (88%), New Zealand (79%), Norway (76%) and Hong Kong (75%). The worst performers—Uzbekistan (3%), El Salvador (11%), Argentina (17%), and Pakistan (17%)—hail from drastically different neighborhoods as well. Among region-wide differences, the rate of punishment stands out in one particular comparison: people in East Asia and Pacific are twice as likely as those in Latin America and the Caribbean to believe corrupt officials will be punished.   There are many reasons to believe money will affect impunity. Poor countries have fewer resources to use to investigate, but perhaps incentives are greater to prosecute those wasting their limited wealth. Rich countries have well trained investigative officials, but leakages might be far less of a concern. When it comes to investigation—the most expensive process—citizen perceptions don’t corroborate these hypotheses: countries among all income levels investigate roughly the same amount.   It is the case, however, that punishment is perceived as significantly more likely in high income countries than in less wealthy countries (52% among high income, 33% among low income). There is nearly a twenty percent jump once a country is high-income: there is no difference among the punishment rates in low, low-middle, and upper-middle income, brackets. That means an upper-middle income country like Tunisia is as likely as low-income Tanzania to punish an offender (27%). What makes the highest-income countries markedly better at reprimanding is an important area for future research.   Local Officials As Unlikely to Face Consequences   Survey results also indicate that lower ranked officials are perceived to enjoy similar levels of impunity as high-ranking ones. On a survey question asking about a local government officer issuing a construction permit for personal benefit, 64% of global respondents responded that there would be no punishment.   Question:   "Assume that, as a result of an audit, a LOCAL government officer is found to be unlawfully issuing a government license for personal benefit, for example, to a construction company owned by a family member. Which one of the following outcomes is most likely?"   The key finding here is not that local officials are slightly less likely to be punished than high ranking ones in most regions: it’s that both local and national officials enjoy high levels of impunity. That result both seems to mitigate the effect of the press in bringing justice (present only in question 1), and undercuts the idea that local officials will be much easier to prosecute given lower political clout.   Either way, according to this data people have as little faith that dispersed, common instances of corruption will be punished as high-profile and visible ones.   * Data presented here is taken from surveys conducted as part of the General Population Poll (GPP), one component of the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2014: http://worldjusticeproject.org/blog/getting-away-it-majority-believe-corruption-will-go-unpunished http://namati.org/ http://www.transparency.org/news/ http://www.voix-contre-la-corruption.org/en/#/corruption-fonciere Visit the related web page
	BP "grossly negligent" over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010 by New York Times, agencies USA   July 2015   BP agrees to claims worth $US18.7b over 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill   British energy giant BP says it has agreed to settle US federal and state claims worth up to $US18.7 billion over the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill caused by the explosion on board the Deepwater Horizon rig.   The United States welcomed what it said was a record deal. The head of the US justice department, attorney-general Loretta Lynch, said it would take several months to finalise the deal, including taking public comment.   But she welcomed the package, which follows lengthy battles in the US courts to prove BP''s responsibility for the worst oil spill in the country''s history.   "If approved by the court, this settlement would be the largest settlement with a single entity in American history," Ms Lynch said in a statement.   "It would help repair the damage done to the Gulf economy, fisheries, wetlands and wildlife, and it would bring lasting benefits to the Gulf region for generations to come."   The deal has been struck with the US federal government and the Gulf Coast states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, whose economies were badly hit by the disaster.   Eleven people died and millions of barrels of oil were spilled into the Gulf, decimating wildlife and devastating the ecology of a region dependent on the seafood and tourism industries.   BP group chief executive Bob Dudley said, "For BP, this agreement will resolve the largest liabilities remaining from the tragic accident."   BP, which owned 65 per cent of the Macondo drilling site being tapped by the Deepwater rig, has been forced to sell off billions of dollars in assets and cut jobs to meet the clean-up bill.   BP chief financial officer Brian Gilvary said the payments would be spread out over many years, averaging at about $US1.4 billion a year.   The settlement, to be enacted by BP''s US subsidiary, BP Exploration and Production, includes $US7.2 billion to be paid to the US over 15 years as a civil penalty under the clean water act.   A further $US9.3 billion will be paid to the US and Gulf Coast states over 15 years for natural resource damages, in addition to $US1.3 billion already committed.   Another $US6.4 billion will be paid over 18 years to settle economic and other claims made by the five Gulf Coast states.   And up to $US1.3 billion will be paid to resolve claims made by more than 400 local government entities.   5 Sep 2014   A court in the United States has found the oil giant BP "grossly negligent" over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010.   The blowout at the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig killed 11 people and spilled 4.2 million barrels of oil into the Gulf, the worst offshore environmental disaster in US history.   The ruling could add nearly $US18 billion in fines to more than $US42 billion in charges the company has faced. BP said it would appeal the decision to a higher court.   Federal court judge Carl Barbier said the disaster happened because BP"s US subsidiaries, along with oil services company Halliburton and rig owner Transocean, did not take adequate care in drilling the highly risky well.   The disaster struck when a surge of methane gas known to rig hands as a "kick" sparked an explosion aboard Deepwater Horizon as it was drilling the mile-deep Macondo 252 well off Louisiana.   Judge Barbier said BP knew the well, called by some working on it as the "well from hell", was particularly dangerous because of the high risk of a blowout.   BP"s decisions throughout the drilling process qualified as "gross negligence" because they were "an extreme departure from the care required under the circumstances or a failure to exercise even a slight care", the judge said.   Judge Barbier also said BP"s role involved "wilful misconduct", adding to the penalties that, based on a maximum fine of $US4,300 per barrel spilled, could take the entire fine in the civil case to $US18 billion.   The court said BP was 67 per cent responsible for the accident, Transocean was 30 per cent responsible and Halliburton 3 per cent responsible.   "The court concludes that each defendant engaged in conduct that was negligent or worse and a legal cause of the blowout, explosion, and oil spill," the judgment said.   Judge Barbier said in his ruling that BP was warned about the dangers of numerous unexpected pressure "kicks" on the Macondo well ahead of the disaster.   BP"s decision to keep drilling was "dangerous" and "motivated by profit", he said.   BP also erred when it concluded that a well test conducted on the day of the explosion implied the site was safe, ignoring evidence that suggested possible looming disaster.   The judge faulted BP for continuing to drill without ordering additional tests as the situation would normally have required.   The case will go on for months or even years, with Judge Barbier set to assign damages after a third phase of the civil trial over the accident, scheduled for January.   Two earlier phases of the trial looked at how to apportion blame and examined how much oil was spilled.   BP said it had spent more than $US26 billion in claims payments and spill response in the wake of the disaster, which layered crude oil onto popular beaches and forced the shutdown of fishing industries along the US Gulf coast.   It also commuted $US1 billion to fund Gulf restoration projects.   A criminal case was settled with the US government in late 2012, with BP agreeing to pay $US4.5 billion in fines.   Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency lifted a ban it imposed on BP in late 2012 that excluded it from bidding on new leases in the Gulf of Mexico. Visit the related web page
	View more stories