World Bank gets more robust in fight against corruption

The World Bank Group has released its Sanctions Board Law Digest, publicly detailing for the first time, the rationale behind how the Bank Group holds entities accountable for fraud, corruption, and other wrongdoing.

The release, the Bank said, is to announce another milestone in its leadership on anticorruption

“By holding companies and individuals accountable through a fair and robust process, the Bank Group’s sanctions system promotes integrity and levels the playing field for those committed to clean business practices,” said World Bank Group President Robert B. Zoellick in a press statement.

Mr. Zoellick adds; “The release of the Sanctions Board’s inaugural Law Digest is another milestone demonstrating the Bank Group’s commitment to a fair and accountable sanctions process.”

According to the global lender, since 1999, more than 450 firms and individuals have been sanctioned for fraud, corruption and collusion by the independent and confidential Sanctions Board, which is the decision-making process behind the sanctions.

In a major step toward greater transparency and accountability, the World Bank indicates that the new Law Digest presents information about past Sanctions Board decisions that illustrates the types of cases received and the legal principles the Sanctions Board has applied in deciding liability and sanctions. “This is a first among multilateral development institutions,” it said.

For her part, Fathi Kemicha, Chair of the Sanctions Board said, “This Law Digest will further the Sanctions Board’s goal to uphold the rule of law in the fight against corruption and poverty”.

“This Law Digest will create a valuable resource for those within the Bank Group, for those firms and individuals doing business with the Bank Group, and for our partners in the international community,” Fathi added.

By Ekow Quandzie

1 Comment
  1. Karen Hudes says

    A group of colleagues who tried to fight corruption at the Bank itself, and were fired in retaliation do not think that transparency and accountability are quite the right adjectives to use under the circumstances. What we can’t quite figure out is why the Bank’s oversight agencies allow this charade to continue.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.