INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Newsletter Jun 2019 - ISSN 1694-2906 http://www.icac.mu fb.com/icacmauritius youtube.com/icacmu

The Declaration of Assets Act 2018 Explained

The Declaration of Assets Act 2018 was enacted by the National Assembly on 12 December 2018 and
came into force on 01 June 2019. The Act provides for a new legal framework governing the
declaration of assets in the public sector in Mauritius. Under section 4 of the 2018 Act, any person
referred to under Section 3 of the Act (declarant), has an obligation to file his declaration of assets
and liabilities with the ICAC, including the assets and liabilities of his spouse and minor children and,
property sold, transferred or donated to his children of age and his grandchildren (Section 4(4)). A
declarant in office at the date of commencement of the Act also have the obligation to make a
declaration of his assets and those of his spouse, his minor children, and property sold, transferred or
donated to his children of age and grandchildren. (Section 16 – Transitional Provisions and Section
4(4)). Furthermore, any person required to make a declaration of his assets and liabilities under any
other enactment, shall not be required to make a declaration of his assets and liabilities…
Page 2

Declaration of Assets: The evolution of the local legislation

Asset declarations of elected members and public officials are a powerful tool to prevent and combat
corruption, money laundering, illicit enrichment and conflicts of interests. According to the World
Bank, more than 150 countries have introduced asset disclosure requirements for their public officials.
Many of these countries make asset declarations available for public scrutiny. The main objective of
the DoA Act 2018 is to provide a new legal framework governing the declaration of assets in the public
sector in Mauritius. In order to fully appreciate the value and significance of the 2018 Act, and its
evolution from the 1991 Act, a quick glance at the past is enlightening. On 5 June 1985, the Declaration
of Assets Act 1985 was proclaimed. This marked the first declaration of assets regime of our country
for every member of the legislative assembly. The definition of assets under the 1985 Act was limited
to immovable property, motor vehicles, boats, shares and any interest in a partnership, société or
company. However, it was only a matter of filing with the clerk of the legislative assembly…

Page 7

Public Disclosure of Asset Declarations

There is now a growing trend towards requiring the disclosure by government officials, of their assets
and liabilities declarations, in order to combat corruption, foster public confidence in government,
and encourage foreign investment. The disclosure of assets and liabilities to the public represents a
major breakthrough in terms of ensuring greater transparency in the management of public affairs.
However, the issue of disclosure to the public of the assets and liabilities of members of parliament
and other representatives of the population, is often linked to the issue of privacy. Section 7(1) of the
DoA Act 2018 provides a list of persons whose declarations have to be disclosed to the public. This
includes: (a) the declarations made by members of the National Assembly, including the Speaker; (b)
members of the Rodrigues Regional Assembly, including the Chairperson of the Rodrigues Regional
Assembly; and (c) councillors of a Municipal City Council, Municipal Town Council or District Council...

Page 8

A publication of the Independent Commission Against Corruption

Réduit Triangle, Moka
Republic of Mauritius
Tel: 402 6600 - Fax: 402 6959 - Hotline 142 - email: icacoffice@intnet.mu
 ICAC Newsletter May 2019 issue - www.icac.mu - www.facebook.com/icacmauritius- www.youtube.com/icacmu
Message from the Director-General
The Declaration of Assets obligation is one component
of a multidisciplinary approach to combating financial
crime, including corruption, fraud, and money
laundering. It complements the other well-known
components of the financial crime strategy ranging
from investigation and prosecution, prevention,
education, asset forfeiture and unexplained wealth
orders (UWOs). An asset declaration system provides
an additional powerful tool to monitor, and can
contribute to combating, such crimes by either
reducing the incidence of conflicts of interest, or by
helping to identify and prosecute cases of corruption,
money laundering and illicit enrichment by public
officials. Corrupt officials and corrupt politicians, can
often hide their assets under the names of their
relatives, their spouses and other individuals.
Therefore, it should be possible to monitor not only
their wealth, but that of close relatives.
In addition, asset declaration systems, also referred to
as financial disclosure, or declaration of interest
systems, are an important element of building
successful anti-corruption programs and a culture of
integrity in public service. Declarations of Assets
systems seek to develop a higher norm of integrity
among public officials including those elected or
appointed in the legislative and executive branches of
government as well as senior public officials and the
judicial profession. Building integrity in the public and
judicial sectors are critical to ensuring a higher
standard of conduct. As will become clear throughout
this Newsletter, the Declaration of Assets Act 2018 is a
landmark step in the direction of combating corruption,
money laundering and illicit assets as well as
monitoring conflicts of interest. It illustrates a
significant evolution from the 1991 legislation.
The Independent Commission against Corruption
(ICAC) is the agency designated to manage the 2018
Declaration of Assets Act. It had previously, since
2002, been the depositary of the 1991 Declaration of
Assets Act. It is also given this responsibility in view of
the nature of its mandate as the anti-corruption and
anti-money laundering agency, to “monitor the assets
and liabilities of any declarant for the purpose of
detecting and investigating corruption and money
laundering offenses or illicit enrichment” (sec 9). The
2018 Act, however, provides the Commission with a
new two-tier mandate to administer the Act. The two-
tier approach is explained in terms of, first, a new and
progressive mandate covering three main
responsibilities, and, second, an extensive scope of
coverage of “declarants” (those with the obligation to
make a declaration) combined with a wider and
extensive definition of assets.
In the first case, the three main responsibilities
include: a) the reception of all declarations made by
the declarants; b) the obligation to monitor those
declarations for purposes of, first, ascertaining their
correctness and compliance with the law and, second,
to monitor the assets and liabilities of any declarant for
the purpose of detecting and investigating any
corruption, money laundering or illicit enrichment, and
c) to disclose to the public the category of declarations
as defined under the law.
Secondly, it evolves and demarcates itself from the
previous (1991) regime by: a) it creating a category of
new declarants, including declarants, as defined,
required to make a declaration of his assets and
liabilities under any other enactment, and b) expanding
the definition of assets to include different types of
assets and the nature of those assets subject to the
limitations defined in the Act. The above illustrate how
and to what extent the new law is a path-breaking
development, and the extent to which it demarcates
itself from the previous regime, in the fight against
corruption and money laundering.
The ICAC hails the new legislation as a laudable
initiative by setting out a statutory framework in line
with international best practices. The global trend is
that many countries have adopted declaration of assets
legislation as part of their anti-corruption framework.
In adopting this legislation, Mauritius lines up with the
numerous countries and gives an indication of its
commitment to international obligations regarding the
anti-corruption and anti-money laundering strategy.
Finally, however, the value of the legislation depends
on its effective implementation which, in turn, depends
on the collaboration of every person concerned to
comply with the provisions of the law and with the
ICAC. At the ICAC, we see in this legislation an
opportunity to develop and enhance a culture of good
governance and accountability in the public service
based on proactivity and constant monitoring. The
ICAC, therefore, calls for the collaboration of all
stakeholders for an effective implementation of the
DoA Act 2018 which will definitely act as a deterrence
to corruption, money laundering and other financial
crimes.
It is with great pleasure that I am announcing through
this newsletter, the setting up of a dedicated unit that
will be responsible to manage the different obligations
cast under the law. The newsletter provides details of
the different aspects of the law, including the mandate
of the ICAC, the different obligations created under the
law, the definition of “declarants”, the meaning of
“assets”, among others. However, while the
newsletter provides additional information about the
new law, it is not a substitute for the law. All
concerned should rely on the law.
Navin Beekarry
2
 - www.facebook.com/icacmauritius- www.youtube.com/icacmu
ICAC Newsletter May 2019 issue - www.icac.mu
THE DECLARATION OF ASSETS ACT 2018 EXPLAINED
This section illustrates selected extracts from the Declaration of Assets Act 2018 but is not a substitute for the law. Declarants are invited to consult the legislation.

1. Who should declare?

Persons currently in post:
 Every member of the National Assembly, including the Speaker of the National
Assembly, and every Minister.
 Every member of the Rodrigues Regional Assembly (RRA), including the
Chairperson of the RRA, and every Commissioner.
 Every Councillor of a Municipal City Council, Municipal Town Council or District Elected officials
Council.
 Every Lord Mayor, Deputy Lord Mayor, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chairperson or
Vice-Chairperson of a Municipal City Council, Municipal Town Council or District
Council.

 Every judicial officer in the grade of District Magistrate and above; and senior
public officer of the grade of, or drawing salary at the level of, Deputy
Permanent Secretary and above.
 Every Chief Executive of a Municipal City Council, Municipal Town Council or
District Council, and every officer of such Councils drawing salary at the level of Senior public officials
Deputy Permanent Secretary and above.
 Every Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of State-owned enterprises and
statutory bodies, and every officer of such enterprises and statutory bodies
drawing salary at the level of Deputy Permanent Secretary and above.

The benchmark salary of Deputy Permanent Secretary shall be the starting salary
on the scale provided in the latest report of the Pay Research Bureau. The
benchmark salary shall be readjusted upon the effective date of implementation of
any new PRB report for the grade. The current benchmark DPS salary is Rs
64,800 as per the 2016 PRB Report.

 Every adviser and officer employed on a contractual basis in Ministries, drawing

Contractual public officials
salary at the level of Deputy Permanent Secretary and above.

 Such other persons as may be prescribed under Section 3 (i) of the Act.

2. How to declare?

Declarations should be made on the prescribed Assets Declaration forms of

the First and Second Schedules of the Declaration of Assets Regulations, that
can be downloaded from the ICAC website www.icac.mu or collected at the
reception desk of the ICAC, Reduit Triangle, Moka.

Declarations submitted directly to the ICAC

Every person referred to in section 3(1)(e) to (i):

 Every judicial officer in the grade of District Magistrate and above; and senior public officer of the grade of, or drawing
salary at the level of, Deputy Permanent Secretary and above;
 Every Chief Executive of a Municipal City Council, Municipal Town Council or District Council, and every officer of such
Councils drawing salary at the level of Deputy Permanent Secretary and above;
 Every Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of State-owned enterprises and statutory bodies, and every officer of such
enterprises and statutory bodies drawing salary at the level of Deputy Permanent Secretary and above;
 Every adviser and officer employed on a contractual basis in Ministries, drawing salary at the level of Deputy Permanent
Secretary and above;
 Such other persons as may be prescribed under Section 3 (i) of the Act;
shall, not later than 30 days after being appointed; and his office becomes vacant, make a declaration of his assets and
liabilities with ICAC on the Second Schedule of the Declaration of Assets Form.

Officers referred to under Section 4(1) and (2) (referred to above as elected officials) shall make their declaration by way of
affidavit on the prescribed form of the First Schedule of the Declaration of Assets Regulations, sworn before the Supreme
Court and submitted to the ICAC within the specified period (see section When to Declare). For those, the declaration can be
submitted by registered post addressed to the Director-General on the address above or deposited at the reception desk of the
ICAC.
3
 - www.facebook.com/icacmauritius- www.youtube.com/icacmu
ICAC Newsletter May 2019 issue - www.icac.mu
THE DECLARATION OF ASSETS ACT 2018 EXPLAINED
This section illustrates selected extracts from the Declaration of Assets Act 2018 but is not a substitute for the law. Declarants are invited to consult the legislation.

3. What to declare?

Assets to be declared under section 2 of the act are:

 Money, in any currency, in local banks and foreign banks.

 Cash in hand, exceeding one million rupees in any

currency.

 Securities, including stocks, bonds, treasury bills or other

units held in Mauritius or abroad.

 Shares or any interest in a company, société or

partnership.

 Any freehold or leasehold immovable property,

registered in Mauritius or abroad, and which, at the time of
declaration, has been purchased but is still subject to
registration in Mauritius or abroad.
Table 2

 Motor vehicles, boats, ships or aircrafts

 Any item of jewelry, precious stone or metal, or watch,

exceeding 500,000 rupees in value.

 Any liabilities in relation to those assets, including any joint

liability and any other liabilities which are not in relation
to those assets

 Any asset held by a person for and on behalf of the declarant in the declarant’s capacity as ultimate beneficiary.

Declarants should:
 Include the assets and liabilities of spouse and minor children.

 Specify any property sold, transferred or donated to his children of age and grandchildren,
in any form or manner whatsoever, including income or benefits from any account,
partnership or trust.

Declarants shall not:

 Be required to specify the value of any asset included in the declaration, except where such asset
consists of cash.

4
 - www.facebook.com/icacmauritius- www.youtube.com/icacmu
ICAC Newsletter May 2019 issue - www.icac.mu
THE DECLARATION OF ASSETS ACT 2018 EXPLAINED
This section illustrates selected extracts from the Declaration of Assets Act 2018 but is not a substitute for the law. Declarants are invited to consult the legislation.

4. When to declare?
Who should declare – (Section 3) When to declare (Section 4) Fresh declaration
Every member Not later than 30 days after:
- the first sitting of the National Assembly
- being elected to the National Assembly,
Speaker following a by-election
- his seat becomes vacant pursuant to
National
Section 35 of the Constitution
Assembly
Not later than 30 days after:
- being appointed
Every Minister
- his office becomes vacant pursuant to
Section 60 of the Constitution
Not later than 30 days after:
Every member
- the first sitting of the Rodrigues Regional
Assembly
- being elected to the Rodrigues Regional
Assembly, following a by-election
Chairperson Within a period of 30 days, inform
Rodrigues - his seat becomes vacant pursuant to
Regional Section 19 of the Rodrigues Regional ICAC, in writing, where he acquires
Assembly Assembly Act or disposes of:
Not later than 30 days after: - any freehold or leasehold
- being appointed immovable property in Mauritius
Every Commissioner - his office becomes vacant pursuant to or abroad;
Section 37 of the Rodrigues Regional - a motor vehicle, boat, a ship or
Assembly Act an aircraft
Not later than 30 days after:
- the first sitting of the Municipal City
Council, Municipal Town Council or
District Council
Every Councillor - being elected to Municipal City Council,
Municipal Town Council or District
 Municipal Council, following a by-election
City - his seat becomes vacant pursuant to
Council Section 40 of the Local Government Act
 Municipal Every Lord Mayor
Town Deputy Lord Mayor
Council Not later than 30 days after:
Mayor
 District - being elected
Deputy Mayor
Council - his office becomes vacant pursuant to
Chairperson
Section 41 of the Local Government Act
Vice-Chairperson

Every Chief Executive

Make a fresh declaration with ICAC
Every Officer drawing salary at the level :
of Deputy Permanent Secretary (DPS) and - at every interval of 5 years
above following the date of the first
Judicial In the grade of District Magistrate and proclamation
Officer above - within a period of 30 days after
Senior Public In the grade of, or drawing salary at the leaving office
Officer level of DPS and above Not later than 30 days after:
- being appointed
State-owned  Chairperson - his office becomes vacant Within a period of 30 days, inform
enterprises  Chief Executive Officer ICAC, in writing, where he acquires
Statutory  Every Officer drawing salary at the level or disposes of:
bodies of DPS and above - any freehold or leasehold
immovable property in Mauritius
Every adviser and officer employed on a contractual basis
or abroad;
in Ministries, drawing salary at the level of Deputy
- a motor vehicle, boat, a ship or
Permanent Secretary and above
an aircraft
Such other persons as may be prescribed

Persons (declarants) in Office at Commencement of the Act (section 16)

Every declarant in office at the commencement of the Act is required to make his declaration under section 16(1) and (2)
coupled with section 3 of the Act. Declarants covered under section 16, that is, those in office at the commencement of the
Act, have a period of 90 days from the commencement of the Act to make their declarations. Officers taking post after the
date of commencement of the Act have to abide by the period of filing referred to in the table above.
5
 - www.facebook.com/icacmauritius- www.youtube.com/icacmu
ICAC Newsletter May 2019 issue - www.icac.mu
THE DECLARATION OF ASSETS ACT 2018 EXPLAINED
This section illustrates selected extracts from the Declaration of Assets Act 2018 but is not a substitute for the law. Declarants are invited to consult the legislation.

5. What will be disclosed?

What ICAC shall disclose to the Public

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Declaration of Assets Act 2018, the ICAC shall
disclose to the public the declarations made by members of the National
Assembly, including the Speaker, members of the Rodrigues Regional
Assembly, including the Chairperson of the Rodrigues Regional Assembly,
and Councillors of a Municipal City Council, Municipal Town Council or
District Council.

What ICAC shall not disclose to the public

ICAC shall not, in relation to the persons referred to in the section above,
disclose to the public information pertaining to –
 money, in any currency, in local banks and foreign banks;
 any item of jewelry, precious stone or metal, or watch, exceeding 500,000
rupees in value; and
 cash in hand not exceeding one million rupees in any currency accepted as
legal tender in any country.

ICAC shall keep confidential and not disclose to the public any declaration, other
than a declaration referred to in Section 4(1) and (2).

Disclosure to any Enforcement Authority

Any enforcement authority (“Enforcement authority” means the Police, the

Enforcement Authority under the Asset Recovery Act, the Mauritius Revenue
Authority, ICAC, the Financial Intelligence Unit, the Integrity Reporting Services
Agency under the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Act, or such other
body as may be prescribed) may apply to the Judge in Chambers for the
disclosure of a declaration and the Judge in Chambers may, on good cause
shown, order the disclosure of the declaration.

6. What are the offences and penalties?

Any person who fails to make a declaration or who wilfully makes a false declaration shall commit an offence and shall, on
conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding one million rupees and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
Any person who, in any other manner contravenes the Declaration of Assets Act 2018 or any regulations made under it, shall
commit an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding 10,000 rupees.

Any spouse who, without any reasonable excuse, fails to collaborate in disclosing his or her assets and liabilities for the
purpose of fulfilling a requirement under this Declaration of Assets Act 2018, shall commit an offence and shall, on conviction,
be liable to a fine not exceeding 10,000 rupees and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months.

Where a person fails, without reasonable excuse, to submit a declaration within the specified period, he shall be liable to pay to
ICAC a penalty representing 5,000 rupees per month or part of the month, until such time as the declaration is submitted,
provided that the total penalty payable shall not exceed 50,000 rupees.

Any person who is dissatisfied with a decision of ICAC relating to the imposition of a penalty may, within 28 days of the
imposition of the penalty, apply to the Supreme Court for a judicial review of such decision.

6
Declaration of Assets: -The evolution of the
-
ICAC Newsletter May 2019 issue - www.icac.mu www.facebook.com/icacmauritius www.youtube.com/icacmu
local legislation
Asset declarations of elected members and public officials
are a powerful tool to prevent and combat corruption,
money laundering, illicit enrichment and conflicts of
interests. According to the World Bank, more than 150
countries have introduced asset disclosure requirements for
their public officials. Many of these countries make asset
declarations available for public scrutiny. The main objective
of the DoA Act 2018 is to provide a new legal framework
governing the declaration of assets in the public sector in
Mauritius.
What has changed?
In order to fully appreciate the value and significance of the
2018 Act, and its evolution from the 1991 Act, a quick
glance at the past is enlightening. On 5 June 1985, the
Declaration of Assets Act 1985 was proclaimed. This marked
the first declaration of assets regime of our country for
every member of the legislative assembly. The definition of
assets under the 1985 Act was limited to immovable
property, motor vehicles, boats, shares and any interest in a
partnership, société or company. However, it was only a
matter of filing with the clerk of the legislative assembly.
In 1991, the 1985 Act was repealed and replaced by a new
Declaration of Assets Act. The 1991 Act did not constitute a
drastic change of the 1985 asset declaration regime, save
and except that it:
(a) expanded the definition of people covered with the duty
to make a declaration by including any Councillor of a
Municipal City Council, Municipal Town Council or District
Council; and
(b) extended the duty for the declarants to include the
assets and liabilities of their spouse and children.
The DoA Act 2018 provides for an extensive definition and
scope of “declarant” by enlarging the categories of people
under the obligation to declare their assets and liabilities. It
also significantly widens the definition of assets. The
declarant under the 2018 law not only includes members of
the National Assembly, every member of the Rodrigues
Regional Assembly and every Councillor of a Municipal City
Council, Municipal Town Council or District Council (which
was already present in the 1991 Act), but also includes:
(a) every Lord Mayor, Deputy Lord Mayor, Mayor, Deputy
Mayor, Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of a Municipal City
Council, Municipal Town Council or District Council;
(b) every judicial officer and senior public officer;
(c) every Chief Executive of a Municipal City Council,
Municipal Town Council or District Council, and every officer
of such Councils drawing salary at the level of Deputy
Permanent Secretary and above;
(d) every Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of State-
owned enterprises and statutory bodies, and every officer of
such enterprises and statutory bodies drawing salary at the
level of Deputy Permanent Secretary and above;
(e) every adviser and officer employed on a contractual
basis in Ministries, drawing salary at the level of Deputy
Permanent Secretary and above.
In addition to the 1991 Act, where declarants still have to
declare the assets and liabilities of their spouses and minor
children, the 2018 law includes grandchildren where a
declarant has sold, transferred or donated to his children of
age and to his grandchildren, in any form whatsoever, any
property, including income or benefits from any account,
partnership or trust.
Another major evolution in the 2018 law is the obligation to
disclose to the public a category of those declarations. This
new law addresses a deficiency in the previous legislation
which did not include this obligation. Furthermore, the 2018
legislation creates an additional obligation for the ICAC to
monitor the assets and liabilities of declarants. In the
previous law, there was no obligation to monitor and to
disclose declarants’ assets and liabilities. Without
monitoring, declaration of assets becomes a box-ticking
administrative step. Monitoring breathes life into the
declaration of assets, thus rendering it effective, as a tool
both for deterrence and detection.
The role of ICAC
The legislator has entrusted ICAC as the depository of the
declarations of assets. Its mandate to monitor the
declaration of assets is determined by sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10 of the DoA Act 2018 and section 20(1)(s), 20(1)(t) and
20(1) (u) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2002.
The mandate includes:
(a) receiving and managing declarations;
(b) monitoring fresh declarations to the ICAC at the
different intervals, following the submission of the first
declarations;
(c) monitoring fresh declarations after leaving;
(d) disclosure to the public of a category of those
declarations;
(e) issuing directives to any person to whom the DOA Act
2018 applies;
(f) monitoring the assets and liabilities of any declarant for
the purpose of detecting and investigating corruption and
money laundering offences or illicit enrichment;
(g) imposing penalty for late submission of declaration; and
(a) follow-up on cases of judicial reviews by persons
dissatisfied with decisions of the ICAC relating to the
imposition of a penalty pursuant to section 10(1) of the DOA
Act 2018.
The reasoning behind the choice of the anti-corruption
agency for the above mandate is due to the
interconnectedness of the ICAC’s mission as per the
Prevention of Corruption Act in terms of prevention,
education and investigation of corruption offences, as well
as money laundering under the Financial Intelligence and
Money Laundering Act. The addition of the Declaration of
Assets Act is the logical evolution of the existing arsenal.
Hence, it reinforces the financial crime strategy.
Ancillary to the statutory duties of the ICAC, the following
will be required for the proper implementation of the DOA
Act 2018:
(b) managing the database of declarants;
(c) safe custody of declarations;
(d) systematic verifications, recording and filing of
declarations in the database:
(e) assisting public officials to fill in declaration forms;
(f) sensitizing and educating declarants on their obligations
under DoA Act 2018;
(g) investigation of suspected violations of the law;
(h) proper administration and continuous development of
the Declaration of Assets Systems.
7
 ICAC Newsletter May 2019 issue - www.icac.mu - www.facebook.com/icacmauritius- www.youtube.com/icacmu

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF ASSET DECLARATION

There is now a growing trend towards requiring the disclosure by government officials, of their assets and
liabilities, in order to combat corruption, foster public confidence in government, and encourage foreign
investment. The disclosure of assets and liabilities has always been questioned on the basis of the need to
preserve the right to privacy of the individual. But such rights are not absolute and often have to be interpreted in
the larger context of public interest and public order. The question as to whether or not the disclosure, to the
public of the assets and liabilities of members of parliament and other representatives of the population, can be
curtailed by the right of an individual to privacy has been addressed by the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights

Whose assets will be disclosed to the public?

Section 7(1) of the DoA Act 2018 provides a limited list of
persons whose declarations have to be disclosed to the public.
This includes:
(a) the declarations made by members of the National
Assembly, including the Speaker;
(b) members of the Rodrigues Regional Assembly,
including the Chairperson of the Rodrigues Regional
Assembly; and
(c) councillors of a Municipal City Council, Municipal
Town Council or District Council.
Public disclosure of the private assets of public officials and
family members should not clash with the rights to privacy and
data protection. Both these rights are, however, not absolute
and can be restricted provided there is a basis in law and a
legitimate public interest justifies the restriction.
The European Court of Human Rights considered “that it is
precisely this comprehensive character which makes it realistic
to assume that the impugned provisions will meet their
objective of giving the public a reasonably exhaustive picture of
councilors’ financial positions ... that the additional obligation to
submit information on property, including marital property, can
be said to be reasonable in that it is designed to discourage
attempts to conceal assets simply by acquiring them using the
name of a councilor’s spouse.”
The European Court of Human Rights also endorsed the
publication and internet access to declarations arguing that “the
general public has a legitimate interest in ascertaining that local
politics are transparent and Internet access to the declarations
makes access to such information effective and easy. Without
such access, the obligation would have no practical importance
or genuine incidence on the degree to which the public is
informed about the political process.”

Prevention of corruption and exposing unexplained wealth of
officials are serious and legitimate public interests. Hence, the
limitations on the privacy of public officials by requiring them to
disclose their income, assets and liabilities would serve the
public interest. The legal basis would be the Declaration of
Assets Act 2018.
Case before the European Court of Human Rights
In the case Wypych v. Poland (October 25, 2005, application
no. 2428/05) which was decided by the European Court of
Human Rights, the application of Article 8 of the European
Convention of Human Rights was considered. The Court found
that the requirement to submit the declaration and its online
publication were indeed an interference with the right to
privacy, but that it was justified and the comprehensive scope
of the information to be submitted was not found to be
excessively burdensome.
The new law will not be operating in a vacuum. It provides
safeguard such as the fact that the following asset will not be
disclosed to the public as per section 7(2) of DoA Act 2018:
(a) money, in any currency, in local banks and foreign banks;
(b) any item of jewelry, precious stone or metal, or watch,
exceeding 500,000 rupees in value; and
(c) cash in hand not exceeding one million rupees in any
currency accepted as legal tender in any country.
The DoA Act 2018 provides the foundation for building a highly
effective asset declaration system whilst ensuring the safeguard
of all confidential data. It sets a clear legal basis for collection
and publication of personal data in asset declarations. The law
explicitly sets out which part of the declaration will be disclosed
to the public and which part will be kept confidential.
8
 - www.facebook.com/icacmauritius- www.youtube.com/icacmu
ICAC Newsletter May 2019 issue - www.icac.mu
DECLARATION OF ASSETS: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Apart from a few earlier cases, systems of public
officials’ declarations began to evolve into their modern
versions after the Second World War. In the United
States, starting in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson
introduced a requirement that federal officials should
disclose information about their private finances to the
public authorities. However, growing government and
recurrent corruption scandals created impetus for
initiatives to strengthen public integrity.
It took Watergate and other scandals before the US Congress
enacted the Ethics in Government Act in 1978. The Act, still in
force today, requires detailed public financial disclosure by
government employees above a certain level in all three
branches of the federal government.
In Western Europe, the disclosure of public officials’ income,
assets and financial interests came later despite early reluctance
to impose strict disclosure systems, although the United Kingdom
adopted its Prevention of Corruption Act as early as 1889.
However, despite a 1969 select committee’s conclusion that
there was no need for a register of interests, in 1974, the House
of Commons introduced the Register of Interests. Declarations
for public officials started to gain interest in Western Europe in
the 1980s when, in 1982, a law on declarations was adopted in
Spain while, in Italy, in that same year, Italian members of
parliament became obliged to disclose their additional income
and property status. In 1983 a law for public control of the
wealth of elected officials was adopted in Portugal. All countries
of the Central and Eastern region that joined the European Union
in 2004 and 2007 had adopted their declaration systems by
2000. This can be explained by conditions for EU accession but
the trend continues into the 21st century, when both new
aspirants for EU membership and former Soviet Republics
developed their disclosure rules.
The earliest European standard is found in the Recommendation
Nr. R (2000) 10 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States
on codes of conduct for public officials (adopted on 11 May
2000), where Article 14 refers to declarations, i.e., “The public
official who occupies a position in which his or her personal or
private interests are likely to be affected by his or her official
duties should, as lawfully required, declare upon appointment, at
regular intervals thereafter and whenever any changes occur the
nature and extent of those interests.” The recommendation
emphasizes the declaration’s purpose of controlling conflict of
interest – not that of wealth monitoring, which is also viewed as
important in a number of countries.
The conditions that applied to the countries wishing to accede to
the European Union generally did not contain an explicit
requirement to establish a declaration system for public officials
(there is no EU law – or acquis communautaire – on
declarations). The EU position, stated in broad terms, included
the requirement “that the candidate country has achieved
stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law,
human rights...”. Meantime the candidate countries were
expected to fulfil the requirements of relevant international
standards and introduce various anti-corruption procedures.
Moreover, particular countries received concrete requirements to
implement or strengthen measures to control the conflicts of
interest and verify assets of public officials as a part of the EU
demand to control corruption.
Thus, even though there is no binding legal basis and no
conclusive proof of effectiveness, declarations for public officials
have become a de facto standard of the European Union vis-à-vis
candidate members. The functioning of declaration systems
continues to be under the scrutiny of the European Commission
in current candidate countries.
The 1990s saw not only the spread of declarations in transition
countries but also the emergence of mainly soft international
standards to this end. One of the earlier international
documents that foresaw public officials’ declarations was the
Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (adopted in
1996). The Convention sets a requirement for states parties to
consider measures to create, maintain and strengthen inter
alia“ systems for registering the income, assets and liabilities
of persons who perform public functions in certain posts as
specified by law and, where appropriate, for making such
registrations public”.
Nowadays public officials’ declarations have become a part of
the global standard that is embodied in the United Nations
Convention against Corruption (adopted in 2003). Article 8
(Paragraph 5) contains a soft standard, which requires state
parties to “endeavour, where appropriate and in accordance
with the fundamental principles of its domestic law, to
establish measures and systems requiring public officials to
make declarations to appropriate authorities regarding, inter
alia, their outside activities, employment, investments, assets
and substantial gifts or benefits from which a conflict of
interest may result with respect to their functions as public
officials.”
The Convention returns to the issue of disclosure in the
context of asset recovery by requiring that “each State Party
shall consider establishing, in accordance with its domestic
law, effective financial disclosure systems for appropriate
public officials and shall provide for appropriate sanctions for
non-compliance. Each State Party shall also consider taking
such measures as may be necessary to permit its competent
authorities to share that information with the competent
authorities in other States Parties when necessary to
investigate, claim and recover proceeds of offences
established in accordance with this Convention” (Article 52,
Paragraph 5).
The requirements of the UN Convention do not amount to
more than the obligation to consider. Still, borrowing language
from the Legislative Guide for the Implementation of the UN
Convention Against Corruption (UN, 2006, Paragraph 12, p. 4),
it is clear that states are urged to consider adopting such
declaration systems and to make a genuine effort to determine
whether they would be compatible with their legal system.
Further recommendations are provided in the Technical Guide
to the UN Convention (UN, 2009, pp. 25-26), and include the
following:
• disclosure covers all substantial types of incomes and assets
of officials (all or from a certain level of appointment or sector
and/or their relatives);
• disclosure forms allow for year-on-year comparisons of
officials’ financial position;
• disclosure procedures preclude possibilities to conceal
officials’ assets through other means or, to the extent possible,
assets held by those against whom a state party may have no
access (e.g. held overseas or by a nonresident);
• a reliable system for income and asset control exists for all
physical and legal persons – such as within tax administration
– to access in relation to persons or legal entities associated
with public officials;
• officials have a strong duty to substantiate/prove the sources
of their income;
• to the extent possible, officials are precluded from declaring
nonexistent assets, which can later be used as justification for
otherwise unexplained wealth;
• oversight agencies have sufficient manpower, expertise,
technical capacity and legal authority for meaningful controls;
• appropriate deterrent penalties exist for violations of these
requirements.
9
 - www.facebook.com/icacmauritius- www.youtube.com/icacmu
ICAC Newsletter May 2019 issue - www.icac.mu
BEST INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND PRACTICES
International Instruments and Declaration of Assets
Asset declarations of public officials are a powerful tool to
prevent corruption, detect illicit enrichment and conflicts of
interests. According to the World Bank, more than 150
countries have introduced asset disclosure requirements for
their public officials. Many of these countries make asset
declarations available for public scrutiny. The major purpose of
the declaration of assets regimes is to ensure that corrupt
public officials will not be able to conceal the proceeds of any
illegal activity.
Furthermore, declaration of assets by public official has the aim
of establishing measures and systems requiring public officials
to make declarations to appropriate authorities regarding, inter
alia, their outside activities, employment, investments, assets
and substantial gifts or benefits from which a conflict of
interest may result with respect to their functions as public
officials. The aim is to avoid potential conflicts of interest in the
future and to facilitate the management of such conflicts,
where appropriate.
Another important aspect of a declaration of assets system is
the need for transparency regarding the declarations. Public
access to decclarations multiplies their anti-corruption value, as
they can often play a crucial role by uncovering irregularities
and triggering formal verification of declarations by anti-
corruption/asset declaration agencies. However, while there is
a global trend towards greater disclosure, striking the right
balance between public disclosure and protection of privacy
remains a subject of debate. There are strong reasons for
disclosing, at least partially, data of political officials, such as
MPs. Politicians should be prepared to provide explanations
regarding the disclosed information, if there are any serious
concerns raised in the media or by civil society.
Academic studies have shown that public access to declared
information is associated with lower levels of perceived
corruption. Country experiences also indicate that public access
can greatly increase the ability of disclosure systems to deliver
results.
Despite the growing demand for guidance, there is at present
no unified international standards on disclosure by public
officials. We can however, inspire ourselves from the leading
international instruments to measure whether we meet the
basic requirements and whether we have gone the extra mile.
These international instruments are: -
(a) The United Nations Convention against Corruption
(‘UNCAC’) – at Article 8 Paragraph 5 and Article 52,
paragraph 5;
(b) The African Union Convention on Preventing and
Combating Corruption – at Article 7 Paragraph 1; and
(c) Good Practices in Asset Disclosure Systems in G20
countries
UNCAC
The requirement for financial disclosure systems by public
officials is a relatively modern phenomenon. Most of the
modern asset and interest disclosure systems were developed
following the adoption of the UNCAC, in response to the
requirements of Article 8 of the Convention. Mauritius had its
first declaration of assets back in 1985, with very limited
success (to say the best).
The growing prominence of the anti-corruption agenda
worldwide is a testament to the realization of the scourge
corruption can be. As at 26 June 2018, 186 countries are state
parties to the UNCAC. Declaration of assets of public official
and members of parliament have since the coming into force of
the UNCAC always been a pivotal tool in the fight against
corruption.
Article 8, paragraph 5 of the UNCAC provides:
“[…] Each State Party shall endeavour, where appropriate and
in accordance with the fundamental principles of its domestic
law, to establish measures and systems requiring public officials
to make declarations to appropriate authorities regarding, inter
alia, their outside activities, employment, investments, assets
and substantial gifts or benefits from which a conflict of interest
may result with respect to their functions as public officials […]”
With regards to the issue of disclosure in the context of asset
recovery, at Article 52, paragraph 5, of the UNCAC: “each State
Party shall consider establishing, in accordance with its
domestic law, effective financial disclosure systems for
appropriate public officials and shall provide for appropriate
sanctions for non-compliance. Each State Party shall also
consider taking such measures as may be necessary to permit
its competent authorities to share that information with the
competent authorities in other States Parties when necessary to
investigate, claim and recover proceeds of offences established
in accordance with this Convention”.
African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating
Corruption
Article 7, paragraph 1 of the African Union Convention on
Preventing and Combating Corruption states:
“In order to combat corruption and related offences in the
public service, State Parties commit themselves to: 1. require all
or designated public officials to declare their assets at the time
of assumption of office during and after their term of office in
the public service […]”
It is to be noted that Article 7 of the AU Convention on
Preventing and Combating Corruption and Article 8, paragraph
5 of the UNCAC are not mutually exclusive. They share the
same principles of disclosure and accountability for persons
holding public offices.
Good practices in asset disclosure systems in G20
countries
Following up on the work undertaken on the contribution of
asset disclosure systems to the fight against corruption, the
G20 Anti-Corruption Action Plan for 2013-2014 states that
members will follow-up by: -
“building on the common principles adopted in Los Cabos for
financial and asset disclosure systems for public officials,
beginning, for the purpose of peer learning, by considering G20
countries current systems in light of these principles, and
exchanging relevant experiences” .
In order to pursue this objective, the G20-Anti Corruption
Working Group (‘ACWG’) requested the World Bank and the
OECD to identify draft good practices in the design and
implementation of asset disclosure systems in G20 countries,
while providing the opportunity to learn from each other’s
experiences to improve the effectiveness of disclosure systems
in the member countries and beyond. The common principles
10
 - www.facebook.com/icacmauritius- www.youtube.com/icacmu
ICAC Newsletter May 2019 issue - www.icac.mu
BEST INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND PRACTICES
enunciated above are embodied in the following list of good
practices (‘GP’):
(a) “Disclosure requirements should be set forth clearly for the
public official and for the general public and should be an
integral component of laws, regulations and/or
administrative guidelines, as appropriate, governing the
conduct of public officials in order to establish shared
expectations for accountability and transparency. Disclosure
systems should be as comprehensive as necessary to
combat corruption but should require only the submission of
information reasonable and directly related to the
implementation of laws, regulations, and administrative
guidelines, as appropriate, governing the conduct of public
officials” (hereinafter referred to as “GP1”);
(b) “Disclosed information should be made as widely available
as possible, both within the government and to the general
public, in order to facilitate accountability while still taking
into consideration reasonable concerns for personal and
family safety and privacy and for the laws, administrative
requirements and traditions of the Economy. Information
about the overall administration of the disclosure system,
including information about disclosure compliance rates and
enforcement activities, should be made available to the
public, in accordance with applicable law, regulation and/or
administrative guidelines.”( hereinafter referred to as
“GP2”);
(c) Disclosure should first be required of those in senior
leadership positions and then, as capacity permits, of those
in positions most influencing public trust or in positions
having a greater risk of conflict of interest or potential
corruption.” (hereinafter referred to as “GP3”);
(d) “Disclosure system administrators should have sufficient
authority, expertise, independence, and resources to carry
out the purpose of the system as designed” (hereinafter
referred to as “GP4”);
(e) “Disclosed information should be readily available for use in
preventing, detecting, investigating, imposing administrative
remedies for and/or prosecuting corruption offenses
regarding conflicts of interest, illicit enrichment, and /or
other forms of corruption. Disclosure should be required on
a consistent and periodic basis so that the information
reflects reasonably current circumstances” (hereinafter
referred to as “GP5”).
(f) “Penalties and/or administrative sanctions for late
submission of, failure to submit, and submitting false
information on a required disclosure report should be
effective, proportionate, and dissuasive”( hereinafter
referred to as “GP6”)
How does the new Declaration of Assets Act 2018
compare against the best international standards and
practices?
The new salient features of the DoA Act 2018, expands the
scope of declarants from only members of the legislative
assembly to include inter alia high ranking officials, every
Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of State-owned
enterprises and statutory bodies, and every officer of such
enterprises and statutory bodies drawing salary at the level of
Deputy Permanent Secretary.
The compliance of Mauritius with the UNCAC was reviewed
during the first cycle of the second year of the Implementation
Review Mechanism (CAC/COSP/IRG/I/2/1/Add.21). It was seen
in that review that: “Some public officials are subject to regular,
confidential asset declarations, including staff of ICAC, MRA, the
FIU and the Procurement Policy Office. All elected officials,
including members of the National Assembly, the Rodrigues
Regional Assembly and local authorities, are subject to
mandatory asset declarations (section 3, Declaration of Assets
Act). Non-submission of declarations is sanctioned (section 6);
however, no established verification and monitoring mechanism
is in place. POCA section 84 on possession of unexplained
wealth can be used in the course of an investigation.”
The Declaration of Assets 1991 (“DoA Act 1991 did not cater
for a monitoring system. Previously, compliance with the law
only involved the filing of the declarations but no monitoring
was performed as the law did not provide for such a power
neither to the ICAC which was the depository of the declaration
of assets under the 1991 Act nor to any other Law Enforcement
Agency. The new law caters for a monitoring mechanism. It is
also to be noted that non-compliance with the DoA Act 2018, is
meted with harsher sentence (Please see Table 2 for
offences under the DoA Act 2018 at page 3).
When analyzing the provisions of DoA Act 2018, it is found to
be in line with the Good Practices in Asset Disclosure Systems in
G20 countries as follows:
(a) GP1: The Declaration of Assets forms that are annexed to
the DoA Act 2018 Act, provide for the assets and liabilities
that have to be declared. The disclosure requirements are
set forth clearly for the public official. Furthermore, the
information requested is reasonable and appropriate for
the governing the conduct of public officials;
(b) GP2: Disclosure of declarations which has been previously
removed in the DoA Act 1991 has been incorporated in the
DoA Act 2018 for members of the National Assembly,
including the Speaker, members of the Rodrigues Regional
Assembly, including the Chairperson of the Rodrigues
Regional Assembly, and Councillors of a Municipal City
Council, Municipal Town Council or District Council;
(c) GP3: The law used to provide for only members of the
National Assembly, every member of the Rodrigues
Regional Assembly and every Councillor of a Municipal City
Council, Municipal Town Council or District Council and has
now been extended to various other public officials (see
Article on “When to Declare” at page 6)
(d) GP4: The ICAC is a specialized agency in the fight against
corruption and money laundering. As such it is more than
capable of fulfilling its obligations of monitoring as it has the
resources and know-how to monitor the declaration of
assets. This is in line with the GP4;
(e) GP5: Under the DoA Act 2018, declaration made pursuant
to the Act may be disclosed enforcement authorities upon
an order of the judge in chambers;
(f) GP6: The DoA Act 2018 provides for harsher sentence in
cases of non-compliance and late submission of the
Declaration.(see table 2 for offences under the DoA
Act 2018 at page 3)
Based on the new offences, Mauritius has gone beyond what it
required. There are now harsher sentence for late submission
and false disclosure. It is also to be noted that it is now an
offence for a spouse who without any reasonable excuse fails to
collaborate in disclosing his/her assets and liabilities.
CONCLUSION
It would be an understatement to say that the DoA Act 2018
has been long overdue. The element of “monitoring” and
“disclosure” which are at the heart of the present legislation in
line with the international best practices, be it the UNCAC, the
African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating
Corruption, and the Good practices in asset disclosure systems
in G20 countries. The failure of the DoA Act 1991 is largely due
to a lack of monitoring system which is catered for in the new
Act. 11
 ICAC Newsletter May 2019 issue - www.icac.mu - www.facebook.com/icacmauritius- www.youtube.com/icacmu
THE DECLARATION OF ASSETS ACT AT A GLANCE:
RATIONALE, OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES
The need for a declaration of assets system has always
been explained in terms of three main aspects of combating
corruption: a) conflict of interest control, b) transparency
and accountability, and c) verification of the legitimacy of
income and wealth.
First, the United Nations Convention against Corruption
makes explicit reference to the possibility of a conflict of
interest as a benchmark for what information is to be
declared. This reflects the fact that conflicts of interests
control is the most common purpose for the use of
declarations of public officials. One could say that the
conflict of interest prevention focuses somewhat narrowly
on whether a particular interest can interfere with the
discharge of official duties. In the meantime there are also
broader concerns with public accountability, raising the
more general possibility of evaluating the activities of a
public official, including what personal motives he/she may
have.
Second, along with the prevention of conflicts of interest,
more general concerns for transparency, public
accountability, trust and integrity constitute the most
commonly stated purposes of the declaration systems.
These purposes are in no way contradictory; they reflect
the political emphasis associated with one or another
system. Historically, the right to petition the government
was extended to the broader right to know information held
by the government. Where the content of public officials’
declarations is available to the public, this tool essentially
extends coverage of this right.
Third, is the need to ensure that declarations are monitored
as regards the assets of public officials. Nevertheless, in
some countries the idea is accepted that declarations of
public officials should serve as a special tool of wealth
monitoring. While the adoption of laws and rules requiring
public officials to declare their wealth and assets either
upon entry into the public service or promotion into a
position with potential for illicit enrichment, serves a
preventive function, they also have an investigative
function. They provide valuable information that may help
uncover misconduct, corruption, money laundering, and
illicit enrichment after it takes place. Asset declaration
schemes generate baseline information against which later
disclosure can be compared to identify which wealth is not
attributable to income, gifts and loans, and warn against
illicit enrichment from sources such as bribery, fraud and
corruption. In doing so, compulsory periodic disclosure of
assets and liabilities by public officials is considered an
effective measure to prevent corruption. It also
demonstrates the leadership’s commitment to fight
corruption and helps the public to hold the government
accountable. The rationale is that public officials should
undergo stronger scrutiny than the rest of the population.
As corruption is a difficult crime to prove, investigation
techniques proving bribery can easily be abused and
threaten civil liberties. In comparison, the filing of false and
misleading declarations is easier to monitor, detect and
punish. This can even be made easier by providing
incentives for potential accomplices such as bankers or
accountants helping to hide assets or to report misdeeds
(e.g. a percentage of the amount they are being asked to
hide). In principle, to have a deterrent impact, sanctions for
not complying with declaration requirements should be
made as severe as for indulging in corrupt practices
themselves.
Hong Kong was first to use financial disclosure to monitor
the wealth of officials (Messick, 2009, p. 13). Although it is
not so common, some other countries also place emphasis
on monitoring assets. For example, in Albania, the stated
purpose of the Law on the Declaration and Audit of Assets,
Financial Obligations of Elected Persons and Certain Public
Officials is “the determination of rules for the declaration
and audit of assets, the legitimacy of the sources of their
creation, financial obligations for elected persons, public
employees, their families and persons related to them.”
Expected outcomes
The Transparency International Global Corruption Report
2006 presents the findings of a comparative analysis of
asset disclosure laws in 16 countries, seeking to establish
how effective officials’ asset declaration laws are in
reducing corruption. A series of statistical tests were
performed to measure the association between the
existence and scope of such laws in these countries and
their perceived levels of corruption. The findings established
that:
• Countries with a longer tradition of asset declaration by
public officials had significantly lower perceived levels of
corruption than countries with newer laws.
• There was no significant correlation between the
perceived levels of corruption and which level of officials
must declare their assets. Levels of corruption in
countries requiring asset declaration for all public
officials were not perceived significantly lower than in
other countries, where only higher ranking officials must
declare their assets.
• Perceived levels of corruption were lower in countries
whose declaration laws permitted prosecution of the
offending officials.
• Countries that verified officials’ statements had
significantly lower perceived levels of corruption than
countries that do not verify declaration content.
• Countries that gave public access to officials’ asset
declaration had significantly lower perceived levels of
corruption than other countries.
• The analysis further demonstrated that the combination
of content verification and public access to declarations
demonstrated an even greater association of reduced
corruption. These preliminary findings, corroborated by
the findings of an expanded dataset of 42 countries,
suggest that asset declaration laws have important
potential in the fight against corruption, provided they
are designed in an effective and credible manner.
12