26
I
Taxing Crime
BOX 2.6
Country Examples of Long-Standing Joint Investigative Teams
Kenya. The Multi-Agency Team (MAT) is a standing joint investigative team (JIT) in Kenya. It is composed of eight authorities—including law enforcement agencies (LEAs), the tax authority, and the office of the president—with an established mandate and the rubber stamp of a presidential directive (Nyaga, n.d.). By 2016, MAT had jointly led 13 cases and investigations, and approximately $300 million has been recovered or preserved as a result (Nyaga, n.d.). Australia. Another long-standing JIT, Project Wickenby was established under the auspices of the Australian Tax Office (ATO) in 2005 (Schlenther 2017). The longest-running joint agency investigation initiated by the Australian government to combat offshore tax evasion, it was run by the ATO, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, the Australian Federal Police, and the Australian Crime Commission. As a result of this joint effort, 2,800 audits were carried out, 18 people were imprisoned, and $A 553 million was recovered (Chenoweth, Buffini, and Low 2011). Mauritius. The Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism Coordination Taskforce consists of representatives of seven agencies, including counterterrorism, police, the tax authority, anticorruption, the Integrity Reporting Services Agency (for confiscation of unexplained wealth), and the prosecuting authority to exchange information and coordinate the investigation of complex predicate offense schemes and their concomitant money laundering, terrorism financing, and tax crimes. Prosecutorial advice on the evidential standards required to secure convictions is given at each stage of an investigation. Although statutory limitations affect the revenue authority’s ability to share information, MoUs between relevant LEAs are able to compensate in cases where money laundering is suspected.
cases, further independent evidence will be required. For example, under South Africa’s Tax Administration Act, if there are indications during a tax audit that tax offenses may have been committed, the case must be referred to the South African Revenue Services (SARS) criminal investigation team.44 Thereafter, the audit and criminal investigation proceed separately. Moreover, teams must ensure that each agency is compliant with its legal mandate, manages the process of obtaining and handling evidence as required, and respects the rights of a suspect. This is particularly important because any errors may result in challenges and possible failures during prosecution. In 17 countries reviewed by the OECD and the World Bank, although judges and prosecutors are not involved in the investigation process, they are tasked with reviewing the documentation to determine whether to proceed with the case (OECD and World Bank 2018). Where this is the case, interagency cooperative teams are advised to involve the prosecution authority in the early stages of an investigation to ensure that due process is followed and sufficient evidence is obtained to increase the chances of successful prosecution (OECD and World Bank 2018).
