Retrieving assets found to have been illicitly acquired by former officials and businessmen may be easier said than done, reports Niveen Wahish Since the ousting of former president Hosni Mubarak, the public has been hearing huge figures regarding what is claimed to be the ill-gotten wealth of the former president and his family, as well as former officials and businessmen. "If all or part of that money were to be retrieved, all Egyptians will be rich," said Umm Youssef, a bread vendor. Umm Youssef's words reflect what went on in the minds of many citizens that some actually decided to do something about it. A group of lawyers and law professors have set up the Egyptian Legal Group for the Redemption of the People's Wealth (ELGRPW). The group estimates Mubarak's wealth to be in the range of $70 billion. Mohamed Mahsoub, secretary-general of the group, said those estimates were based on reports by Transparency International and an article published in The Guardian. He said the group is now in the process of establishing their legal entity to be able to take action to return those assets because he does not feel the government is moving quickly enough. The group, he said, will be working in cooperation with international legal and financial associations. But the group has a tough task ahead. They not only have to deal with local banks but the more difficult task lies with international banking organisations across the globe, some of which may be located in countries considered havens for illegally gotten wealth. For starters, Hossam Lotfy, vice-dean of the Faculty of Law, Beni Sweif University, and lawyer before the Supreme Court of Egypt, says Egypt, through its Foreign Ministry, should address countries to freeze the assets of the individuals in question. This is possible, he said, because Egypt is signatory to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, one of the fundamentals of which is asset recovery. According to the UN website, when the convention was being drawn out, asset recovery was seen as "a particularly important issue for many developing countries where high-level corruption has plundered the national wealth, and where resources are badly needed for reconstruction and the rehabilitation of societies under new governments." However, it also points out that "the needs of countries seeking the illicit assets had to be reconciled with the legal and procedural safeguards of the countries whose assistance is sought." That being the case, Lotfy pointed out that foreign banks will not reveal how much a certain person has in their account, let alone handing over the assets, without proper legal action. In fact, he said, the return of funds would only be based on a final ruling by a natural court, not an extraordinary or a military trial. It also has to be proven that those assets do not legally belong to that individual. The sources of income of that individual and the nature of his job are one of the things that prosecutors examine. "It is a lengthy process. At best it could take up to two years, but it is more likely to take more," estimated Lotfy, adding that in the meantime by waving the idea of retrieving those assets in front of the people is manipulating people's feelings." Hani Sarie-Eldin, founder and managing partner of the law firm Sarie-Eldin & Partners, agrees. For one, he said that the gains of the individuals in question do not necessarily mean they are illegal. They could have become inflated due to price hikes in recent years, he said. Nonetheless, he stressed the importance of the legal process. In that regard, he recommended that a national committee be formed whereby the ministry of justice is represented along with others. "This institutional framework is needed because this is a lengthy, difficult and costly process," he said, adding that for example it will require hiring lawyers in each individual country because of their familiarity with the local law. However, some countries like Switzerland have facilitated the process. On 1 February, the Swiss Restitution of Illicit Assets Act (RIAA) went into effect. This law allows the government to immediately freeze the funds of "politically exposed persons", even if the concerned country has not requested that action. Accordingly, once Mubarak announced his resignation on 11 February, the Swiss government froze all the money he holds in the country's banks. According to the law, the objectives of restitution of forfeited assets are "to improve the living conditions of the people of the country of origin, or to strengthen the Rule of Law in the country of origin and to fight the impunity of criminals." It also said that "seized assets shall be returned in the form of financing for programmes of public interest." It also reveals that "the details of restitution may be governed by an agreement between Switzerland and the country of origin," specifying "the nature of the programmes of public interest that are to be financed by the assets that have been returned, the way in which the returned assets are to be used, the parties involved in restitution and checks and monitoring with regard to how the returned assets are being used." But Egypt will not have it that easy everywhere. There are countries that are not even signatories to international agreements. In that case, ELGRPW's Mahsoub argues that Egypt should exercise political pressure. He also said other exceptional measures need to be taken with the Arab International Bank (AIB). AIB was established by an international treaty in 1974. By virtue of the treaty, the bank enjoys certain privileges in the territories of the member states who are the shareholders. These privileges include exemption from laws regulating banks, credit, exchange control, statutory auditing requirements, public institutions, public companies and joint stock companies. It is also guaranteed immunity from all forms of nationalisation and seizure of shares in and deposits with the bank. The bank's documents, records and files are also inviolable and immune from judicial, administrative and accounting control and inspection rules and laws. It also provides confidentiality of customers' accounts with the bank which are not subject to judicial or administrative orders. Mahsoub said that "seeing that we are living an exceptional circumstance, the government of Egypt should take exceptional measures to freeze assets of those facing charges at this bank as well. But a source who preferred to remain anonymous explained that by virtue of the fact that Egypt is a major shareholder in the bank with 39 per cent, the bank is well supervised. The source added that Hisham Ramez, who is deputy to the governor of the Central Bank of Egypt, is also deputy chairman at AIB which should insure that the bank will not be involved in a misappropriation of funds. Both Egypt and Libya hold a share of around 39 per cent in the bank, while the remaining shares are divided among the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority with 12.5 per cent, Qatar with five per cent, Oman with 2.5 per cent, with the remaining 2.5 per cent being international capital.
