1. Public Management Research Conference Proactive Investigations of Corruption: (un)ethical aspects June 4, 20011 Syracuse Alexey Konov National Research University – Higher School of Economics (Moscow, Russia)

2. Proactive investigations  Definition: Proactive investigation is a process of creating a controllable and observable situation that provides a targeted person with an opportunity for improper or illegal conduct.  Such terms as “proactive investigation techniques”, “sting operations”, “covert facilitation” or “undercover methods” are used interchangeably. 2

3. Effectiveness vs. Ethics  Similar to other “confrontationless” crimes corruption offences are underreported.  Main reasons: Corruption frequently benefits all parties involved; Many types of corruption violations have no individual victim; When there are individual victims they could be afraid to report corruption. 3

4. Sting operations in 2010 Operation Guard Shack – the largest police corruption case in the FBI’s history FCPA Sting – the largest sting operation against private companies Cash for Access – 3 ex-ministers caught in TV Sting Operation 4

5. Research goals  To understand the structure of the arguments against proactive investigations of corruption;  To offer new perspectives to discussing those arguments;  To show the decision-makers the objections they risk to meet when proposing certain solutions;  To rank different types of proactive investigations according to their ethical acceptability. 5

6. Ethical aspects of proactive investigations Fundamental problemsDesign issues 1.Do unethical means (e.g. deception) may be used to achieve ethical ends? 2.Is it appropriate to hold a person morally responsible for the crime manufactured by investigator? 3.Is it appropriate to punish a person not for corruption, but for corruptibility? Is it important for the circumstances created in a sting operation to be as similar as possible to real life? Is “opportunity creation” is more appropriate than “offering a crime”? What inducements should be considered improper? What target selection strategies should be used? Whether invasion of privacy in a sting operation should be permitted? 6

7. Preliminary conclusions  Ethics of proactive investigations appears to be a promising topic for research within the administrative ethics field  In order to incorporate proactive investigations topic into administrative ethics it is necessary to bridge the gap that exists between administrative ethics literature and legal literature.  Analysis of fundamental ethical claims against proactive investigations frequently ends up with moral uncertainty and precludes that a choice should be made between competing values and doctrines.  The choice of one specific tactical solution from wide array of alternatives is frequently explained by its ability to mitigate fundamental ethical problems. 7

8. THANK YOU! 8

9. Punishment for corruptibility What exactly a person arrested in a sting operation is punished for?  He (she) does not bring actual harm but rather makes an (impossible) attempt to bring harm.  He (she) is punished for violation of a moral obligation manifested in an improper act and threatening to infringe publicly protected interests. Is it appropriate to punish for corruptibility?  Compliance-integrity continuum may provide a possible solution.  Punishment of those arrested in sting operations appears to be more appropriate within an integrity paradigm than within a compliance paradigm. 9