Corruption is a reality that we face on a daily basis when conducting international investigations. In some countries, it is more visible and institutionalized, whereas in others it lies below the surface in wait. But knowing and accepting that it exists allows us to face it head on with measure designed to mitigate that corruption.
For example, we had been working an investigation for several months identifying retail locations, suppliers, distributors and warehouses of a particular counterfeiting organization. When we had documented all of the pieces of the organization, including solid evidence of their counterfeiting activities, we presented the case to the prosecutor with a request for enforcement actions. This is the point, as soon as the information leaves your hands, that corruption can begin creeping in.
From the time the information is presented to the prosecutor until it is signed off by the judge and the police hit the door, over a dozen people could “handle” that information, potentially leading to leaks. The process usually goes something like this:
- Information is presented to the prosecutor, usually in the form of a sworn complaint
- The prosecutor usually requests that a law enforcement agency verify the contents of the complaint, which means that the information is shared with at least a couple of officers
- Once the information is verified, a request for a search warrant is drafted by the prosecutor’s assistant or assistants
- The request is then forwarded to the judge’s secretary
- The judge’s secretary usually forwards the request to the judge’s assistant for review
- The judge’s assistant provides it to the judge for signature
- If there are no questions, the judge signs the warrant, which goes back to his/her secretary where copies are made for the court’s records and filings
- The signed warrant is then returned to the prosecutor
- An assistant of the prosecutor then coordinates with the police
- The search warrant is served
Corruption can occur in any one of the steps described above. In fact, over the years, we have encountered corruption in every step described above, including prosecutors and judges. So we’ve had to set up measures to counter this corruption to ensure successful enforcement actions.
In the case referred to above, we initiated surveillance on the two main warehouse of the targeted organization while we were presenting the information to the prosecutor. Approximately one hour into the surveillance, we observed workers desperately begin loading the counterfeit products onto handcarts and transporting them to another warehouse approximately two blocks away. Over the next hour or so, the completely emptied the two warehouses targeted in our search warrant.
When the authorities arrived a few hours later to conduct the enforcement actions, we met with them and advised them of the situation. We showed the prosecutor the video of the products being moved, as well as the new address where the products were being stored. The prosecutor waited in front of the new location while one of his assistants had the judge sign off on a modified search warrant.
Authorities executed the modified warrant later that evening, seizing close to US$1 million in counterfeit goods. If we had not conducted surveillance while the search warrant made its way through the system, the operation would have failed and our investigative efforts on behalf of our client would have been for naught.
As a side note, we later determined that the prosecutor’s assistant was actually the target’s cousin. When confronted by the prosecutor, the assistant admitted to providing the “tip”. Interestingly, the assistant was not fired or even severely admonished, but rather was simply told not to do it again.