The 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), prepared by Transparency International, is headed by Denmark, Finland and Singapore, ranked as the least corrupt countries, with scores between 84 and 90, on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 being the highest level of corruption. In contrast, at the bottom of the list are Venezuela, Somalia and South Sudan, classified as the most corrupt countries, with scores between 8 and 10. Colombia is in the middle, with a score of 39, surpassed by Italy with 54 points. The United States, whose recent measures to suspend the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) were analyzed in the text “Trump’s Abandonment of the Global Fight Against Corruption,” has a score of 65. 

By 1995, when the CPI was launched, Italy was the country with the highest perception of corruption in Europe. At that time, the country scored almost 30 points. However, over a period of 20 years that score has progressively increased, reaching 54. Colombia, in the same period, only improved by 5 points. 

Italy is a case study that we should dare to take a closer look at, as its context has some similarities with ours. Violence, cartels and mafias, which unfortunately we share, are realities that influence the levels of corruption and the perception of citizens. When these phenomena are present, the state response requires different approaches. It is not the same to trust institutions or to denounce acts of corruption in a country where breaking silence is punishable by death. In these contexts, there is a constant struggle to balance the fight against corruption, the improvement of security and respect for human rights. So what strategies and reforms has Italy adopted to improve its score and reduce the perception of corruption?

• Codification of the crime of mafia association 

In a context of high levels of corruption and organized crime, Italy made legislative reforms to include within its Penal Code the crime of mafia association. This is an association when there are three or more persons gathered for the same purpose and it has a mafia character when three requirements are met: intimidating force (ability to instill fear), subjugation (coercion or lack of freedom) and the existence of a code of silence. Mafia associations come together to commit crimes related to the management or control of economic activities, concessions, tender and public services, as well as to obtain undue benefits or advantages, either for themselves or for third parties. 

This crime is punishable by prison sentences of up to 26 years, with the possibility of being increased by a third or half when the groups are armed. The legal rights protected by the crime of Mafia association are public order, understood as the proper functioning of social life in the state, and the moral freedom of citizens to choose freely, especially in matters related to economic life. 

The definition of this crime, which has been modified several times and subjected to judicial interpretations to include the external competition that includes third party beneficiaries, marked a milestone in the fight against Italian mafias, allowing the prosecution of individuals for the simple fact of belonging to a mafia association or benefiting from it. Together with the modifications to the penitentiary regime, which seek the strict isolation of certain detainees, these measures represented a legislative and jurisprudential response that sought to directly curb the impunity of these criminal groups and affect mafia structures. In addition, it broadened the spectrum of people who can be convicted, allowing the criminal prosecution of businessmen or politicians who benefited the mafias.  

Although few dare to question the effectiveness of the inclusion of these criminal offenses and their penitentiary treatment in the fight against crime and corruption, there are those who claim that there has been an excess in the discretion of judges that has led to broad and dissimilar judicial interpretations of this crime that generate problems of legal certainty. 

• Confiscation of assets 

Another of the tools used by Italy to strengthen its fight against corruption was the relaxation of the limits of application of the figure of confiscation, which allows the confiscation of the assets of the alleged offender, in those crimes committed against the Public Administration. Unlike what happens when other types of crimes are investigated, when acts of corruption are prosecuted, the confiscation of assets is not optional, but mandatory. Additionally, in these cases it is not necessary to wait for a conviction to be issued before confiscating assets, but rather it may have a preventive nature. This figure can also be applied retroactively and even against heirs when the criminal has died. Finally, another differential factor is that the confiscated assets are then used for social purposes and can be administered by associations or social organizations. 

This type of measure has had an impact on corrupt economies, depriving criminals of the enjoyment of ill-gotten gains; it has benefited the public administration and the social collective, through the enjoyment of confiscated assets; it has restored the economic balance and the status quo, returning things to the state as they were before the crime was committed; and, finally, it has also had a symbolic effect in relation to the fight against corruption. 

However, there are those who argue that the application of these measures also lacks the concurrence of the minimum guarantees of confiscation and that this relaxation of requirements has the potential to violate the right to effective protection, the general principles of a fair trial and the effective contradiction between parties. 

• Witness protection 

Considering that corrupt structures disintegrate best when they are attacked from within, Italy decided to strengthen its whistleblower protection policies. It established a series of protection measures that include the relocation of individuals, financial assistance and change of identity. They also offer a series of benefits and reduced sentences for those who participated in the commission of the crimes. In the early days of these programs there was a boom in the “collaborationist phenomenon.” Over the years, however, this phenomenon diminished as legislation became more demanding and restrictive. The collaborators were of great use to the justice system, although there were reservations about the veracity of the denouncements. 

These measures, together with others of an institutional nature such as the creation of a National Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, the establishment of the National Anti-Mafia Directorate and a National Anti-Corruption Authority; or the issuance of the Public Procurement Code (with anti-corruption measures), have been decisive in the fight against corruption and organized crime. In addition to the improvement in the CPI, they have achieved tangible results such as a significant reduction in the homicide rate, the arrest of thousands of corrupt individuals and the confiscation of more than 20,000 properties that have been used for social and collective purposes. 

There is no magic formula to fight corruption and it is not certain that institutional reform, independently, or the creation of the crime of mafia association, by itself, were the ones that achieved these results. However, what is certain is that all these strategies together achieved part of the proposed objectives. In this sense, it seems that one of the viable and effective options for the fight against corruption is to adopt measures on different fronts. To advance in all of them, without neglecting any of them. 

It is precisely for this reason that the decision of the United States to suspend the application of the FCPA, as a rule that punishes bribery and corruption abroad, is worrying, as it does not seem very wise to prevent the fight against corruption through legal mechanisms that were already in place and had proven to be effective. Fighting corruption requires a multiplicity of simultaneous actions, reconciling security interests, anti-corruption and guaranteeing human rights. 

Colombia also has this challenge and to face it, it could look at what others have done, adapt these strategies to its context and implement them. We urgently need to continue promoting whistleblower protection; evaluating the possibility of handing over assets confiscated for corrupt acts to social causes; and maintaining the necessary openness, not to copy Italy, but to take up the lessons learned in the light of our context and history. Several of these lessons can be seen in Naomi Roht-Arriaza’s latest book, which responds to the Vivian Newman interview below.