HasanuddinLawReview
Volume 6 Issue 3, December 2020
P-ISSN: 2442-9880, E-ISSN: 2442-9899

Nationally Accredited Journal, Decree No. 32a/E/KPT/2017.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Rethinking the Penalty of Illicit Enrichment Crime in
Ethiopia: Lessons from Comparative Analysis
Diriba Adugna Tulu
Attorney General of Oromia Regional State, Finfinne, Ethiopia. E-mail: adugnatulu10@gmail.com

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords:
Corruption; Illicit
Enrichment; Penalty;
Punishment

The crime of illicit enrichment has been widely accepted as a useful
mechanism for curbing corruption, both international and regional
anti-corruption instruments. This article's main objective is to
comparatively analyze the rationality and appropriateness of the
penalty provided for illicit enrichment crime in the Ethiopian
Corruption Crimes Proclamation compared with Hong Kong and
Rwanda's legal regimes to draw some best lessons and way forwards
for the identified problems. The article found that the Ethiopia
Corruption Crimes Proclamation fails to set a minimum penalty
limit and entails severe punishment in terms of imprisonment and
fine that can convey a meaningful message to potential offenders.
Thus, the penalty provided for the crime of illicit enrichment is
designed in a manner in which the person who commits such crime
has the chance to be less punished. In effect, this provision is
inconsistent with the purpose of criminal law and major sentencing
principles, but it also degenerates public confidence in the justice
system. Therefore, Ethiopia needs to take a lesson from Hong Kong
and Rwanda's experiences in incorporating severe and setting
minimum limit of penalty for the crime of illicit enrichment that can
convey a meaningful message to potential offenders.

How to cite:
Tulu, D.A. (2020).
“Rethinking the Penalty of
Illicit Enrichment Crime in
Ethiopia: Lessons from
Comparative Analysis”
Hasanuddin Law Review, 6
(3): 213-223
DOI:
10.20956/halrev.v6i3.2410

Copyright © 2020 HALREV. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

The Corruption crime constitutes one of the most serious problems that the world is
facing today.1 There is no single country in the world can claim that it is free from any
corruption practices.2 In this regard, Ethiopia is not exceptional to this issue.3 There are
1
2
3

Okechukwu, Igwe & Ezenwafor.(2017).African Anti-Corruption Agencies: Challenges and Prospects,
Management Studies and Economic Systems (MSES), 3(4): 225-243.
Birney, M. (2013). The London School of Economics and Political Science, Decentralization and Veiled
Corruption under China’s Rule of Mandates, p. 1.
Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (2018-2019). It is also important to note here
that Ethiopia has been scoring between 34 and 37 in Transparency International’s Corruption
Perceptions Index from 2018 to 2019. According to TI’s Corruption Perceptions Index, any score below

213

P-ISSN: 2442-9880, E-ISSN: 2442-9899

different types of corruption crimes. Illicit enrichment is one kind of corruption crime. It
is one of the proceeds of corruption crimes committed during the period of service by
public officials.4 However, due to its secret nature, making the detection and prosecution
of illicit enrichment through traditional mechanism is very difficult. Accordingly, it is
considered as one of the most complicated corruption crimes due to lack of proof, where
money is the only tangible evidence.5 In order to tackle illicit enrichment crime, various
international and regional anti-corruption instruments and strategies are adopted and
came in to force with the intention of preventing and combating corruption in a
coordinated manner.6
Ethiopia is a party to most international and regional anti-corruption instruments. It has
signed and ratified UNCAC7 and the AUCPCC.8 To ensure its commitments under those
conventions, the government of Ethiopia has criminalized illicit enrichment crime under
Article 21 of Corruption Crimes Proclamation No. 881/2015.9 For this crime, the law
provides penalty based on the gravity of the crime, degree of individual guilt, and other
circumstances of its commission. This article intended to examine the rationality and
appropriateness of the penalty provided for illicit enrichment crime under Article 21 of
the Corruption Crimes Proclamation No. 881/2015 in comparison with other
jurisdictions.

2.

Method

As the topic itself suggests, doctrinal approach and comparative perspectives were
employed to achieve the article's objective and was operationalized via desktop research.
Thus, a doctrinal methodology was used for in-depth analysis of laws with the subject
matter of the research, whereas the comparative study was used to obtain the best
lessons of legal framework dealing illicit enrichment crime from foreign jurisdictions.
For comparative analysis, the normative framework of Hong Kong and Rwanda were
considered. The reason for choosing these countries for comparative analysis is that both
countries have already criminalized illicit enrichment under their respective anticorruption legal regimes.10 These countries have very low corruption levels and rank the
cleanest countries in the world.11

4

5
6

7
8
9
10

11

50 on the CPI indicates serious levels of public sector corruption. A Country’s rank indicates its position
relative to the other countries or territories included in the index.
Ndiva Kofele-Kale. (2012). Combating Economic Crimes: Balancing Competing Rights and Interests in
Prosecuting the Crime of Illicit Enrichment,’ Oxford: UK, First Published by Routledge Research in
Transnational Crime and Criminal Law, p. 3; see also Mohannad Ahmad et al.( 2016). The Law on the
Illicit Enrichment Crime and Financial Disclosure in Jordan: Issue of Effectiveness and Enforceability,
The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Vol. 2, No. 5, Pp. 100-105.
Ndiva Kofele-Kale, Op.Cit., p. 3.
Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (IACAC), Mar. 29, 1996, 35 I.L.M. 724; See also African
Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption(AUCPCC), July11, 2003, 43 I.L.M. 5; See
also United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) (2003).
See Proclamation No. 544/2007, a proclamation to provide for the ratification of the UNCAC.
See Proclamation No. 545/2007, a proclamation to provide for the ratification of the AUCPCC.
Article 21 of the Corruption Crimes Proclamation, No. 881/2015,Negarit Gazeta, 21st Year No.36, Addis
Ababa, 3rd April, 2015.
Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO)(1971), Cap 201 Laws of Hong Kong, Section 10; Law No
54/2018 OF 13/08/2018 on Fighting Against Corruption, Official Gazette, no. Special of 20/09/2018,
Article 9.
As per Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index of the; 2017, 2018 and 2019, Hong
Kong scored 77, 76 and 76 against a clean score of 100 in the years under consideration respectively and
most taken as exemplary in fighting Corruption Crime; and 2017, 2018 and 2019, Rwanda scored 55, 56

214

Hasanuddin Law Rev. 6(3): 213-223

3.

Literature Review: The Conceptual and Normative Framework of Illicit
Enrichment Crime

3.1. Historical Origin and Development of Illicit Enrichment Crime
Illicit enrichment crime is relatively a new form of crime compared with other forms of
corruption crimes such as bribery, fraud and embezzlement.12 But, it is not entirely true
that illicit enrichment is a new crime. It is new only in the sense that it did not exist in
the tradition of the common law but it has long been a recognized crime in many states
that follow the Latin American legal Tradition.13 The origins of illicit enrichment as a
crime date back to 1936, when Argentinian congrssman Rodolfo Corominas Segura
encountered a fellow public official ostentatiously displaying new found wealth while
traveling to Buenos Aires by train.14Corominas Segura noticed that the official could not
have acquired such wealth from a legitimate source and immediately announced law to
punish public officials who accrued wealth without justifying for its source.15 Though,
this particular legislation did not pass straight away, Argentina become the first
jurisdiction to criminalize illicit enrichment in 1964.16
During the 1970s and 1980s, lawmakers from various countries introduced illicit
enrichment laws, and by 1990, at least 10(ten) countries had enacted such laws.17 The
rates of enactment of legislation then speed up. The UN reports shows that: “by1990,
illicit enrichment had been criminalized in at least 10 (ten) countries, by 2000 in more than
20(twenty) countries, and by 2010 in more than 40 (forty) countries”.18
Afterwards, several regional and international anti-corruption conventions were
established and setup specific requirements to respond illicit enrichment of public
officials. The first international anti-corruption is the IACAC, to which 33 countries in
Central and Latin American are party, and which makes it obligatory for members to
enact illicit enrichment legislation.19 The wording of Article IX of this convention is
borrowed from the Argentine Criminal Code which has included a crime of illicit
enrichment for decades.20 Then after, the AUCPCC also followed in 2003 and finally the
UNCAC, also approved in 2003 and entered into force in 2005.21 The UNCAC has been
a very powerful document concerning to illicit enrichment regulation, as it is a widely
adopted instrument.22 As of April 2019, it had 140 signatories and 186 parties.23

12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

and 53 against a clean score of 100 in the years under consideration respectively and most taken as
exemplary in reducing corruption crimes.
Jeffrey R. Boles. (2014). Criminalizing the Problem of Unexplained Wealth: Illicit Enrichment Offenses
and Human Rights Violation, New York University, Journal of Legislation and Public Policy 17, No. 4, p.
849.
Ndiva Kofele-Kale, Op.Cit., p.16.
Lindy Muzila et al.(2012). On the Take: Criminalizing Illicit Enrichment to Fight Corruption, Washington,
DC: World Bank, p.8.222
Max Weylandt.(2017). The Crime of illicit enrichment in Namibia: New Opportunities for enforcement?
Briefing Paper, Pp.2-3.
Max Weylandt, Op.Cit., Pp.2-3; see also Lindy Muzila et al , Op.Cit., p.8.
Lindy Muzila et al , Op.Cit., p.8
Max Weylandt, Op.Cit., Pp.2-3.
Max Weylandt, Op.Cit., p.3.
Ndiva Kofele-Kale , Op.Cit., p.16.
Lindy Muzila et al , Op.Cit., p.9.
Max Weyland , Op.Cit., p.3.
UNODOC,
“Signatories
to
the
UNCAC,”
2
April,
2019,
Retrieved
from
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/ratification-status.html.

215

P-ISSN: 2442-9880, E-ISSN: 2442-9899

Nowadays, illicit enrichment crime provisions can be found in most regions of the globe,
with particular exceptions of North America and most of Western Europe.24
3.2. International and Regional Normative Framework of Illicit Enrichment Crime
Definitions of illicit enrichment crime establish and draw the essential ingredient
elements of the crime, which are fundamental components that should be fulfilled in
order for a perpetrator to be found guilty.25 Illicit enrichment crime is one of the proceeds
of corruption crimes committed during the period of service, such as bribery,
embezzlement and investment of public office by public officials.26 It is presumed that
all the assets possessed by the public official, and not covered by his legitimate income,
are acquired by the unidentified crimes of corruption. This exactly reflects the dangerous
component of such crime. Due to its secret nature, making the detection and prosecution
of illicit enrichment crime is very difficult. To tackle the evidential problems linked to
proving and to curb unlawful accumulation of wealth by public officials, the crime of
illicit enrichment has been developed in various international ant-corruption legal
instruments.27
Accordingly, the crime of illicit enrichment is defined variously in the different
instruments that establish it. International anti-corruption instruments attempt to make
consistent of the basic elements of the crime in different countries, but, as28 we will see
that there are differences still exist between the key relevant conventions. In spite of
these differences, there are greater similarities than differences among the domestic
approaches adopted. 29As a result, the trend has been toward developing some common
essential elements of illicit enrichment crime.30 For instance, the UNCAC defines this
crime under Article 20 as follows:
A crime that shows a significant increase in the assets of a public official, which he or she
cannot reasonably explain in relation to his or her lawful income and it is committed
intentionally.31
It is important to stress that UNCAC is not the only international anti-corruption
instrument which defines illicit enrichment crime, but also Article 4(1)(g) of the
AUCPCC makes illicit enrichment an “act of corruption” and “crime”, and the definition
of illicit enrichment as clearly stipulate in Article 1(1) is: 32
Illicit enrichment means the significant increase in the assets of a public official or any
other persons which he or she cannot reasonable explain in relation to his or her income.33

Lindy Muzila et al, Op.Cit., p.9; see also, for example, Canada has an express understanding not to
implement such a provision as “the offence contemplated by Article IX (of IACAC) would be repugnant to the
presumption of innocence assured by Canada’s constitution”.
25 Mouhamed Bachir. (2017). National Mechanisms Against Illicit Enrichment Case Study: Senegal, Journal
of Justice, Vol,1(1), p.2; see also Lindy Muzila et al, Op.Cit., p.11.
26 Mohannad Ahmad et al , Op.Cit., Pp.100-105; see also Ndiva Kofele-Kale , Op.Cit., p.3.
27 See, for instance, UNCAC , Op.Cit., Article 20; see also IACAC , Op.Cit., Article 9; see also AUCPCC ,
Op.Cit., Article 8.
28 Lindy Muzila et al, Op.Cit., p.9.
29 Lindy Muzila et al, Op.Cit., p.11.
30 Lindy Muzila et al, Op.Cit., p.11.
31 UNCAC, Op.Cit., Article 20.
32 `Karen Zadoyan.(2014). International Experience of the Criminalization of Illicit Enrichment, and the
Possibilities of criminalizing Illicit Enrichment in Armenia,. Retrieved from <https://iravaban.net/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/Illicit-enrichment-Eng.pdf.
33 AUPCC, Op.Cit., Article1(1).
24

216

Hasanuddin Law Rev. 6(3): 213-223

Furthermore, the IACAC also defined it as follows:
Subject to its Constitution and the fundamental principles of its legal system, each State
Party that has not yet done so shall take necessary measures to establish under its laws
as an offence a significant increase in the assets of a government official that he cannot
reasonably explain in relation to his lawful earnings during the performance of his
functions.34
Although the crime of “illicit enrichment” is defined and established in the above three
most important multilateral anti-corruption conventions, only the IACAC uses
mandatory language in proscribing it. The other two conventions, the UNCAC and
AUCPCC, use non-mandatory language, such as the language used in Article 8 (1) of the
AUCPCC: “Subject to the provisions of their domestic law, state parties undertake to adopt
necessary measures to establish under their laws an offence of illicit enrichment”. 35
Unlike the IACAC, both the UNCAC and AUCPCC leave it up to the states parties to
adopt legislation criminalizing illicit enrichment. As a consequence, some states parties
with a long and sordid history of high-level official corruption have elected not to
criminalize the crime of illicit enrichment.36
3.3. Essential Elements of Illicit Enrichment Crime
To properly identify the basic elements of the crime of illicit enrichment, one has to refer
to the law that criminalizes such form of behavior and should focus on the law that
defines the crime.37The elements of an offence are the bases of criminal investigation,
prosecution and conviction. It is the identification and subsequent establishment of the
essential elements of an offence that enable courts of law to convict and punish persons
accused of committing some form of crime.38
As Muzila et al has rightly noted, illicit enrichment crime has contained five basic
ingredient elements:39(i) Targeting Public Officials; (ii) Period of Check; (iii) Identifying
Significant Increase in Assets; (iv)Mental Element; and (v) Absence of Explanation.
These common elements are found in almost all the definitions of the crime in the
UNCAC, AUCPCC, and IACAC.
In general, one has to give special attention to these elements as are provided under the
international anti-corruptions conventions and national legislations.

4.

Legal Framework of Illicit Enrichment Crime and its Penalties in Hong
Kong, Rwanda and Ethiopia

As discussed in section, the international anti-corruption conventions to which state
parties are obliged in the implementation of their international obligations in fighting
corruption. Either the state may include them in their national legislation or establish
appropriate special mechanisms to ensure the implementation of the anti-corruption

34
35
36
37

38
39

IACAC, Op.Cit., Article 9.
AUPCC, Op.Cit., Article 8 (1).
Lindy Muzila et al, Op.Cit., p.9.
Worku Yaze Wadago. (2014). Criminalization of Possession of Unexplained Property and the Fight
Against Public Corruption: Identifying the Elements of the Offence under the Criminal Code of Ethiopia,
Mizan Law Review, Vol. 8, No.1, p.56.
Worku Yaze Wadago, Op.Cit., p.56.
Lindy Muzila et al, Op.Cit., p.13.

217

P-ISSN: 2442-9880, E-ISSN: 2442-9899

convention. Accordingly, hereunder, we will discuss and compare the legal framework
of illicit enrichment crime in national legislation of Hong Kong, Rwanda and Ethiopia.
To begin, Hong Kong has promulgated law creating the crime of illicit enrichment.40 It
was among the first countries to criminalize illicit enrichment through the crime of
possession of inexplicable wealth.41 Accordingly, illicit enrichment crime is provided in
Chapter 201, Section 10, of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO). As it is clearly
stated in this provision, the possession of unexplained property by a public officer, either
by maintaining a living standard above that which is commensurate with his present or
past official emoluments or by being in control of property disproportionate to his
present or past official emoluments, is considered a punishable crimes, unless the public
officer provides a satisfactory explanation.42
The sanctions foreseen for the conviction of crimes under Section 10 are a fine up to one
million dollars and a prison term of up to ten years.43 Section 12AA further provides
that, where a person is convicted on indictment under Section 10(1)(b), the court may
also order the confiscation of the unexplained assets.44
Likewise, in Rwanda, crime of illicit enrichment by public officials as well as any
individual has been criminalized under law related to the punishment of corruption
crimes. Accordingly, Article 9 of law on fighting against corruption state that any person
who cannot justify the source of his or her assets compared with his or her lawful income
commits an offence.45
From the outset it has to be clear that the law extends the crime to any persons whether
in public office or in the private sector or employment who commits the crime of illicit
enrichment. With regard to the punishment attached the crime, it was provided that
perpetrator will be sentenced for a term of not less than seven (7) years but not more
than ten (10) years with a fine of three (3) to five (5) times the value of the property the
legal source of which, he or she is not able to justify. Further, the court of law will
automatically deliver the verdict of the confiscation of the illicit property or revenue.
Similarly, Ethiopia has been introduced possession of unexplained property as one form
of corruption crime under Article 419 of the FDRE Criminal Code since 2004.46 Later, it
was amended by Corruption Crimes Proclamation in 2015.47 Accordingly, Article 21 of
Corruption Crimes Proclamation which is titled as “Possession of Unexplained
Property” elaborated what constituted it and punishment attached to such crime.
According to this provision, it is a crime for any present or past public servant or
employee of a public organization to maintain or have maintained a standard of living
above that which is commensurate with his present or previous official income from his
present or past employment or other legitimate source unless such person gives a
satisfactory explanation thereof. It is a crime for a public servant or employee of a public
organization to be in control of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

POBO, Op.Cit., Section 10.
Ndiva Kofele-Kale, Op.Cit., p.30.
POBO, Op.Cit., Section 10.
POBO, Op.Cit., Section 12.
POBO, Op.Cit., Section 12AA.
Law on Fighting Against Corruption in Rwanda, Op.Cit., Article 9.
The Criminal Code of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Proclamation No.414/2004, Negarit
Gazeta, No. , Year, 9th of May, 2005, Article 419.
Corruption Crimes Proclamation, No. 881/2015, Negarit Gazeta, 21st Year No.36, Addis Ababa, 3rd April,
2015, Article 21.

218

Hasanuddin Law Rev. 6(3): 213-223

official income from his present or past employment or other legitimate source of income
unless such person gives a satisfactory explanation thereto. It is also important to note
that illicit enrichment provision extend the crime to the public official’s relatives or
associates who may be in possession or ownership of the illegal income and asset.
Accordingly, it is also a crime if such a person is found possessing such a
disproportionate amount of money or other property through another person such as
close relatives, or associates. In relation to penalty imposed up on perpetrators of illicit
enrichment crime, without prejudice to the confiscation of the property or the restitution
to the third party, the provision of the corruption crimes proclamation prescribes a
maximum of five years’ imprisonment and a fine not exceeding Birr five thousand.

5.

Comparison of Penalty Attached to Illicit Enrichment Crime in Ethiopia,
Hong Kong and Rwanda

The FDRE Criminal Code embarks punishment as one of the mechanisms to achieve the
purpose of criminal law to preserve the peace and security of society along with giving
due notice and measures.48 Punishment, among other things, aims at achieving the goals
of deterrence and rehabilitation.49 The Code adopts the determinate sentencing statute
which is a model of criminal punishment in which an offender is given a fixed term that
may be reduced by good time or earned time.50 Currently, the Federal Supreme Court
issued Sentencing guideline with the view to reduce sentencing disparity, ensure
uniformity and correctness of sentencing among offenders of the crime.51 Thus, the
legislature in fixing the range of punishment, the judiciary in fixing exact penalty and
executive organs in executing imposed penalty should not exercise their power
arbitrarily.52 Rather, they are required to consider the principles and policies of
sentencing. These include principle of legality, equality, consistency, proportionality,
predictability, respect for human dignity, accountability, and transparency.53
As stated above, Article 21 of the Corruption Crimes Proclamation No. 881/2015 of
Ethiopia prescribe a maximum of five years’ imprisonment and a fine not exceeding Birr
five thousand for crime of illicit enrichment. Hereunder, the law doesn’t specify the
minimum year’s imprisonment and minimum amount of fine. Further, the rationality
and appropriateness of the penalty provided for illicit enrichment crime is also
questionable.
For instance, in the case of Prosecutor v. Elizabeth Welde Gebriel et al54, the Federal High
Court found Mulugeta Yayeh Zewdei guilty of the illicit enrichment crime. The accused
was an employee of a metal factory, a public enterprise, with a monthly salary of 3,778
Ethiopian Birr (ETB). The charge against him shows that the accused owned four houses
48
49
50

51
52
53
54

The FDRE Criminal Code, Op.Cit., Article 1, FDRE Criminal Code.(2007): Explanatory note ,p.2; Dejene
Girma. (2012). A Handbook on the Criminal Code of Ethiopia, Printed by Far East P.L.C , p. 5.
Dejene Girma, Op.Cit.,p.5.
Dejene Girma and Mekonnen Feleke.(2009). Sentencing and Execution Teaching Material, Sponsored by
the Federal Justice and Legal System Research Institute, Pp.31-33; See also Lawrence, A and
Lyons,D.(2011). Principles of Effective State Sentencing and Corrections Policy, A Report of the National
Conference of State Legislatures, Sentences and Corrections Work Group, Augest 2011, p.31.
The FDRE Criminal Code, Op.Cit., Article 88(4); Federal Supreme Court Amended Sentencing
Guideline.(2014). Article 3.
Dejene Girma and Mekonnen Feleke Op.Cit., Pp.24-29; Lawrence, A and Lyons, D, Op.Cit., p.31.
Federal Judicial Professionals Training Center. (2011). Manual on Sentencing Guideline, p. 5.
Prosecutor v. Elizabeth Welde Gebriel et al, (The Federal High Court, File Number 62293), judgment given
on 8 July, (2011), p.24.

219

P-ISSN: 2442-9880, E-ISSN: 2442-9899

and two plots of land in Finfinne (Addis Ababa), the capital of Ethiopia. He also had 158,
964.8 ETB in his personal banking account. The Federal High Court after found him
guilty of illicit enrichment crime within the meaning of Article 419(1)(a) and (b) of the
Criminal Code and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment and a 7,000 ETB fine.
In another case of Oromia Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (OEACC) Prosecutor v.
Zelalem Jemane et al,55 the OEACC Prosecutor filed amended charges (1st count) against
1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants before Oromia Special Zone Surrounding Finfinne High Court
based on Article 32(1) (a) of Criminal Code and Article 21(1)(a)(b) of Corruption Crime
Proclamation No. 881/2007 on 29 February, 2009 E.C (Ethiopian Calendars). The specific
charge against them shows that while they were lived as husband and wife, and served
as a public servant in various public offices between 1984 E. C and 2008 E. C, the
defendants were owned unregistered assets as contrary to Asset Disclosure and
Registration Proclamation56 and disproportionate to their present and past employment
and other legitimate income estimated totally amount to 31,769, 302.00 ETB. The court
after examining both side evidences has pronounced verdict on the defendants on 28
December, 2010 E.C, and found them guilty of possession of unexplained property, and
also sentenced each of them to one years’ rigorous imprisonment and a 1,000 ETB fine.
In the context of criminal law, the punishment should consider the degree of individual
guilty, dangerous disposition of criminal, antecedents, motive and purpose, his personal
situation as well as the gravity of the crime and the circumstances of its commission.57
In the above two cases, it is worthy to surmise that the law fails to set minimum limit of
penalty and entails severe punishment in terms of imprisonment and fine that can
convey a meaningful message to potential offenders. This problem intern gave a chance
for a judge to exercise his or her power arbitrarily while imposing penalty attached to
illicit enrichment crime. In this respect, a judge should be more aware of the clandestine
and the sophisticated nature of the commission of illicit enrichment crime as well as
required to consider the principles and policies of sentencing. To compare and contrast
the penalty attached to illicit enrichment crime in the Ethiopia, Hong Kong and Rwanda,
the author has considered their respective legal regimes that can been seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Comparison of penalties attached to Illicit Enrichment crime in
Ethiopia, Hong Kong and Rwanda.

55
56
57

Country

Date of Legislation

Hong Kong

1971

Rwanda

2003

Ethiopia

2015

Penalty for Infringement
Prison Sentence

Fine and/or Confiscation of gains

3-10 years

ü
ü

100k –1m HK$ ;
Confiscation of the unexplained assets

2-5 years

ü
ü

2-10-times value of gains ;
Confiscation of the illicit property or
revenue
Not exceeding 5,000 Ethiopian Birr;
Confiscation of the property or the
restitution to the third party

Up to 5 years

ü
ü

Oromia Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Prosecutor (OEACC) v. Zelalem Jemane et al, Oromia Special
Zone Surrounding Finfinne High Court, Judgment, Criminal File No.14761, (28/03/2010 E.C).
Assets Disclosure and Registration Proclamation No.668/2010, Negarit Gazeta, 16th Year No. 18, Addis
Ababa 12th April, 2010.
FDRE Criminal Code, Op.Cit., Article 88(2); Hough, M et al.(2009).Public attitudes to Principles of
Sentencing, Sentencing Advisory Panel Research Report, p.23.

220

Hasanuddin Law Rev. 6(3): 213-223

In comparison to the experiences of Hong Kong and Rwanda, in terms of imprisonment
and fine imposed on perpetrator, Ethiopia’s Corruption Crime Proclamation regulating
illicit enrichment crime is inadequate to deter corrupt practices. Under anti-corruption
laws of both the Hong Kong and Rwanda, the crime of illicit enrichment receives severe
punishment which has a deterrent effect. Furthermore, unlike Rwanda, Ethiopian
Corruption Crime Proclamation fails to set a minimum penalty provided for illicit
enrichment crime. Thus, in absence of limiting a minimum penalty being provided for
such offences, courts have the discretion to decide. In this scenario, where the discretion
is abused, the perpetrators may receive a punishment which is light in proportion to the
gravity of the offence.
In such a case, the purpose and goal of criminal law to ensure order, peace, and security
of the state and its inhabitants for public good became endangered as the system
encourages dangerous disposition of the criminal. In effect, the law fails to achieve the
deterrence rationales of sentencing. Moreover, the act makes justice system to lose public
confidence and leads to disobedience of the laws. Ironically, the law should have set
minimum limit of penalty and entails severe punishment in terms of imprisonment and
fine that can convey a meaningful message to potential offenders. Therefore, Ethiopia
needs to draw a lesson from the experiences of the Hong Kong and Rwanda in
incorporating severe and setting minimum limit of penalty for crime of illicit
enrichment.

6.

Conclusion

With the view to eradicating corruption crimes, the Corruption Crimes Proclamation
No.881/2015 criminalizes illicit enrichment crime under Article 21. However, the
penalty of provision entitles the wrongdoer to benefit from his wrong by making the
punishment of illicit enrichment crime less severe. Moreover, the law fails to set a
minimum limit of penalty and fine entitles to illicit enrichment crime, allowing the courts
to release the offender only upon his or her discretion. Designing the law in such a
manner daunt the purpose and goal of criminal law to ensure order, peace, and security
of the state and its inhabitants for the public good and jeopardize the public interest at
large. Thus, Ethiopia needs to draw a lesson from Hong Kong and Rwanda's experiences
in incorporating severe and setting minimum limit of penalty for the crime of illicit
enrichment that can convey a meaningful message to potential offenders. Therefore, the
lawmakers should repeal the existing penalty of illicit enrichment and replace it with the
fitting penalty.

References
Books:
Dejene Girma. (2012). A Handbook on the Criminal Code of Ethiopia, Printed by Far East
P.L.C.
Lindy Muzila et al. (2012). On the Take: Criminalizing Illicit Enrichment to Fight
Corruption,Washington, DC: World Bank.
Ndiva Kofele-Kale. (2012). Combating Economic Crimes: Balancing Competing Rights and
Interests in Prosecuting the Crime of Illicit Enrichment, Oxford: UK, First Published
by Routledge Research in Transnational Crime and Criminal Law.

221

P-ISSN: 2442-9880, E-ISSN: 2442-9899

Journal Articles:
Jeffrey R. Boles. (2014). Criminalizing the Problem of Unexplained Wealth: Illicit
Enrichment Offenses and Human Rights Violation, New York University, Journal
of Legislation and Public Policy, 17, No. 4. 2
Mohamad Ahmad et al. (2016). The Law on the Illicit Enrichment Crime and Financial
Disclosure in Jordan: Issue of Effectiveness and Enforceability, The Journal of Social
Sciences Research, Vol. 2, No. 5.
Mouhamed Bachir. (2017). National Mechanisms Against Illicit Enrichment Case Study:
Senegal, Journal of Justice, Vol, 1(1).
Okechukwu, Igwe & Ezenwafor. (2017). African Anti-Corruption Agencies: Challenges
and Prospects, Management Studies and Economic Systems (MSES), 3(4) Spring, Pp.
225-243.
Worku Yaze Wadago. (2014). Criminalization of Possession of Unexplained Property
and the Fight Against Public Corruption: Identifying the Elements of the Offence
under the Criminal Code of Ethiopia, Mizan Law Review, Vol. 8, No.1, Pp.45-83.
Working Paper, Report and Guidelines:
Birney, M. (2013). The London School of Economics and Political Science,
Decentralization and Veiled Corruption under China’s Rule of Mandates.
Dejene Girma and Mekonnen Feleke. (2009). Sentencing and Execution Teaching
Material, Sponsored by the Federal Justice and Legal System Research Institute.
FDRE Criminal Code. (2007): Explanatory note.
Federal Judicial Professionals Training Center. (2011). Manual on Sentencing Guideline.
Federal Supreme Court Amended Sentencing Guideline (2014).
Hough, M et al. (2009). Public attitudes to Principles of Sentencing, Sentencing Advisory
Panel Research Report.
Lawrence, A and Lyons, D. (2011). Principles of Effective State Sentencing and
Corrections Policy”, A Report of the National Conference of State Legislatures,
Sentences and Corrections Work Group, Augest 2011.
Max Weylandt. (2017). The Crime of illicit enrichment in Namibia: New Opportunities
for enforcement? Briefing Paper.
Cases:
Oromia Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission(OEACC) Prosecutorv.Zelalem Jemane et al,
Oromia Special Zone Surrounding Finfinne High Court, Judgment, Criminal File
No.14761, (28/03/2010 E.C).
Prosecutor v. Elizabeth Welde Gebriel et al,(The Federal High Court, File Number 62293),
judgment given on 8 July, (2011), 24.

222

Hasanuddin Law Rev. 6(3): 213-223

Internet Sources:
Transparancey International.
www.transparency.org/cpi.

Corruption

Perception

Index.

Retrieved

from

Karen Zadoyan.(2014). International Experience of the Criminalization of Illicit
Enrichment, and the Possibilities of criminalizing Illicit Enrichment in Armenia.
Retrieved from: https://iravaban.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Illicit-enrichmentEng.pdf.
UNODOC, Signatories to the UNCAC, 2 April, 2019. Retrieved
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/ratification-status.html.

from:

Conflict of Interest Statement:
The author(s) declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2020 HALREV. All rights reserved.

223