Strengthening asset recovery efforts: A path to mitigating corruption in the public sector

: This paper comprehensively analyses the impediments hindering Indonesia's anti-corruption and asset recovery efforts. It advocates for a holistic approach, emphasizing collective action, trust in public office, and the integration of civil forfeiture as essential components of an effective anti-corruption strategy. The ultimate goal is to contribute to a transparent and corruption-free future in Indonesia. We employ a literature-based inquiry method to investigate Indonesia's multifaceted challenges in combating corruption and recovering illicitly acquired assets. Our analysis reveals widespread corruption, weakened institutions, and a lack of trust in public officials hamper Indonesia's anti-corruption and asset recovery efforts. We argue that a holistic approach that combines infrastructural development, social rehabilitation, people empowerment, and regulatory reforms is essential. Additionally, civil forfeiture, when integrated effectively, can aid asset recovery. To succeed, these efforts must prioritize the restoration of trust in public office. This paper contributes valuable guidance for policymakers and practitioners striving to create a more transparent and corruption-free future in Indonesia, offering a fresh perspective on addressing corruption in an emerging economy.


Introduction
Indonesia, an emerging Southeast Asian economy, has long grappled with the scourge of public sector corruption, resulting in the massive outflow of public funds and hindering its social, economic, and infrastructural development (Mietzner, 2020).While Indonesia does have an anticorruption and asset forfeiture regime in place, its practical implementation faces numerous challenges, particularly when trying to recover corruptly acquired assets of high-ranking public officials through the traditional criminal law procedure.The existing process demands a high standard of proof, proving to be time-consuming and resource-intensive.Recognizing the limitations of its current asset forfeiture laws, Indonesia is poised to introduce groundbreaking proceeds of criminal law, which will incorporate civil forfeiture as an additional mechanism.This step aligns with the nation's commitment to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), signed in 2006 (McIntyre et al., 2023).This paper delves into the question of how Indonesia can effectively implement and enforce a Non-Conviction Based Forfeiture (NCBF) mechanism, as prescribed in Article 54 (1) (c) of the UNCAC, to enhance its asset recovery efforts and potentially mitigate corruption within the public sector.Utilizing a literature-based inquiry method, we explore Indonesia's multifaceted challenges and the underlying issues contributing to corruption and ineffective asset recovery.
This paper provides several novel contributions to Indonesia's anti-corruption efforts and asset recovery mechanisms.This study delves deep into the intricate challenges faced by Indonesia, such as widespread corruption, weakened public institutions, dysfunctional governance, and inadequate legal mechanisms.By comprehensively identifying these challenges, we offer a holistic view of the hurdles that must be overcome in the fight against corruption.We emphasize the importance of collective participation and action as critical to anti-corruption efforts.This perspective underscores the need to engage citizens, civil society, and various stakeholders in combating corruption.This approach can lead to a sense of ownership and shared responsibility in the fight against corruption, fostering a culture of integrity.
This paper advocates for a balanced approach combining infrastructural development, social rehabilitation, people empowerment, and active engagement with public institutions' regulatory, policy, and capacity reforms.This approach recognizes that anti-corruption measures cannot be effective in isolation but must address the underlying societal and systemic issues that fuel corruption.This paper emphasizes the importance of public office as a position of trust regarding state resources.By highlighting this concept, it calls for a shift in the perception of public service, emphasizing the responsibility of public officials to act in the best interests of the nation and its citizens.As Indonesia moves towards implementing a 'proceeds of crime' law with civil forfeiture provisions, this paper provides insights into this mechanism's potential benefits and challenges.It offers practical recommendations for effectively implementing Non-Conviction-Based Forfeiture (NCBF), drawing on international best practices and lessons learned from other countries.Our study comprehensively analyses the issues hindering Indonesia's anti-corruption and asset recovery efforts while providing innovative solutions.Additionally, this paper, which integrates civil forfeiture as a mechanism for asset recovery, contributes to the ongoing discourse on improving anti-corruption measures in developing countries.Ultimately, this research aims to contribute to a brighter and more transparent future for Indonesia, benefiting its citizens and the nation.
This study addresses several gaps in the literature related to anti-corruption efforts and asset recovery mechanisms in Indonesia.Much of the literature in isolation focuses on specific aspects of anti-corruption measures or asset recovery mechanisms (David-Barrett et al., 2020).While many studies analyze legal and institutional aspects of anti-corruption efforts, there is often a lack of emphasis on the role of collective action and the engagement of civil society, citizens, and various stakeholders (Dewantara et al., 2021).This paper, delving into civil forfeiture as a mechanism for asset recovery, contributes to the ongoing discourse on improving anti-corruption measures in similar settings.Ultimately, this research aims to fill these gaps and provide valuable guidance for policymakers and practitioners working to create a more transparent and corruption-free future in Indonesia.

Methods
The research employs a literature-based inquiry method to comprehensively investigate Indonesia's anti-corruption landscape.This method involves critically reviewing and synthesising existing scholarly works, reports, and empirical studies on anti-corruption measures and asset recovery.It allows us to identify and analyze the current anti-corruption framework's challenges, gaps, and opportunities.Data analysis is conducted by systematically categorizing and examining the findings from various sources.This process enables us to derive evidence-based insights and recommendations for developing a holistic anti-corruption strategy in Indonesia, which integrates civil forfeiture and the restoration of trust in public office.

The Role of Civil Forfeiture
As Indonesia endeavours to fortify its anti-corruption arsenal, introducing civil forfeiture as a core component of a 'proceeds of crime' law marks a promising stride forward.Asset confiscation, with or without conviction, refers to the legal process in which authorities seize assets suspected of being connected to criminal activities, even when there has been no criminal conviction of the asset owner.Table 1 summarises civil asset forfeiture practices in various countries.
Table 1 illustrates an approach to disrupt criminal enterprises by targeting financial gains from illegal activities.It has been employed in various countries, and specific cases highlight its implementation: Civil asset forfeiture is widely used in the United States.Law enforcement agencies can seize assets, including cash, vehicles, and property, if they suspect a connection to criminal activities like drug trafficking (Mughan et al., 2020).The burden of proof is typically lower than in criminal cases, often requiring only a preponderance of evidence.Owners have the right to challenge the seizure in court.The United Kingdom has implemented asset forfeiture laws to target assets connected to various criminal activities, including money laundering and fraud (Zagaris, 2020).Assets can be seized without a criminal conviction if they are believed to be linked to criminal proceeds.The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides the legal framework for this process.Australia has similar asset confiscation laws that allow authorities to seize assets suspected of being derived from or used in criminal activities (Trinchera, 2020).These laws are used in cases involving drug trafficking, organized crime, and corruption.A criminal conviction is not always required for asset confiscation.Hong Kong's legal system permits confiscating assets associated with criminal activities, including corruption and money laundering (Olujobi, 2021).Authorities can initiate confiscation proceedings even without a criminal conviction.These measures are aimed at curbing organized crime and deterring illegal financial activities.Canada has implemented civil asset forfeiture laws to combat various crimes, including drug offences and white-collar crimes (Kamensky, 2021).Authorities can seize assets if there is a reasonable belief that they are connected to criminal activities.A criminal conviction is not always necessary.Nigeria employs asset forfeiture measures in its fight against corruption and financial crimes (Olujobi & Yebisi, 2023).The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) can confiscate assets suspected of being proceeds of corruption, even in cases with no criminal conviction (Bello & Cosmas, 2022).Singapore has robust laws for asset forfeiture, particularly in cases related to corruption and money laundering (Sihite & Mustofa, 2021).Authorities can seize assets believed to be linked to these crimes without requiring a criminal conviction.These examples illustrate the diverse ways in which asset confiscation, with or without conviction, is employed to combat a range of criminal activities, including drug trafficking, money laundering, corruption, and organized crime.However, the implementation of such measures varies in terms of the legal framework, burden of proof, and safeguards for protecting the rights of asset owners.Balancing the need for asset recovery with due process and protecting individual rights remains a key challenge in these cases.The burden of proof required for civil forfeiture cases varies from country to country, and it can significantly impact the outcome of such cases.In civil forfeiture, authorities seek to seize assets suspected of being linked to criminal activities, even when there has been no criminal conviction of the asset owner.Here are some common standards for the burden of proof in civil forfeiture cases observed in many countries.Clear and convincing evidence The higher degree of certainty More challenging for authorities to seize assets (Suarez, 2019) United Kingdom

Legal protections for property owners
Protecting the rights of individuals in forfeiture cases (Bambauer & Roth, 2021) Table 2 illustrates that in many countries, civil forfeiture proceedings require a lower burden of proof than criminal cases.The most common standard is the "preponderance of the evidence," which means that the authorities must demonstrate that it is more likely than not (i.e., over 50% probability) that the assets in question are connected to criminal activities (Haller, 2019).This lower standard makes it easier for authorities to succeed in civil forfeiture cases.The United States uses a "probable cause" standard, which requires authorities to show a reasonable belief or suspicion that the assets are linked to criminal activities.While it is a lower threshold than "beyond a reasonable doubt" used in criminal cases, it is higher than the preponderance of the evidence standard (Yaffe, 2019).
Civil forfeiture may require a higher burden of proof in a few countries, such as clear and convincing evidence (Suarez, 2019).This standard demands more certainty, making it more challenging for authorities to seize assets without a criminal conviction.In a few jurisdictions, particularly those with limited legal protections, authorities may not be required to meet any specific burden of proof to initiate asset forfeiture (Lukito, 2019).This can lead to potential abuses and challenges to individuals' property rights.It's essential to note that the burden of proof in civil forfeiture cases can have significant implications for property owners.A lower burden of proof makes it easier for authorities to seize assets, potentially affecting innocent owners.In contrast, a higher burden of proof places a more substantial requirement on the government to justify asset seizures.
Countries with well-established legal systems often include due process safeguards to protect the rights of individuals whose assets are subject to forfeiture (Bambauer & Roth, 2021).These safeguards may include the right to challenge seizures in court, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the opportunity for innocent owners to reclaim their property.The specific burden of proof and safeguards in civil forfeiture cases can vary widely, and their adequacy is a subject of ongoing debate and reform efforts in many countries to strike a balance between law enforcement objectives and individual rights.
Civil forfeiture empowers authorities to seize and recover assets tied to corruption, even without criminal convictions.Nonetheless, the efficacy of civil forfeiture hinges on its judicious implementation.Civil forfeiture presents several distinct advantages in the fight against corruption.
First and foremost, it can potentially expedite asset recovery processes significantly.Unlike criminal proceedings, civil forfeiture often necessitates a lower burden of proof, rendering it a potent tool for authorities seeking to recoup assets obtained through corrupt means.Moreover, civil forfeiture has a substantial deterrent effect.The prospect of losing ill-gotten gains can dissuade potential wrongdoers from engaging in corrupt practices, thus contributing to preventing corruption.While civil forfeiture holds immense promise, its successful implementation demands careful consideration of several challenges.Foremost among these challenges is ensuring due process and safeguarding against potential misuse.It is imperative that legal frameworks governing civil forfeiture strike an appropriate balance between facilitating asset recovery and protecting individual rights.Robust oversight mechanisms, transparent procedures, and accountability measures are essential to prevent abuses and ensure fairness.Striking this delicate balance is vital to upholding the principles of justice while effectively combating corruption.Incorporating civil forfeiture into Indonesia's anti-corruption framework represents a significant step toward enhancing asset recovery efforts.Its expeditious recovery and deterrence advantages make it a valuable addition to the nation's anti-corruption toolkit.
However, it is paramount that this mechanism is implemented judiciously, guided by welldefined legal frameworks, and bolstered by rigorous oversight to safeguard against potential abuses.Civil forfeiture, when executed effectively, has the potential to act as a formidable deterrent and a powerful instrument for recovering assets acquired through corrupt means, contributing to Indonesia's overarching goal of fostering a more transparent and accountable society.

The Importance of Trust in Public Office
Trust serves as the cornerstone of any effective anti-corruption endeavour.In Indonesia, trust in public officials and institutions has been significantly eroded due to corruption scandals and inefficiencies in asset recovery.Consequently, the restoration of trust emerges as a pivotal factor in achieving success in anti-corruption efforts.Central to rebuilding trust is recognising public office as a position of trust.Public officials, whether elected or appointed, are responsible for acting as stewards of state resources and guardians of the public interest.This perspective underscores the importance of integrity, accountability, and ethical conduct in public service.Reaffirming the concept of public office as a position of trust is essential to rebuilding faith in government institutions.It underscores public officials' commitment to prioritise the nation's and its citizens' welfare over personal gain.This shift in perception can help repair the breach of trust between the public and government, fostering a renewed sense of confidence in the integrity of public servants.Restoring trust in public office is ultimately intertwined with the broader anticorruption efforts.When citizens believe that their public officials are acting in their best interests and are committed to upholding ethical standards, they are more likely to engage in the fight against corruption actively and support the various measures aimed at creating a more transparent and accountable society.Therefore, recognising public office as a position of trust becomes a linchpin in Indonesia's comprehensive strategy to combat corruption.
Several countries have implemented approaches that include civil forfeiture and the restoration of trust in public office as part of their efforts to combat corruption and enhance transparency.These approaches aim to create a conducive environment for effective anti-corruption measures.
Here are some examples: The United States has a well-established civil forfeiture system that allows law enforcement agencies to seize assets suspected of being connected to criminal activities, including corruption.Here is a Table 4 summarizing approaches to restore trust in public office in various countries.Table 4 illustrates the mechanism to recover assets linked to corrupt officials and criminal organizations.To restore trust in public office, the U.S. has implemented stringent ethics regulations, transparency measures, and whistleblower protection laws (Del Mundo, 2019).Agencies like the Office of Government Ethics ensure public officials adhere to high ethical standards.Public officials must disclose financial interests, and there is a strong emphasis on accountability and transparency in government operations.Hong Kong has a robust legal framework for civil forfeiture.The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has used this mechanism effectively to recover assets derived from corruption (Mcintyre & de Lange, 2022).It provides a civil avenue for asset recovery without criminal convictions.Hong Kong places a strong emphasis on ethical governance.The ICAC is vital in promoting integrity in public and private sectors.The agency conducts education and outreach programs to foster a culture of integrity, and there are stringent regulations governing the conduct of public officials.Nigeria has implemented civil forfeiture measures to recover assets obtained through corruption (Ikpeze & Ofodile, 2023).Agencies like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) have utilized this tool to seize the assets of corrupt individuals and public officials.Nigeria has initiated transparency and anti-corruption reforms, including establishing the Presidential Enabling Business Environment Council (PEBEC) and whistleblower protection programs.These efforts aim to rebuild trust in public office by promoting transparency and accountability.Singapore has enacted comprehensive legislation that allows for civil forfeiture of assets tied to corruption and other criminal activities (Rifai & Tisnanta, 2022).The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) utilizes these legal provisions for asset recovery.Singapore places great importance on integrity in public service.The CPIB conducts regular education and outreach programs to instil a culture of honesty and accountability among public officials.The country has stringent anti-corruption laws and a low tolerance for corrupt practices.These countries demonstrate that combining civil forfeiture mechanisms with a strong focus on restoring trust in public office is an effective strategy in the fight against corruption.Such approaches facilitate asset recovery and create an environment where public officials are held accountable for their actions and where ethical governance is prioritized.
Sharing information and assets between countries is crucial to international cooperation in various contexts, particularly law enforcement, counterterrorism, and combating transnational crime.Sharing information and assets allows countries to work together to address common challenges and pursue shared objectives.Here are some critical aspects of how countries share information and assets.Here is Table 5 summarizing the methods and organizations used for international information and asset sharing: Enhance intelligencesharing capabilities among member countries.(Carpenter et al., 2022) Table 5 illustrates that countries often establish channels for law enforcement agencies to share information about criminal investigations.This includes exchanging intelligence, evidence, and data on criminal activities and suspects.Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization, facilitates international police cooperation.Member countries share information and request assistance through Interpol's global network (Abiodun & Abioro, 2020).This includes sharing information on wanted criminals, missing persons, and criminal modi operandi.Many countries have established Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) that exchange financial information related to money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes (Sultan & Mohamed, 2023).These units collaborate with their international counterparts to track and trace illicit financial flows.Information sharing is critical in the fight against terrorism and extremism.
Countries often exchange intelligence on potential threats, known terrorists, and emerging trends in terrorism.In transnational crime or corruption cases, countries may share confiscated assets.This can include funds frozen in foreign bank accounts, seized properties, or other illgotten gains.When assets are believed to be the crime proceeds and located in another country, the affected countries may engage in asset repatriation efforts.The goal is to return these assets to their country of origin, where they can be used for the benefit of the affected population.Many countries have MLATs in place, which are formal agreements that facilitate sharing information and assets for criminal investigations and prosecutions (White, 2023).These treaties outline the procedures and conditions for requesting and providing legal assistance.
United Nations plays a significant role in coordinating international efforts to combat various forms of crime, including corruption, drug trafficking, and organized crime (Kopotun et al., 2022).It facilitates dialogue and cooperation among member countries.Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an intergovernmental organization combating money laundering and terrorist financing (Pavlidis, 2021).Member countries share information and collaborate to develop and implement anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing measures.Countries may enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements to share information and assets.These agreements specify the terms and conditions under which such exchanges occur.Some countries participate in intelligence-sharing alliances or coalitions, such as the "Five Eyes" alliance (comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States).These alliances focus on sharing signals intelligence and cooperating on national security matters (Pfluke, 2019).Sharing information and assets is essential for addressing global challenges that transcend national borders.It helps countries pool their resources, intelligence, and expertise to combat various forms of crime, enhance security, and promote international cooperation in pursuit of common goals.However, it also raises important issues related to data privacy, sovereignty, and the need for effective oversight and accountability mechanisms to ensure that shared information and assets are used appropriately and lawfully.
Protecting innocent owners in the context of asset forfeiture refers to legal safeguards and procedures designed to ensure that individuals not involved in criminal activities are not unfairly deprived of their property when law enforcement authorities seize assets suspected of being connected to the crime.These protections are crucial to uphold the rights and due process of individuals who may have their assets inadvertently caught up in forfeiture proceedings.Here are some standard practices observed in many countries to protect innocent owners: Many legal systems incorporate the principle of "presumption of innocence" in asset forfeiture cases.This means that individuals whose assets are subject to forfeiture are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.This places the burden of proof on the government to establish a connection between the assets and criminal activities.Legal frameworks often include procedural safeguards to protect the rights of innocent owners.These safeguards may include the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard in court before assets are seized.Additionally, individuals may have the right to legal representation during forfeiture proceedings.
Many countries allow innocent owners to assert their claim to seized assets by providing evidence that they were not involved in or aware of the criminal activities associated with those assets (Carpenter et al., 2022).This "innocent owner defence" allows individuals to reclaim their property legally.Legal principles of proportionality require that the severity of asset forfeiture should be commensurate with the alleged offence.This means that the forfeiture of assets should not be overly punitive or disproportionate to the alleged wrongdoing.In some jurisdictions, innocent owners can assert a "good faith" defence, arguing that they acquired or used the assets in question in good faith and without knowledge of any criminal activity (Maatta, 2022).This defence may shield them from asset forfeiture.Many legal systems require prompt adjudication of asset forfeiture cases (Singh & Singh, 2022).Delays in legal proceedings can harm innocent owners, and prompt resolution protects their rights.If it is determined that the asset owner is indeed innocent, the property is typically returned to them.This may include any income or interest generated from the seized assets during the forfeiture process.Some legal frameworks include statutory exemptions for certain types of property or assets that are unlikely to be involved in criminal activities.These exemptions may include personal residences, vehicles, or essential tools of trade.In some cases, courts may allow advocacy groups or individuals to submit amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs to provide additional perspectives and arguments regarding the innocence of the asset owner (Izarova et al., 2019).Transparency in asset forfeiture proceedings ensures innocent owners can access relevant information and effectively assert their claims.Accountability mechanisms may be in place to review the conduct of law enforcement agencies and prosecutors in forfeiture cases.It's important to note that the specific protections for innocent owners can vary from one jurisdiction to another, and the effectiveness of these protections depends on the legal and regulatory framework in place.These safeguards aim to balance the government's pursuit of criminal assets and the protection of individual rights and property.
Technology to follow the flow of funds has become increasingly important in many countries, especially in financial investigations, anti-money laundering efforts, and the fight against financial crimes.Modern technology enables law enforcement agencies, financial institutions, and regulatory bodies to track and analyze financial transactions, detect illicit activities, and prevent money laundering and other financial crimes.Here are several key ways technology is used to follow the flow of funds in many countries: Financial institutions, such as banks and payment processors, employ sophisticated transaction monitoring systems that automatically flag and investigate unusual or suspicious transactions (Hassan et al., 2023).These systems use algorithms and machine learning to identify behaviour patterns indicative of money laundering or fraud.Big data analytics tools are used to process vast amounts of financial data quickly.These tools can identify trends, anomalies, and connections among transactions that might otherwise go unnoticed.By analyzing large datasets, investigators can uncover hidden patterns of financial activity.
Blockchain technology, which underlies cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, offers a transparent and immutable ledger of transactions.Blockchain analysis tools are used to trace the movement of cryptocurrency funds in cases of cybercrime, fraud, and money laundering (Hossain, 2023).Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning algorithms are employed to predict and detect suspicious financial behaviour.These systems continuously learn from data, improving their ability to identify potential financial crimes.Know Your Customer (KYC) and Customer Due Diligence (CDD) Technologies: KYC and CDD technologies automate the process of verifying customer identities and assessing the risk associated with specific clients (Matthews, 2022).They use advanced identity verification techniques and databases to ensure financial institutions deal with legitimate customers.Regulatory technology, or RegTech, solutions help financial institutions comply with ever-evolving regulations (Papantoniou, 2022).They provide tools for automated reporting, risk assessment, and compliance monitoring, streamlining the process of following the flow of funds in accordance with legal requirements.The fintech industry develops innovative technologies for financial services, including payment processing, peer-to-peer lending, and crowdfunding platforms.These technologies generate vast amounts of financial data that can be monitored and analyzed for illicit activities.
Many countries encourage collaboration between financial institutions, law enforcement agencies, and regulatory bodies by facilitating data sharing.Information-sharing networks and databases allow for real-time access to financial data, improving the ability to follow the flow of funds across borders.Protecting financial data from cyberattacks is essential.Advanced cybersecurity tools help safeguard financial institutions and prevent unauthorized access that could facilitate money laundering or fraud.Open Source Intelligence (OSINT): Investigators use OSINT tools to gather publicly available information from the internet and social media to gain insights into financial transactions and the activities of individuals or entities involved (Böhm & Lolagar, 2021).The use of technology to follow the flow of funds is a dynamic field that continues to evolve alongside advancements in financial technology and cybercrime.These technological tools and strategies play a critical role in identifying and preventing financial crimes, ensuring the integrity of financial systems, and upholding regulatory compliance.

Conclusion
In conclusion, integrating civil forfeiture into Indonesia's anti-corruption framework presents a promising avenue for expedited asset recovery and deterrence.Indonesia has the potential to usher in a more transparent and accountable era by adopting a multifaceted approach that combines civil forfeiture, regulatory reforms, and the restoration of trust.By doing so, Indonesia can pave the way for a brighter future, free from the shackles of corruption, ultimately benefiting its citizens and the nation.
Policy Recommendation: We recommend that Indonesian policymakers prioritize the implementation of the 'proceeds of crime' law, with a clear emphasis on robust oversight and safeguards for civil forfeiture mechanisms.Simultaneously, there should be a concerted effort to instil integrity and accountability within public offices, emphasizing their role as positions of trust.Collaborative partnerships between government agencies, civil society, and international organizations can help progress these reforms.
Limitation: It is essential to acknowledge that while this paper provides a comprehensive analysis of Indonesia's anti-corruption landscape, the effectiveness of the proposed measures may vary depending on the specific cultural, political, and social contexts within Indonesia.Moreover, the main challenge is that Indonesia has not yet passed the legislation.

Table 1 .
Civil Asset Forfeiture Practices In Various Countries

Table 2 .
The Burden of Proof in Civil Forfeiture Cases in Various Countries

Table 3 .
Table of Comparison Between Criminal Proceedings and Civil Forfeiture

Table 4 .
Approaches to Restore Trust in Public Office in Various Countries

Table 5 .
International Information and Asset Sharing