A/HRC/25/52 obligations. This is of particular importance in relation to requests for repatriation of stolen assets or illicit funds. B. Recovery and repatriation of stolen assets 42. The recovery and repatriation of stolen assets to their country of origin is an important component of the fight against illicit financial flows.45 In relation to illicit funds generated through corruption by public officials, it serves a number of purposes. First, it can provide much needed additional resources to the countries of origin for public investment. Secondly, by indicating that there are consequences to corruption and the proceeds of corruption will not easily be concealed, it can have a deterrent effect on corruption and embezzlement by public officials. Lastly, by depriving corrupt officials of their loot, asset recovery can provide justice for the victims of corruption.46 43. The recovery of stolen assets is a complex, time-consuming and costly undertaking. Obstacles include the challenge of locating the stolen funds, inconsistent legal requirements across borders,47 lack of legal expertise in requesting countries, lack of political will in requesting and requested countries,48 and lack of coordination between national and international agencies. That suggests that international assistance and cooperation is critical to the successful recovery of stolen assets. C. Tackling secrecy jurisdictions and corporate abuses 44. As noted in the interim report of the Independent Expert (A/HRC/22/42 and Corr.1, paras. 5–9), a key driver of illicit financial flows and therefore an obstacle to the capacity of States to utilize their maximum available resources is the prevalence of tax evasion, in particular by multinational companies. This is compounded by a lack of transparency in relation to the operations of those entities, the existence of secrecy jurisdictions as well as the use of shell companies, anonymous trust accounts, bogus charitable foundations, money-laundering techniques and questionable trade practices.49 45. According to one recent report, developing countries lose between €660 billion and €870 billion each year in illicit financial flows, mainly in the form of tax evasion by multinational companies.50 The report finds that “there is a significant discrepancy between tough political rhetoric” from the Governments of the 13 European countries surveyed and their actions. All of the countries surveyed were failing to demand sufficient levels of tax transparency from companies, the majority were reluctant to establish public access to information on the beneficial ownership of companies, trusts or foundations in their 45 46 47 48 49 50 Asset recovery is “a fundamental principle” of the Convention against Corruption (art. 51). OECD, “Measuring OECD responses”, para. 24. See Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Asset Recovery, document entitled “The Arab Spring and the recovery of stolen assets: challenges and responses two years later (conclusions of the 7th Practitioners’ Workshop held in Lausanne, Switzerland, 28–29 January 2013)”, submitted by Switzerland (CAC/COSP/WG.2/2013/CRP.1), p. 5. Countries that are recipients of stolen assets are often reluctant to take action against powerful interest groups such as banks, while in countries that are the victims of corruption by public officials, the perpetrators or beneficiaries of corruption may still be in power. Jack Smith, Mark Pieth and Guillermo Jorge, “The recovery of stolen assets: a fundamental principle of the UN Convention against Corruption”, U4 Brief No. 2, February 2007, Chr. Michelsen Institute, second page. Available from www.u4.no/themes/uncac/. Also known as “tax havens”, “international financial centres” or “offshore financial centres”. Eurodad, “Giving with one hand”, p. 1. 13