This Anti-Corruption Helpdesk brief was produced in response to a query from one of Transparency International’s national chapters. The Anti-Corruption Helpdesk is operated by Transparency International and funded by the European Union.
Query
We are currently supporting a national General Prosecutor's Office in strengthening its approach to managing corruption risks. Could you provide examples of international best practices or standards for assessing and mitigating corruption risks, particularly within the work and activities of prosecutors?
Summary
This Helpdesk Answers examines corruption risks of the prosecution authority within the criminal justice process and proposes mitigation strategies to strengthen prosecutorial integrity. Prosecutors exercise significant discretionary power, which, if unchecked, creates opportunities for bribery, favouritism, cronyism and undue influence. These risks manifest throughout the prosecution process and are compounded by the potential for institutional capture by political, corporate, or criminal interests.
Case studies from countries like South Africa, Turkey, Mexico, Colombia and the US illustrate the dangers of prosecutorial misuse. To mitigate these risks, the paper recommends adopting transparent procedural standards, implementing robust internal management and review systems, conducting corruption risk assessments, and ensuring prosecutorial autonomy balanced with oversight.
Caveat
This Helpdesk Answer focuses specifically on the risks of corruption associated with the prosecution authority in the criminal justice process. It does not cover other more general risks that prosecution agencies may face simply because they are part of the broader public sector, such as those related to procurement. Additionally, it excludes corruption risks arising from prosecutors’ non-criminal functions (e.g., administrative activities) and from stages of the criminal process where prosecutors may play a role but do not exercise primary control (e.g., the prison system).
Main points
Given the high degree of discretionary powers, prosecutors are vulnerable to risks of bribery, favouritism, cronyism and undue influence at every stage from investigation to sentencing.
Prosecution offices face risks of capture by political, corporate, and organized crime interests, threatening impartial justice.
Clear, transparent integrity policies based on international standards (for example, UN Havana Guidelines and IAP Standards) are vital to guide prosecutorial conduct.
Strong management and internal oversight, including team case handling, senior review, and digital case management, support compliance and early detection of misconduct.
Periodic corruption risk assessments help identify vulnerabilities and guide targeted prevention and enforcement strategies within prosecution services, such as integrity vetting processes through retroactive checks of asset and interest declarations.
Prosecutorial autonomy and independence must be balanced with effective oversight mechanisms to protect impartiality while ensuring accountability and public trust.
Authors
Maria Constanza Castro
Reviewed by
Jamie Bergin (TI)
Adam Foldes (TI)
Date
22/07/2025
