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
How is sexual corruption being legislated as a distinct criminal offence, and how has implementation of these laws affected reporting, prosecution and victim protection where they have been adopted?
Summary
Sexual corruption is increasingly recognised as a form of corruption, yet it is rarely codified as such in law. Drawing on Tanzania, Rwanda, Madagascar and Sri Lanka, this paper examines what happens after specific legislation is adopted and what further steps are needed to strengthen them. It identifies transferable design lessons — precise definitions, clear institutional ownership, statutory victim protection — while showing that legislative gains remain fragile without sustained civil-society vigilance.
Main Points
- Sexual corruption is a distinct form of corruption, defined as the abuse of entrusted power to demand or obtain sex or other sexual acts, which is different from sexual violence more broadly. UNCAC Resolution 10/10 (2023) which formally recognised sexual corruption gave this intergovernmental backing for the first time.
- Of 38 jurisdictions analysed to date by the UNCAC Coalition, only four have legislative provisions that explicitly address sexual corruption: Tanzania, Rwanda, Madagascar and Sri Lanka. Others are moving in the same direction: in Brazil, for instance, Bill 4534/21 would introduce a dedicated sexual corruption offence into the Penal Code.
- Most other countries still rely on criminal codes, gender-based-violence (GBV) legislation or general anti-corruption law, all of which have real gaps: consent thresholds that do not fit these cases, narrow judicial readings of terms like "benefit" or "gratification", and a risk of prosecuting victims as co-offenders.
- Under-reporting remains high, including where sexual corruption is expressly criminalised. Stigma, fear of retaliation and dependence on the perpetrator are recurrent barriers to reporting, alongside legal and procedural obstacles that may persist despite a dedicated offence. Criminalisation can provide a clearer basis for recognising and prosecuting sexual corruption, but does not in itself create the conditions in which victims can safely report it.
- Coordination between anti-corruption bodies and GBV services seems to be weak. Rwanda has made the most progress, through its Isange One Stop Centres, but even there, no formal referral path exists specifically for sexual corruption cases.
- Investigative and prosecutorial capacity varies a lot between the four countries. Sri Lanka stands out for its inter-agency training programmes, while comparable initiatives are less evident elsewhere. Published data on sexual-corruption prosecutions and convictions also remain fragmented.
- Victim protection differs significantly by country. Tanzania's Section 25 deliberately criminalises only the person who abuses their position. Sri Lanka's Act, by contrast, still leaves a coerced complainant technically exposed to liability as a co-offender.
- The lack of disaggregated data is a widespread problem. Sri Lanka provides greater visibility through CIABOC reporting, but none of the four countries systematically tracks sexual-corruption cases from reporting through to conviction, making it difficult to assess how the laws work in practice.
- Civil society has been the main driver behind both passing these laws and defending them afterwards. In 2024, Tanzania's Anti-Sextortion Coalition successfully blocked an amendment that would have weakened Section 25's victim protections.
Authors
Maria Leonor Rodríguez Pratt
Reviewers
Caitlin Maslen, Annie Healion, Maria Constanza Castro, Marie Chêne (TI)
Date
07/10/2026
