Illicit enrichment: is reconciliation a prevention of or an invitation to corruption? (The Egyptian example)

Purpose This paper aims to explore the offense of illicit enrichment by public officials. It examines whether “reconciliation” could be a preventive measure from corruption or a vehicle for corruption. Design/methodology/approach To obtain the data on identifying the illicit enrichment offense and on examining “reconciliation” as a legal tool that combats corruption, this study uses a combination of primary and secondary resources such as the assigned laws, precedents by the Egyptian Cassation Court, academic books, journal articles and reliable websites. Using the same resources, the study explores the adverse aspects associated with “reconciliation.” Findings The paper concludes that the Egyptian Illicit Gains Authority Law No.62 of 1975 jeopardizes the “presumption of innocence” because it shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant, but the Egyptian Cassation Court decides differently in many cases, whereby it puts emphasis on the prosecution to present enough evidence on illicit enrichment. If the accused is unable to prove the legitimate source of the increased wealth, then there will not be any conviction of illicit enrichment offense due to the presumption of innocence.