Launching The CACM Exam Path in the U.S., Canada, and Other Countries

The CACM Exam Path

The American Anti-Corruption Institute (AACI) will stop the CACM grandfathering provision of the Certified Anti-Corruption Manager (CACM) management credential in the following countries effectively from January 1, 2018. 

1. The United States of America (U.S.A.)
2. Canada
3. Netherlands
4. Malaysia
5. Jordan 
6. Palestine
7. Qatar
8. The United Arab Emirates

For more information, visit the CACM Exam Path web page.

Certified Anti-Corruption Manager (CACM)

Developing effective Corruption Prevention Policy: CHECKLIST

Tempe, March 29, 2017

Technical Staff

This document is a part of The AACI series of anti-corruption resources. The contents of this document constitute an integral part of the CACM Review textbook that would be available in countries where the CACM will only be offered by exam. 

Definition: A fraud and corruption prevention policy is a formal, written statement recording the entity's attitude and response to fraud and corruption. 

The policy could be standalone or included within the code of ethics. It should state clearly what the organization expects from its employees regarding fraud and corruption. 

A successful policy is one that:

1. Embeds in it the “Perception of Detection” AND
2. Implements a swift and consistent action when fraud or corruption is suspected or detected

Corruption Prevention Policy Benefits

The following is a "partial" list:

1. Absence of confusion to what is fraud, corruption or misappropriation of assets
2. Clear consequences for engaging in fraud and corruption
3. Commitment of board of directors and management - the entity is not an easy target to fraud and corruption

Corruption Prevention Policy Benefits

Elements of Corruption Prevention Policy 

Pre-requites for Effective Corruption Prevention Strategies, Plans, and Programs

You may download the entire document when visiting The AACI Anti-Corruption Library: Free Resource

Part 1(D): Fraud and Corruption Detection - Government Entities

What is the resilience of an entity in preventing, deterring, and detecting fraud and corruption?

Tempe, March 29, 2017
Technical Staff

Proper Anti-Corruption Competencies of Senior Civil Servants, Elected Public Officials, and Employees

The prevalence of adequate anti-corruption education in government entities always determines to a large degree the effectiveness of internal control and corruption prevention policy in detecting fraud and corruption.

Each governmental and / or management level requires a different set of anti-corruption competencies. For example, the internal department head anti-corruption skills differ from those of the deputy minister of a government entity. Each employee should possess the necessary anti-corruption knowledge and skills to meet what management expects her to do in detecting fraud and corruption.

Surprisingly, central banks all over the world require their local banks to ensure that their employees obtain annual anti-money laundering training. Though money laundering is a very tiny and small part of corruption, central banks do not require their local banks to (a) have a corruption prevention policy, and (b) ensure that their employees obtain anti-corruption training annually. There are too many banks that do not have a corruption prevention policy, especially in developing countries.

This is extremely odd as financial institutions are regarded more regulated and disciplined than other business sectors. This is a red flag that regulatory agencies should note due to its severe consequences on not only detecting fraud and corruption but also on financing terrorism.

The AACI believes that the adequacy of anti-corruption competencies of senior public officials and those charged with governance should be quantitatively measured annually. Last year, we launched a certification program called Organizations Anti-Corruption Certification Program to support organizations of all types to quantify their anti-corruption competencies, among other things.

Log in to your account to continue reading.

If you are not a member, join us today.

We will start rolling over the CACM via exam in selected countries and regions. CACM candidates of these countries will find the CACM Review material helpful

Part 1(C): Fraud and Corruption Deterrence - Government Entities

What is the resilience of an entity in preventing, deterring, and detecting fraud and corruption?

Tempe, March 29, 2017

Technical Staff

Increase the Likelihood of Detecting Corrupt Acts

A government entity would enhance its deterrence of corruption when it increases the likelihood of detecting corrupt or fraudulent acts. The perpetrator would usually weigh the benefits and costs of his fraudulent act. Under normal psychological and emotional conditions, he will rationally decide whether to commit fraud or corruption. The more the perpetrator believes that his fraudulent act would be uncovered, the less likely he will commit fraud or corruption. For example, when a cashier knows that the internal audit department personnel are competent and usually carry out surprise physical cash count of money in his custody, he will not take a high risk of being caught “borrowing” cash from his custody. 

Systems of internal control that are well designed and implemented effectively would support the organization’s deterrence of corruption. Although internal control systems have their inherent limitations, a whistle-blowing policy would create a significant deterrence impact on the perpetrator’s perception of the likelihood of being detected. Prevailing honesty and integrity within the government entity’s culture also support its deterrence of corruption.

However, the efficacy of deterrence of corruption depends on the following two fundamental deterrence principles:

(a)   Severity of punishment, and
(b)   Certainty of punishment

Severity of punishment

Punishment is severe when it deters a perpetrator from committing a fraudulent or corrupt act. However, one cannot conclude that whenever there is corruption, its associated punishment is not severe. A severity of punishment would be measured by the degree to which a perpetrator understands the risks (costs) of corruption and the extent to which it deters him from committing fraud.

Log in to your account to continue reading

If you are not a member, join us today.

We will start rolling over the CACM via exam in selected countries and regions. CACM candidates of these countries will find the CACM Review material helpful.