Tag: governance

World-Watching: Old Problem, Modern Solution: Emerging Technologies for Anti-Corruption

[from Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, 29 July, 2025]

by Emmanuel A. San Andres and Glacer Nino A. Vasquez

Harnessing new tools to strengthen transparency and accountability can help APEC economies combat corruption and build public trust.

The Code of Hammurabi is one of humanity’s oldest surviving legal texts. Etched in basalt nearly four millennia ago, one of the many crimes it proscribes is corruption by a judge, for which the punishment is a hefty fine—“twelve times the fine set by him in the case”—plus removal and perpetual disqualification from office. Today, laws are published online rather than on stone tablets, but corruption remains a scourge across societies.

Thousands of years later, the fight against corruption continues. Corruption scandals continue to make headlines across the region, affecting both public and private institutions. Whether involving procurement fraud or illicit finance flows, these cases underscore how quickly trust can erode when institutions fail to adapt. The need for preventive systems, powered by data, backed by law and enabled by technology, has never been more urgent. Across APEC, the principles of transparency, accountability and integrity remain central to strong public institutions. As economies become more interconnected and more data-driven, emerging technologies are offering new ways to advance these goals.

APEC economies have long relied on oversight mechanisms such as audits, procurement rules, and internal checks to prevent, detect and prosecute corruption. These tools have been effective in fighting corruption, and they remain essential. But at the same time, new technology has also opened new pathways for corruption: The discreet meeting at a coffeeshop may now occur over an encrypted messaging app, and the cash-filled envelope replaced by a cryptocurrency transfer.

As corrupt actors grow more technologically sophisticated, so too must anti-corruption efforts. APEC economies are not new to digital solutions—e-government and e-procurement portals have reduced opportunities for hidden transactions. Beneficial ownership registries and asset tracking systems make it easier to prosecute and penalise incidents of corruption when they do occur. But emerging technologies offer even more powerful tools to prevent, detect and deter corruption.

For example, artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) enable real-time monitoring, risk scoring, pattern detection, and predictive analytics. These tools can support monitoring and investigation by automating document review and evidence gathering. AI/ML can also enhance institutional capacity through adaptive, personalized training systems.  Meanwhile, advanced data analytics can support the review of large volumes of data, revealing patterns of corrupt activity and informing decision-making. When data from different sources are connected, it becomes easier to understand corruption risks early and act with greater precision.

Blockchain—the technology that enables cryptocurrencies—can be used to create immutable, transparent ledgers for government transactions, supply chain monitoring and secure identity management, making it harder to conceal corrupt activity. Remote sensing and facial recognition technologies also offer potential in compliance monitoring and anomaly detection.

However, implementing these emerging technologies have their share of challenges and risks. The effectiveness of AI/ML systems is only as good as the quality, integrity and objectivity of the data they are fed; biased inputs can produce biased outcomes. Blockchain technology is very energy-intensive, which may hinder its scalability and availability. Facial recognition raises serious concerns over privacy and due process, enabling widespread surveillance without individual consent.

These trends mirror growing international momentum around the digitalization of integrity systems. International organizations are helping lead the way: the OECD is leveraging AI and big data to detect corruption risks and improve compliance, while the World Bank’s Governance Risk Assessment System [archived PDF] uses analytics to uncover fraud in public procurement, with pilots already underway in Brazil. As stewards of major anti-corruption conventions, these institutions are turning innovation into accountability. For APEC economies, this alignment offers a timely opportunity to shape global standards while advancing domestic reform.

It is also important to recognize the central role of human and institutional elements in anti-corruption efforts. Emerging technologies are not a silver bullet; they will only be effective if they are well integrated into government processes and are aligned with the skills of the people who need to use them. Training and capacity building will be essential to bridge capability gaps, while a committed leadership will be needed to implement the legal reforms and oversight structures needed to ensure effective adoption.

Buy-in from anti-corruption stakeholders across government, the private sector and civil society is also crucial to this pursuit. Technologies like AI/ML and advanced analytics require large volumes of reliable data, requiring cooperation and information sharing. Public understanding and trust, ethical use of data and equitable access to technology are all essential to ensuring long-term success.

APEC economies are at different stages of readiness to adopt these emerging technologies. While some economies have yet to develop adequate digital infrastructure, human capital and institutional structures, others are already in a position to expand or integrate more advanced anti-corruption tools into their day-to-day processes. Capacity building, information sharing and dialogue can help narrow this gap while learning from the experiences of those ahead.

This is where regional cooperation can make a difference APEC provides a platform for knowledge sharing, capacity building and policy cooperation. The Anti-Corruption and Transparency Experts Working Group could provide a venue for a collaborative strategy to mainstream emerging technology in anti-corruption work, while building technical capacity for economies that need it. Likewise, the upcoming APEC High-Level Dialogue on Anti-Corruption Cooperation provides an opportunity to reaffirm values and shared commitments in the fight against corruption.

Corruption has existed since the dawn of civilization. As methods to commit corruption have evolved, so must the tools to combat it. People and institutions will always remain at the heart of anti-corruption efforts, but with the right governance and safeguards, emerging technologies can be game-changers in fighting corruption and recovering its proceeds, whether it’s in Babylonian sheqels or in bitcoins.

Emmanuel A. San Andres is a senior analyst, Glacer Niño A. Vasquez is a researcher at the APEC Policy Support Unit. For more on this topic, read the latest issue paper “Technologies for Preventing, Detecting, and Combatting Corruption” [archived PDF].

World-Watching: Statement on the Commission’s Status Report in the Climate-Related Disclosure Rules Litigation

[from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission]

by Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw, July 23, 2025

On April 24, 2025—three months ago—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit directed the Commission to provide a status update in the ongoing litigation concerning the Climate-Related Disclosure Rules, which the Commission adopted in March of 2024.[1]

The Court “directed” the Commission to advise whether it “intends to review or reconsider the [R]ules at issue in this case.”[2] And, if the Commission has determined to take no action, the Court ordered the Commission to explain whether it “will adhere to the [R]ules if the petitions for review are denied and, if not, why it will not review or reconsider the [R]ules at this time.”[3]

The Court’s directive was straightforward; our answer is not.

The Commission’s Status Report, filed today, states plainly enough that it has no intention of revisiting the Rules at this time.[4] That, however, is where our responsiveness ends.[5] The Status Report goes on to argue that we cannot expound on what the Commission’s future plans might be in the event the rule-making petitions are denied, because we would be “prejudging” those policy decisions.[6] And, the Status Report explains, any future rule-making should benefit from a court ruling on our statutory authority.[7]

We also weigh in on a number of questions that the Court did not ask of us—for example, we opine that there are “no obstacle[s]” to reaching the merits of the case and that a “live controversy” remains.[8]

This purported response is wholly unresponsive.

The Court asked us in no uncertain terms “will [the Commission] adhere to the [R]ules if the petitions for review are denied[?]” We did not—but should have—answered that question. The unspoken truth under this Commission is that the answer is “no.” Three of the four current Commissioners have been vocal critics of the Rules.[9] They have also withdrawn the Commission from the defense of the Rules in litigation.[10] The Commission simply does not want to say what we all know to be true by now—it has no intention of allowing the Climate-Related Disclosure Rules to go into effect.

Once we acknowledge this answer, the rest of the Commission’s arguments fall away. There are no prejudgment issues, because there is nothing to prejudge. And, we do not need the Court to rule on our statutory authority for the Commission to engage in rule-making. If there is future rule-making in this space—whether to rescind the Rules or otherwise—that rule-making may present different legal issues. Whatever those issues may be, and whomever those aggrieved parties may be, they are not now before the Court. Federal courts are not in the business of giving advisory opinions to agencies.

What is crystal clear, however, is that this Commission is seeking to avoid its legal obligations under the guise of conserving “Commission time and resources.” No matter what, this comes at the expense of judicial resources. As I wrote previously in connection with the Commission’s decision to stop defending these Rules,[11] the Administrative Procedure Act governs the process by which we make and repeal rules. It includes a prescriptive framework for promulgation and rescission. If this Commission wants to rescind, repeal or modify the Rules, which were promulgated by-the-book, then it must do the statutorily-required work. It cannot take the easy way out. It must engage in notice-and-comment rule-making, with the benefit of economic analysis and a public, transparent process, even if inconvenient or if the Commission has other, more pressing priorities.[12] Indeed, other Commissioners have acknowledged that doing the work required to rescind the rule would be a difficult lift.[13] So, instead, we once again ask the Court to do the work for us. By asking the Court to carry water that we should shoulder ourselves, we do a grave disservice to our already taxed judicial system. This is not good governance.

The Commission has effectively ignored the Court’s order and thrown the ball back at the Court. The Court should decline to play these games.

[1] See State of Iowa v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 24-cv-1522 (8th Cir. Apr. 24, 2025) (“Status Update Order”); see also Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors [archived PDF], Rel. No. 33-11275 (Mar. 6, 2024), 89 Fed. Reg. 21668 (Mar. 28, 2024) (“Climate-Related Disclosure Rules” or the “Rules”).

[2] Status Update Order.

[3] Id.

[4] Status Report of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Response to the Court’s April 24, 2025 Order, State of Iowa v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 24-cv-1522 (8th Cir. July 23, 2025)(“Status Report”) at 2 (“The Commission does not intend to review or reconsider the Rules at this time.”).

[5] These viewpoints do not reflect upon the efforts of the staff in our Office of the General Counsel.

[6] Status Report at 2.

[7] Id. at 2, 4, 5.

[8] Id. at 2, 3.

[9] See, e.g., Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, Green Regs and Spam: Statement on the Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors (Mar. 6, 2025); Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, A Climate Regulation under the Commission’s Seal: Dissenting Statement on the Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors (Mar. 6, 2025); see generally Lesley Clark, “Trump SEC Pick Wants to Ditch Landmark Climate Disclosure Rule,” Politico (Dec. 9, 2024).

[10] See Status Report filed by SEC, State of Iowa v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 24-cv-1522 (8th Cir. Mar. 27, 2025); SEC Press Release No. 2025-58, SEC Votes to End Defense of Climate Disclosure Rules (Mar. 27, 2025) (According to then-Acting Chair Uyeda, “The goal of today’s Commission action and notification to the court is to cease the Commission’s involvement in the defense of the costly and unnecessarily intrusive climate change disclosure rules.”).

[11] Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw, Statement Regarding Climate-Related Disclosures Rule Litigation: The Commission has Left the Building (Mar. 27, 2025).

[12] Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, Remarks at the “SEC Speaks” Conference 2025 (May 19, 2025) (“For the Commission to rescind the climate-related disclosure rule—and address the countless factual findings discussed in that 885-page release—would place a significant strain on the Commission’s resources. This effort would be a difficult lift, and it would potentially take away staff resources needed to advance the regulatory regime with respect to crypto and capital formation.”).

[13] Id.