2 March 2026 – By Sara Brimbeuf, co-chair of the Global Society Coalition for the UNCAC’s Working Group on Asset Recovery

Asset recovery: a core promise still unmet

Asset recovery is described as a fundamental principle of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). Article 51 makes clear that returning stolen assets is central to justice, accountability, and repairing the harm caused by corruption. Yet in practice, many States continue to struggle to recover and return assets located abroad.

In the European Union, despite strong legal frameworks, only about two percent of criminal proceeds are seized—a figure that has barely changed in more than a decade. At the global level, the picture appears slightly more positive but still limited. While only a handful of countries were effectively recovering and returning assets in 2014, by 2023 47 countries reported having participated in at least one cross-border asset recovery case related to corruption between 2010 and 2023.

This apparent progress, however, is difficult to assess. Reliable, comparable, and detailed data on asset recovery remains scarce. Without it, evaluating national efforts, comparing practices, or identifying what works remains largely impossible.

Why this matters

Asset recovery is not a purely technical issue reserved for specialists. It is a question of justice, trust, and accountability. Without clear information on where assets are frozen, confiscated, or returned – and under what conditions – international anti-corruption commitments risk remaining symbolic rather than effective.

Transparent and accessible data is what enables governments to improve their policies, international bodies to identify good practices, and civil society to exercise independent oversight. 

What the Asset Recovery Watch database shows and conceals

In this context, the Asset Recovery Watch (ARW) database developed by the Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative (StAR) is a crucial resource. Created in 2011, it brings together information from public sources, including media and civil society investigations, with data collected through questionnaires sent to UNCAC States Parties. It remains one of the few tools – if not the only one – offering a global overview of international asset recovery efforts.

In 2025, Transparency International France conducted the first global civil society analysis of the ARW database. The findings were published in the report Uneven Recovery ? What global data reveal and conceal about stolen assets. While the database provides valuable insights, the analysis also highlights serious limitations: uneven participation, missing jurisdictions, and major information gaps.

The analysis reveals that despite repeated calls from the UN General Assembly, the UNCAC Conference of States Parties, and the Intergovernmental Working Group on Asset Recovery to improve transparency, half of all UNCAC States Parties have never responded to StAR questionnaires.

The map below illustrates which countries have responded to at least one StAR questionnaire, revealing significant gaps, including among major economies and financial centers.

Who/What is missing — and why it matters

Several European Union Member States have never reported, including Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands. The lack of reporting from such major economy and financial hubs, frequently cited as destinations for illicit assets, raises major concerns. 

Beyond Europe, other major economies – including Canada, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey – have also failed to participate in any reporting cycle. Together, these countries account for roughly one fifth of G20 members, despite the G20’s longstanding commitment to collect and publish data on international asset recovery.

Even where cases are reported, data quality remains a serious concern. Information is drawn from a combination of State responses and open-source research, but overall completeness is limited. Case documentation is often partial, with many records lacking key details. In particular, the action that triggered the recovery process is frequently not specified, the type of procedure used is poorly documented, and information on the legal basis for confiscation decisions—such as the relevant UNCAC offenses—is often missing. These gaps significantly constrain a full understanding of how asset recovery processes are initiated and carried through.

A global challenge, not a regional one

These shortcomings reflect a global challenge. Many low and middle income countries face genuine capacity constraints, including limited investigative resources, fragmented asset registries, and restricted access to financial intelligence. These realities call for targeted support and stronger international cooperation.

At the same time, capacity alone does not explain the problem. The absence of reporting by well-resourced States and major financial centres points to a lack of prioritisation of transparency, possibly compounded by reporting fatigue resulting from the multiplication of reporting processes across different channels.

Making transparency a priority

Transparency is a cornerstone of effective UNCAC implementation. More than twenty years after its adoption, States’ ability to understand global asset recovery dynamics, strengthen cooperation, and improve their own practices depends directly on the availability, quality, and consistency of information.

Greater transparency benefits States themselves by enabling better policy design, performance tracking, and identification of recurring obstacles. It also allows international bodies to promote peer learning and evidence-based recommendations. Finally, it empowers civil society and the public to monitor progress and build trust in restitution processes.

What needs to happen next

Closing the asset recovery gap requires more than legal reforms. It requires better information, shared consistently and used strategically. Three priorities stand out:

• States should report asset recovery data, including through StAR questionnaires, and publish clear statistics on asset freezing, confiscation, and return, where such disclosure does not jeopardize ongoing judicial proceedings.
• International reporting mechanisms should be better aligned, particularly across UNCAC implementation Review Mechanism, Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Mutual Evaluation Reports, and StAR’s data collection, to reduce duplication and improve coherence.
• Civil society and researchers should actively use and scrutinize available data, strengthening independent oversight and advocacy.

Without reliable and comparable information, asset recovery will remain opaque and uneven. Making data visible is not a technical detail, it is a precondition for justice and for fulfilling the promise of the UNCAC.