14 May 2025 –

Every year, developing countries lose billions of dollars to illicit financial flows (IFFs) — funds that are illegally earned, transferred, or used across borders. Nowhere is this more acutely felt than in Africa, which is estimated to lose a staggering $88.6 billion annually, equivalent to 3.7% of the continent’s total GDP. These losses have devastating consequences: African countries with high levels of IFFs spend 25% less on health and up to 58% less on education compared to those with lower levels of illicit financial flows.

In March 2025, the Human Rights Council (HRC) 58th Session adopted the latest resolution addressing “The negative impact of the non-repatriation of funds of illicit origin to the countries of origin on the enjoyment of human rights, and the importance of improving international cooperation“. This resolution marks an important step forward in the global fight against corruption, recognizing that the return and re-use of stolen assets are essential for repairing the harm done to affected populations. The key mandates of the resolution are as follows: 

• The High Commissioner for Human Rights is requested to organize a one-day intersessional expert meeting (before the 62nd session) on strengthening international cooperation and shared responsibilities in the repatriation of illicit funds to promote ESCR and the right to development.
• OHCHR is requested to organize a regional expert meeting in Africa (before the 63rd session) to support African governments in repatriating illicit funds to advance ESCR and the right to development with participation from the African States, African Union, NHRIs, anti-corruption institutions, civil society, World Bank, and others
• OHCHR is also tasked with preparing a comprehensive report on enhancing international cooperation and national efforts to repatriate illicit funds.
• Urges States to ensure cooperation of financial institutions in responding to foreign requests to freeze and repatriate illicit funds, and encourages mutual legal assistance and capacity-building.
• Requests the UN Secretary-General to bring the resolution to the attention of Member States and relevant UN fora, including the UNCAC.

The resolution was adopted with 29 votes in favor, 15 against, and 3 abstentions. Notably, all African countries members of the Council voted in favor. This unified stance reflects the growing momentum across the continent to ensure that funds are repatriated. These funds could make a significant difference if reinvested in public services, infrastructure, and social programs, directly benefiting the people harmed by corruption and improving the living conditions of African citizens. 

The vote also revealed sharp regional divides between countries of origin and countries of destination for such illicit assets. EU member states of the Council voted against the resolution arguing that the HRC is not the appropriate fora for such a technical issue and suggested that discussions on asset recovery should take place in Vienna, under the framework of the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). This reluctance to address the topic is also reflected in member states’ poor performance in effective asset recovery, as seizure of criminally acquired assets remains extremely low. It is estimated that only 2% are recovered from the hands of criminals. It also highlights the outdated vision in which human rights and corruption are addressed in silos, one that fails to match the reality and complexity of the intertwined causes and consequences of both phenomena.

You can see the country interventions at the 58th HRC session here.

This raises a critical question: is the UNCAC fora meaningfully addressing the implications of the non-repatriation of funds of illicit origin? To date, no CoSP resolution adopted under the UNCAC framework has adequately focused on a victim-centered approach to asset repatriation as envisioned in UNCAC articles. In this fora, it is often countries from the Global North that oppose the inclusion of progressive language on victims’ reparation in resolutions. Meanwhile, many African states often consider proposals aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability in the use of returned assets as efforts by destination countries to impose conditions on the asset return process. Such “conditionality” is frequently perceived as infringing upon the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign states.

While discussions often revolve around the technical and legal mechanisms of returning stolen assets, they fall short of considering how these resources can be managed in a way that meaningfully contributes to development and repairs the harm caused by corruption. Crucially, the agency of victims is often overlooked. No CoSP resolution has yet taken a comprehensive view that places the transparent, accountable, and equitable management of repatriated funds, guided by the needs and perspectives of affected communities, at the center of the asset recovery process. 

Asset recovery, asset management, and the inclusion of victims in these processes are high priorities for many States Parties. Numerous jurisdictions are now developing systems to manage seized and confiscated proceeds of corruption more transparently and effectively, as can be seen with France’s asset restitution legislation, which was guided by the GFAR principles. The OHCHR Recommended Principles on Human Rights and Asset Recovery also offer a relevant framework for ensuring that asset recovery efforts support the meaningful inclusion of victims. 

With the 11th Conference of the States Parties (CoSP) to the UNCAC scheduled to take place in December 2025 in Qatar, the global community has a vital opportunity to elevate this issue. As a result, civil society strongly encourages States Parties to build on this momentum. In doing so, States Parties should consider:

• Adequately resourcing agencies responsible for asset management
• Establishing strong transparency and accountability measures
• Minimizing management costs, when possible, to maximize compensation for victims
• Enabling third-party management and allowing for pre-confiscation asset conversion where appropriate
• Publishing agreements on asset disposal in a timely and accessible manner
• Allowing public monitoring and ensuring traceability from confiscation to final use
• Promoting the social reuse of recovered assets through engagement with civil society
• Considering the creation of dedicated trust funds for victims of corruption

As civil society continues to push for progress on the repatriation of assets of illicit origin and the transparent reuse of such funds, the need for political will and multilateral cooperation is more urgent than ever. The decisions made at CoSP11 could set the tone for years to come ensuring that the recovery of stolen assets truly serves justice and supports development.