Tag: organised crime

When Criminals Rule the Land

In Latin America, tens of millions of people live in territories that are governed by outlaws — from powerful drug cartels to crime syndicates. What can be done to restore legitimate law and order?

At the beginning of 2023, the state of Sinaloa endured hours of violence as Mexican authorities hunted down and captured Ovidio Guzmán, the son of the famous drug trafficker Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. Blockades, shootings and citizens locked in their homes: It was a stark demonstration that in Latin America, there are places where the state does not govern but, instead, the criminals — in this case the Sinaloa Cartel — are in charge. Wresting back control, even momentarily, comes at a high cost (29 people died in this operation, including military personnel and alleged criminals).

Mexico is an iconic case, but not the only one. In Ecuador, for example, the state has lost control in its overcrowded prisons, where criminal organizations extort money from detainees and their families, and also carry out massacres inside prison walls. Seven such massacres in 2021 and 2022 claimed the lives of more than 350 people, according to Human Rights Watch.

Latin American magical realism seems to have leapt from the pages of literature and landed into real-life politics and law enforcement. This has helped to transform Latin America into a place that, in the absence of armed conflict, has the highest rates of violence in the world. According to 2018 data from the Economic Commission for Latin America, the region has 10 times more homicides (23 per 100,000 inhabitants) than Europe (2.1 per 100,000) and about eight times more than Asia (2.7 per 100,000). Of these homicides, 93 percent are concentrated in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, countries that are home to only 68 percent of Latin America’s population.

Part of this violence is the product of criminal governance, the process by which criminals — paramilitary groups, vigilantes, death squads, guerillas, drug cartels, organized crime groups and gangs — take over the traditional role of the state and govern or co-govern a territory and a population. There are areas in Latin America where criminals have taken charge of maintaining public services, building infrastructure and even dispensing justice.

Political scientist Andreas Feldmann. Photo: James Provost/CC BY-ND

“Most societies in this region are grappling with patterns of criminal governance through which state officials, political authorities and organized crime actors co-govern. While the phenomenon is certainly not new, it has attained greater prominence as ever more influential and powerful criminal syndicates have entered into the bloodstream of many societies, transforming traditional forms of governance,” write political scientists Andreas Feldmann of the University of Illinois Chicago and Juan Pablo Luna of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, in a 2022 article in the Annual Review of Sociology on the state of criminal governance in Latin America.

Knowable Magazine spoke with Feldmann about this parallel order in which rules are imposed on citizens by criminal organizations, often with the collaboration of state agents. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What is criminal governance and how does it differ from the organized crime we can find in any country?

The difference has to do with the notion of governance. Organized crime is motivated by profit; its objective is not to govern. Criminal governance is a context in which criminal groups govern spaces, population and territory. The Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico governs several communities where the population knows that the state does not have the capacity to intervene. In Rio de Janeiro, the Amigos dos Amigos gang rules Rocinha, one of the main favelas of this Brazilian city.

Why would criminal groups want to embark on such an arrangement? Because it’s good for business. To the extent that you control a territory and a population, it facilitates the organization and productivity of your business.

What do the formal authorities get out of such an arrangement?

People tend to think that states are inevitably corrupt. There is something of that in many officials, but often what happens is that they are also threatened, and they have no alternative but to bow to this order: To the extent that the state loses its monopoly on the use of coercion, it has difficulties in confronting groups that are powerful and that threaten officials or extort money from them.

It is the old dictum of Pablo Escobar, the notion of money or lead ( plata o plomo): “I buy you or I kill you.”

The Colombian drug trafficker Pablo Escobar, leader of the Medellin Cartel until he was killed in 1993, gave many citizens what the state did not give them, such as houses for the poor and soccer fields for the neighborhoods. Are these types of actions also a form of criminal governance?

Absolutely. Many times, you talk to people in the communities, and they prefer the criminals to the state because the rules are clearer, and because they are bothered by the double discourse of the state agents — who on the one hand say they operate according to the law, but on the other hand commit the same abuses, or sometimes even worse abuses than the criminals.

There are studies in Brazil on how these criminal groups administer justice in sectors where there is no justice, where there is total impunity with respect to robberies, sexual assaults and other incidents in the communities. These organized crime groups have a parallel justice system where they manage these types of problems, and the communities value this very much, as in the case of Rocinha, in Rio. Inhabitants of this favela say they feel safe, and criminal groups have been shown to settle property rights issues between neighbors and provide public services, recreation and sports.

A few decades ago, Latin America was full of clearly anti-democratic regimes. Since then, the quantity and quality of democratic regimes in the region have increased. Yet, so has criminal governance: According to a recent study by Benjamin Lessing of the University of Chicago, 13 percent of the population in Latin America, nearly 80 million people, live under a criminal governance system. Why is there this contradiction?

I think we always thought that this was a contradiction. We had the hope and the illusion, perhaps a little naively, that as we moved towards more democratic regimes, we were going to see more integrity and honesty in the exercise of power.

But that illusion quickly collapsed, and we began to observe societies where democratic regimes coexist with enormous amounts of abuses, human rights violations and violence. Mexico and several countries in Central America, such as El Salvador and Honduras, have seen how the transition to democracy coincided with atrocious human rights violations. In Mexico, it is estimated that more than 100,000 people have disappeared in the last decade — although no one knows for sure, and the number may be much higher. And Salvadorans have been living under a state of exception since the end of March 2022, under which a variety of serious abuses have been committed. Many of these — torture, forced disappearances, assassinations — are committed in the name of fighting organized crime.

At the same time, we have seen how organized crime forces have developed in a very forceful way in authoritarian regimes, as in Venezuela.

And then there are countries that are democratic and have developed systems where violence has multiple causes. Take Brazil, where a mixture of structural conditions (poverty, inequality, marginalization and hopelessness) generates violence, and the state, through its coercive arm (police, army, security forces) acts violently, often committing abuses that are not investigated, let alone punished, in an atmosphere of impunity. A plurality of actors use violence to achieve their ends. Different manifestations of violence overlap: criminal, political and economic.

Prisons, surely, are places where the state should exercise control. What does it tell us that in Latin America we have several cases where the convicts themselves have a significant level of control over the prisons? In Ecuador, for example, some inmates must even pay a monthly fee to the mafias that control part of the prison in order to not be assaulted. Cases of similar control have been reported in Brazil and El Salvador.

This is the most fascinating case of all. This, from a conceptual point of view, is complex to understand, because if there is a place where the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, it is the prison.

Two alternatives explain this counterintuitive phenomenon: The state deliberately abandons prisons because it chooses not to exercise its power in that space; or it lacks the coercive capacity to control the individuals and organizations housed there.

And a third possible alternative is that they become spaces of criminal governance where the state and criminal groups co-govern.

What is at the root of the birth of violent structures in Latin America? Is it due to inequality, poverty, ambition, corruption, the weakness of the states?

It is a tremendously complex phenomenon. I would say it is all these factors combined. The problem of violence is an issue of marginalization, of societies that do not give people opportunities to develop as individuals and participate in dignified conditions. A significant portion of the population lives marginalized from society, with low schooling, high poverty and high unemployment, and one of their few existing options is to join a criminal structure.

At the same time, there is a very important cultural phenomenon in which criminal organizations are attractive because of what they offer. Materialism and nihilism are recurring themes for the youth who enter this type of structure. They long for a life of glamour and a life of consumption and are willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice. Many of them tell you: I would rather spend five years as a sicario (hit man), but live them well, than spend 50 years in a demeaning job, being exploited, and overwhelmed by so much scarcity.

Finally, I would say that there is a strong state issue: states that are not capable of providing alternatives, or whose models are not attractive. The formal model of studying, of trying to get ahead, is very uncertain: It requires a lot of sacrifice and is not necessarily seen as attractive.

Many academic studies of this issue focus on homicides, drug trafficking and major crimes, and leave out less violent situations and regions. Are we underreporting the true level of criminal governance?

Absolutely. Contexts of criminal governance in countries like Uruguay and Costa Rica are very prevalent and go under the radar because people focus on the most emblematic cases, like Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. But this is a much deeper problem and has to do with the weakening of state structures and the loss of the state’s legitimacy. These two elements undermine state capacity.

If you look at the levels of violence, this is a very strong indicator of how the coercive apparatus of the state in countries like Costa Rica and Uruguay has been weakening in the last 10 or 15 years. Homicide rates, although lower than in other nations in the region, have doubled in those two countries.

Some people may think that the solution to criminal governance is simply a stronger state. Is this view correct?

A truly strong state would be one with greater levels of legitimacy. What we observe today is that states are ineffective, they do not solve people’s problems and, at the same time, they are unjust, violent, corrupt. And rather than looking out for the welfare of the people, they often undermine their citizens. Public opinion studies from sources such as Latinobarómetro and the Latin American and Caribbean Public Opinion Project have been recording for years a decline in the levels of trust of the population towards their authorities, and an evident drop in the adherence to democracy: The population is more willing to live in less democratic regimes as long as their daily problems are solved. What is happening today in El Salvador is proof of this.

The problem in Latin America could be solved if the strength of the state — in terms of its legitimacy and its infrastructural power — improved. But it must be both, not just one. It is not just a matter of coercion; it is not just a matter of shooting bullets and trying to control these groups. Organized crime is a manifestation of acute social problems. These groups have many avenues of communication with the population, particularly in low-income communities where they interact with the population, know their fears and aspirations, and take advantage of that knowledge to achieve their objectives. Remember that most of the time criminals are members of a community. People know them and have personal ties of friendship and kinship with them.

What is the responsibility of the formal authorities in the establishment of criminal governance systems?

Enormous. Either they are complicit or their level of effectiveness and the public policies they implement — in one way or another — do not account for this reality.

The problem of criminal governance, and many problems that society has today, are structural problems that no political administration can solve in the time frame that each presidential term has. I have strong doubts that democratic regimes can address these types of problems unless the political sectors agree to a great pact, unless they understand the seriousness of the situation and act in unison.

I think we are at a point where that would probably be the only solution with any degree of viability. But politics in the background is pointing to something totally different: There is a great level of fragmentation and paralysis in the political arena. Ergo, what we see is that the problems are increasing every decade.

How do you think the issue of criminal governance will evolve in the next five years in the Latin American region?

I think, unfortunately, that the phenomenon is going to increase. The growing social and economic problems and the impotence of states to address them have opened spaces for criminal groups.

In country after country, states have withdrawn from many areas because they don’t have the capacity — and sometimes the will — to govern those areas. That vacuum has been filled by criminal actors. The only hope is that societies and political actors understand the seriousness of the issue and act accordingly, and together.

The region needs governments of national unity in which politically antagonistic sectors put aside extremist attitudes, make concessions and seek common solutions to the problems of governance. It is essential to forge a sustainable development model that provides the state with the conditions to raise the population’s standard of living. The challenge is monumental.

Article translated by Debbie Ponchner

Lea en español

10.1146/knowable-041223-1

Pablo Fonseca Q. is a journalist based in Costa Rica. He holds a postgraduate degree in political science from the University of Costa Rica.

This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews. Sign up for the newsletter.

Knowable Magazine | Annual Reviews

Gauri Lankesh Murder Case: SC Restores Organised Crime Charges Against Accused

The Supreme Court bench set aside the Karnataka high court order which had quashed the organised crime charges against the accused, taking an erroneous view.

A bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar, on Thursday, set aside the Karnataka high court judgment which had quashed organised crime charges against one of the accused in the 2017 Gauri Lankesh murder case. Justice Khanwilkar authored the judgment. Both Gauri Lankesh’s sister, Kavita Lankesh, and the Karnataka government had appealed against the high court order.

The question before the bench was whether the commissioner of police of Bengaluru had given a valid prior approval under Section 24(1) of Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act (KCOCA) to prosecute accused Mohan Nayak for being a member of the organised crime syndicate. The high court had concluded that the police commissioner’s prior approval was “improper”.

The accused Nayak allegedly provided shelter to Lankesh’s killers. The organised crime syndicate led by another accused Amol Kale had allegedly been involved in the killings of other rationalists, namely, Narendra Dabholkar in 2013 in Pune, Govind Pansare in 2015 in Kolhapur, and M.M. Kalburgi in 2015 in Dharwad (Karnataka).

The Karnataka high court, in its order dated April 22, quashed the prior approval granted by the police commissioner as well as the supplementary charge-sheet mentioning the organised crime charges.

Under Section 24(1)(a) of the KCOCA, no information about the commission of organised crime shall be recorded by a police officer without the prior approval of the police officer not below the rank of deputy inspector general of police.

What needed to be enquired into by the appropriate authority in the present case is: whether the factum of commission of offence of organised crime by an organised crime syndicate can be culled out from the material placed before him for grant of prior approval, Justice Khanwilkar observed.

Under section 2(1)(d) of the Act, “Continuing unlawful activity” means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheet have been filed before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years and that court has taken cognizance of such offence.

Section 2(e) of the Act defines organised crime as “any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency”.

Before the high court, accused Mohan Nayak submitted that he was not involved in continuing unlawful activity as contemplated in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. He also claimed that the allegations in the charge-sheet do not attract organised crime as contemplated under section 2(e) of the Act.

Also read: Lies on Savarkar’s Mercy Petitions Expose the Legitimacy Crisis of Hindutva Brigade

Section 3 of the Organised Crime Act

The original first information report (FIR) registered in the present case was for an ordinary crime of murder against unknown persons. At that time, it was not known that the offence had been committed by an organised crime syndicate. That information came to the fore only after investigation of the offence by the special investigation team (SIT), as has been mentioned in the report submitted to the police commissioner for seeking his prior approval to invoke Section 3 of the Act.

At this stage, the police commissioner had focussed only on the factum of information regarding commission of organised crime by a syndicate and on being prima facie satisfied about the presence of material on record in that regard, rightly proceeded to accord prior approval for invoking section 3 of the Act.

Under Section 3(3) of the Act, “whoever harbours or conceals or attempts to harbour or conceal, any member of an organised crime syndicate shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine, which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.”

The prior approval was not for registering crime against individual offenders as such, but for recording of information regarding commission of an offence of organised crime under the Act. Therefore, the specific role of the concerned accused is not required to be and is not so mentioned in the prior approval. That aspect would be unravelled during the investigation, after registration of offence of organised crime, Justice Khanwilkar clarified.

“The high court, thus, examined the matter by applying erroneous scale. The high court glossed over the core and tangible facts.”

Justice Khanwilkar held that the high court committed a manifest error and exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the charge-sheet filed before the competent court qua the accused, Mohan Nayak, regarding offences under Section 3 of the Act.

supreme court contempt hearing

The Supreme Court of India. Photo: PTI.

The fact that the investigating agency was unable to collect material against the accused for offence under section 3(1) of the Act does not mean that the information regarding commission of a crime by him within the meaning of section 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) of the Act cannot be recorded and investigated against him as being a member of the organised crime syndicate and/or having played role of an abettor, being party to the conspiracy to commit organised crime or of being a facilitator, as the case may be, Justice Khanwilkar further clarified.

Under Section 3(1) of the Act, “whoever commits an organised crime shall, (i) if such act has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, which shall not be less than one lakh rupees. (ii) In any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.”

For offences under sub-sections 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4), it is not essential that more than two charge-sheets have been filed against the accused, before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years and that court had taken cognizance of such offence. That requirement applies essentially to an offence punishable only under Section 3(1) of the Act, Justice Khanwilkar made it clear.

Also read: RTI Activist Who Exposed Land Grabbing by Bihar Mafias Shot Dead in Broad Daylight

If the role of the offender is merely that of a facilitator or of an abettor as referred to in Section 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), or 3(5), the requirement of the accused being involved in more than two charge-sheets registered against him in the past is not relevant. Regardless of that, he can be proceeded under the Act, if the material collected by the investigation agency reveals that he had nexus with the accused who is a member of the organised crime syndicate or such nexus is related to the offence in the nature of organised crime. Thus he need not be a person who had a direct role in the commission of an organised crime as such, Justice Khanwilkar observed.

Justice Khanwilkar  further held that the prior approval granted by the police commissioner does not suffer from any infirmity. The prior approval has noted Nayak’s intimate nexus with the brain behind the entire event, Amol Kale, and master arms trainer Rajesh D. Bangera, who are part and parcel of an organised crime syndicate.

The police commissioner recorded his satisfaction in the following words:

“Investigation findings have clearly revealed that these members of the organised crime syndicate were in constant touch with one another and actively underwent arms training, arms shooting practice, crude bomb making and indoctrination. They met, conspired and trained at various places in and around Karnataka and Maharashtra with the intention of promoting insurgency. Documents seized during the investigation clearly reveal the intention of the accused to assassinate eight writers/thinkers of Karnataka and 26 other writers/thinkers from the rest of the country…Investigation findings have prima facie revealed that these members of the organised crime syndicate conspired and murdered Gauri Lankesh to further their cause and promote insurgency.”

The additional charge-sheet has been filed against 18 accused in the case before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge Court, Bengaluru.

Gauri Lankesh Murder: SC Sets Aside HC Order Quashing Organised Crime Charges

The high court had quashed the August 14, 2018, order of the police authority granting approval to invoke KCOCA for investigation against Mohan Nayak.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday, October 21, set aside the Karnataka high court order quashing the charge sheet against an accused in the murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh for purported offences under provisions of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act (KCOCA).

A bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar allowed the pleas filed by the state and Gauri Lankesh’s sister Kavitha challenging the high court verdict on April 22 this year.

The high court had quashed the August 14, 2018, order of the police authority granting approval to invoke KCOCA for investigation against Mohan Nayak.

Lankesh was shot dead on the night of September 5, 2017, from close range near her house in Rajarajeshwari Nagar in Bengaluru.

While hearing arguments in the matter on September 21, the apex court had tentatively indicated that it is inclined to set aside a part of the high court order quashing the charge sheet.

As The Wire had reported then, the top court had noted that this was “a very serious order to be passed, quashing chargesheet without analysing the chargesheet.”

The top court had also questioned the counsel appearing for the state on the approval for invoking KCOCA being granted by the authority without there being any prior offence registered against the accused.

The state’s counsel had said the preliminary charge sheet was filed under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. Thereafter, during investigation, the role of accused came to the notice of the investigation officer after which the approval was sought, he said.

During the arguments, the counsel appearing for the accused had said anyone can be said to be member of the syndicate if the arguments of the prosecution are to be accepted.

Kavitha Lankesh’s counsel had argued that the high court had erred in coming to the conclusion that KCOCA was not applicable against the accused. He referred to the role of the accused, as noted in the high court order, and said it was alleged he had taken a house on rent in the guise of running an acupressure clinic but it was meant to accommodate members of the syndicate.

In its order, the high court had said, “If the approval order itself is bad in law, the sanction order, the charge sheet and the approval order so far as the offences under the Act (KCOCA) against the petitioner (Nayak) have no legs to stand.”

(With PTI inputs)

Allahabad HC Expresses Concern Over Political Parties Welcoming Gangsters Into Their Fold

Denying bail to two UP police officers accused of conspiring with gangster Vikas Dubey, the court made several observations on corruption and organised crime.

New Delhi: Denying bail to two Uttar Pradesh police officials who are accused of conspiring with gangster Vikas Dubey, the Allahabad high court expressed concern over political parties welcoming criminals and gangsters into their fold, saying if this trend continues, it will seriously dent the country’s democratic setup.

The high court on Tuesday denied bail to station house officer Vinay Kumar Tiwari and beat officer Krishna Kumar Sharma, who are accused of alerting Dubey about an impending raid on his house. This allowed the gangster and his associates to set up an ambush in Bikru village on July 3, 2020, the police say. Eight policemen died in the ambush. Dubey was later captured and killed in an alleged encounter on July 10.

In his order, Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava made several observations, spanning the nature of organised crime, the presence of ‘black sheep’ in the police force and the tendency of political parties to induct gangsters and criminals into their fold.

The order, published by LiveLaw, says that crime, corruption and population are “three major problems” that India is facing at present. “While against crime and corruption, particularly when it is organised crime and corruption, strict state action and intervention is necessary to restrict and minimise the same to [the] maximum extent, control over population growth requires legal steps and strategy inclusive of motivation, spread of education and awareness and some positive incentive to those who opt for family planning,” the judge wrote. He said against crime and corruption, the state must “continue with the policy of zero tolerance”.

Justice Srivastava said that recently, there has been a “concerning trend” where political parties welcome gangsters and criminals involved in organised crime into the party and try to back and protect them, “painting and spreading an imaginary image of Robinhood”.

“They are given tickets to contest elections and sometimes they win also. This trend needs to be stopped as soon as possible,” the order reads.

The court advised all political parties to take a decision that gangsters and criminals will be discouraged in politics and no political party will give tickets to them in public elections.

“The political parties should rise to the occasion and must guide themselves keeping in view that there cannot be a concept of ‘my criminal’ and ‘his criminal’ or ‘my man’ and ‘his man’, as a gangster is gangster only and is required to be condemned from all corners and even people/voters should also take note of it while making their choice for a candidate in a general election,” the order says.

According to LiveLaw, the court added:

“We must have the idea in mind that if we are entrusted with the responsibility of nation-building, our responsibility is to think about the future generation to whom we have to hand over a legacy. We need to ponder what kind of nation and society we want to leave for our future generation.”

If this trend is allowed to continue, one day these gangsters and criminals will become “Bhasmasur” and will dent the country and its democratic setup, the court said.

Also Read: Vikas Dubey Is the Symptom of a Political System That Provides Patronage to Criminals

The court said that strict and rigorous steps need to been taken to “break and demolish the financial network of gangsters”. This shall certainly bring about more positive results towards restricting criminal activities and organised crime, the court opined.

The order acknowledges that police officers face several difficulties in combating organised crime and criminal activities, including that they do not have access to “sophisticated arms”. These, the court said, “are available in plenty to the gangsters and their gang members”.

However, Justice Srivastava also said that it is “not an unknown phenomenon” that some policemen, though they may be very few in numbers, “show their loyalty more to such gangsters than to their department”.

“Such policemen tarnish the image, name, and fame of police and it is necessary that suspicious police personnel should be taken to task and their conduct should be regularly monitored for which a mechanism should be evolved, and if it exists already, the same should be geared up at different levels,” the court said.

The court said that “policing such police personnel is a big task”, suggesting that early identification of ‘black sheep’, monitoring their conduct and taking immediate strict disciplinary action would help reduce the problem.

The court gave the serious and heinous nature of the offence, complicity of the applicants in the conspiracy and the overall circumstances of the case as reasons to deny the bail applications of the two UP police officers.

Gauri Lankesh Murder | Inclined to Set Aside Part of HC Order Quashing Charge Sheet: SC

The journalist’s sister had challenged the order of Karnataka HC quashing the 2018, order of the Police Commissioner granting approval to invoke invoke Section 3 of KCOCA against accused Mohan Nayak.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, September 21, indicated that it is inclined to set aside the last part of the high court’s impugned order quashing the charge sheet against Mohan Nayak, an accused in the murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh, for offences under provisions of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act.

The apex court observed this while hearing pleas, including the one filed by the journalist’s sister Kavitha Lankesh. Kavitha had challenged the April 22, 2021, order of the high court quashing the August 14, 2018, order of the Police Commissioner granting approval to invoke invoke Section 3 of KCOCA for investigation against Nayak.

Lankesh was shot dead on the night of September 5, 2017, from a close range near her house in Rajarajeshwari Nagar in Bengaluru.

The bench reserved its order on the petitions.

A bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar told the lawyer appearing for the accused that what has been given to him is “bonus” as the Karnataka high court has also quashed the charge sheet against him for the alleged offences under the KCOCA.

“We could have understood that high court was to limit it to only that in prior approval your name should not have been included. We could have understood that argument and reasoning, but not quashing of the chargesheet against you,” the court said, according to LiveLaw.

The court expressed further disapproval of the high court by stressing that what was “challenged was 14th August 2018 order granting approval, the chargesheet wasn’t challenged.”

“We are tentatively indicating to you that we are inclined to quash the last part of the order. On prior approval, even if we uphold the finding given by the high court, the fact remains that nothing prevents the investigating agency to investigate on the factum of whether you are member of that syndicate or not and to present charge sheet after collating the material in that regard,” the bench, also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar, told the counsel appearing for Nayak.

Also read: On Third Death Anniversary, Gauri Lankesh’s Family Await Speedy Trial

Justice Khanwilkar noted that this was “a very serious order to be passed, quashing chargesheet without analysing the chargesheet.”

“Whether his role is mentioned in chargesheet or not HC has not analysed it!’ the judge remarked.

‘Syndicate’

Kavitha Lankesh’s counsel Huzefa Ahmadi argued on the consideration that Nayak be considered a part of a syndicate committing organised crime.

“The fact that all persons of that syndicate may or not be involved in earlier offence is completely immaterial,” the Ahmadi said.

He added that the high court has erred in coming to the conclusion that KCOCA was not applicable against Nayak. He referred to the role of the accused, as noted in the high court order, and said it is alleged that he had taken a house on rent in the guise of running an acupressure clinic but it was meant to accommodate the members of the syndicate.

“This charge sheet material comes after investigation. At that stage, without there being any offence registered against this particular person how can you level him as member of the organised crime syndicate unless there is some material which was placed before the authority to give prior approval,” the bench asked the state’s counsel.

The state’s counsel said the preliminary charge sheet was filed under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act and during investigation, the role of accused came to light.

“To be a member of the organised crime syndicate, a person has to be part of continuing unlawful activity of the syndicate,” the bench said.

During the arguments, the counsel appearing for the accused said if the arguments of the prosecution are to be accepted then anyone can be said to be member of the syndicate.

When the counsel termed the law “draconian”, the bench said, “Once the validity of the Act has been upheld, how can you say ‘draconian’?”.

“These laws have their own purpose,” the bench said.

The bench said on the aspect of prior approval, the counsel for the accused may be right but to say that no offence has been registered in the past, so he cannot be proceeded at all, is not correct.

The bench, after hearing the submissions, asked the parties to file their written submissions within a week.

In its order, the high court had said, “If the approval order itself is bad in law, the sanction order, the charge sheet and the approval order so far as the offences under the Act (KCOCA) against the petitioner (Nayak) have no legs to stand.”

(With PTI inputs)

SC to Hear Gauri Lankesh’s Sister’s Plea Against HC Order Quashing Organised Crime Charges

The high court had quashed Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act charges against one of the accused, Mohan Nayak, earlier this year.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear a final petition by Kavitha Lankesh, assassinated journalist Gauri Lankesh’s sister, challenging the Karnataka high court order quashing Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act (KCOCA) charges against one of the accused, Mohan Nayak. On Monday (August 16), the apex court listed the matter for hearing on September 8.

In June, a bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar had issued notice to the Karnataka government. At that time, the court had also said that the accused should not be granted bail until Kavitha’s plea was decided on. The accused’s lawyer had asked for an early hearing, saying his client had been in jail for three years now.

Gauri was shot dead outside her home in Bengaluru on September 5, 2017. In her petition saying the KCOCA charges should not be dropped, Kavitha has said that the special investigation team’s probe investigation clearly indicated that accused persons were involved in an “organised crime syndicate”, LiveLaw reported. The same syndicate, according to the SIT, was responsible for the murders of Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare.

The accused Nayak is said to be a close associate of Amol Kale and Rajesh Bangera, both of whom are key accused in the case. According to Kavitha’s petition, Nayak was found to have actively provided shelter to the key accused and was also involved in “continuous unlawful activity” as defined by KCOCA.

In April 2021, the Karnataka high court had quashed the Bengaluru Commissioner of Police’s report as well as the supplementary charge sheet in the case. Because of that, the KCOCA charges against Nayak were dropped.

“In the case on hand there was no registration of any case or filing of any charge sheet or taking of any cognisance even in individual capacity of the petitioner, much less as member of the organised crime syndicate or the commission of crime for and on behalf of the crime syndicate,” the high court had said then.

Kavitha’s plea, according to LiveLaw, says that the high court made a mistake by “not examining the scheme of Section 24 KCOCA which states that prior approval ought not to be granted by any officer below the rank of Additional Director General of Police which has been duly complied with in the present case”.

Kavitha also said that the high court “failed to appreciate the fact that the sanction order under Section 24(2) KCOCA was neither challenged nor assailed, and only order under Section 24(1)(a) had been challenged”, LiveLaw reported.

After Kavitha, the Karnataka police too approached the Supreme Court against the KCOCA charges being dropped.

The SIT looking into Gauri’s assassination has so far charged and arrested 17 people in the case, all linked to extremist right-wing Hindu groups.

After the high court dropped the KCOCA charges, Nayak approached the same court for bail. This plea was rejected in July, with the court saying that grounds on which the accused wanted bail were not applicable.

Global Crackdown on Organised Crime After High-tech US-Australia Sting

Named Operation Trojan Shield by the FBI, it was one of the biggest infiltrations and takeovers of a specialised encrypted network.

Canberra: US and Australian agencies hacked into an app used by criminals and read millions of encrypted messages, leading to hundreds of arrests of suspected organised crime figures in 18 countries, Australian officials said on Tuesday.

The operation by Australian police and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) ensnared suspects in Australia, Asia, South America and the Middle East involved in the global narcotics trade, the officials said.

Named Operation Trojan Shield by the FBI, it was one of the biggest infiltrations and takeovers of a specialised encrypted network.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the operation “struck a heavy blow against organised crime – not just in this country, but one that will echo… around the world”.

“This is a watershed moment in Australian law enforcement history,” Morrison told reporters in Sydney.

Australian federal police commissioner Reece Kershaw said police raids in 18 countries netted hundreds of suspects. Europol and the FBI said on social media that they would hold news conferences later on Tuesday.

Australia said it had arrested 224 people, including members of outlawed motorcycle gangs, while New Zealand said it had detained 35 people.

The operation, which was conceived by Australian police and the FBI in 2018, saw officials in the United States take control of the Anom messaging app used by organised crime networks.

When an Australian underworld figure began distributing customised phones containing the app to his associates as a secure means to communicate, police could monitor their messages. The gangs believed the system was secure because the phones did not have any other capabilities – no voice or camera functions were loaded, and the app was encrypted.

“We have been in the back pockets of organised crime,” Kershaw said at the same media briefing. “All they talk about is drugs, violence, hits on each other, innocent people who are going to be murdered.”

The messages were brazen and there was no attempt to hide behind any kind of code, he said.

“It was there to be seen, including ‘we’ll have a speedboat meet you at this point’, ‘this is who will do this’ and so on.”

Marked Man

Kershaw said the Australian underworld figure, who had absconded from the country, had “essentially set up his own colleagues” by distributing the phones and was a marked man.

“The sooner he hands himself in, the better for him and his family,” he said.

One murder plot that authorities got to know of involved plans to attack a cafe with a machine gun, while a family of five was also targeted. Authorities said they were able to prevent these attacks.

Executing Australia‘s largest number of search warrants in one day, police on Monday seized 104 firearms, including a military-grade sniper rifle, as well as almost A$45 million ($34.9 million) in cash. Around A$7 million was found in a safe buried beneath a garden shed in a Sydney suburb.

A total of 525 charges have been laid but authorities expect more in the coming weeks.

(Reuters)

‘Encounter Specialists’ Were Seen as a Bitter Yet Necessary Medicine: Retired IPS Officer

In an interview to The Wire, Meeran Chadha Borwankar says political interference in the Mumbai police’s affairs is rampant and that ‘hafta’ collection often goes up the hierarchy.

Nothing has eroded the image of the police in recent times or brought to the forefront the unholy police-politician nexus than the events of the last few weeks in Mumbai, triggered off by an explosive-laden SUV found near billionaire Mukesh Ambani’s residence Antilia, exactly a month ago. Since then, a sequence of events – transfer of the police commissioner Param Bir Singh, Singh’s letter trading grave charges against the state home minister, the suspension and arrest of Sachin Waze – the case has only got murkier.

Even as a new report pointing to political interference in police transfers further threatened to deepen the malaise, the author of the report Rashmi Shukla is now suddenly in the line of fire too. No one knows from where will the next salvo be fired, even as the original issue – the Antilia case – continues to mystify and defy explanation.

Retired IPS officer Meeran Chadha Borwankar who worked in Mumbai, where she was a former director general of police (DGP) and also former joint commissioner of police, crime branch, Mumbai, where she became known to severely curtail ‘encounters’ and attempts of extortion.

In an interview to Sunanda Mehta, Borwankar talks about her experience with the band of ‘encounter specialists’, her experience while heading the volatile Mumbai crime branch and the rampant corruption and political interference that is reducing the police force to a farce.

Also read: Criminal Justice System Being Perverted, Requires Reform: Former Civil Servants

Given the startling events of the last few days, to begin with, tell us about this strange world of encounter specialists.  How did this group emerge and then flourish?

They were just a few officers who would dare to challenge gangsters, enter their dens, search and arrest them. They were quick and fast in action, courageous but not an undisciplined lot.

Let me share with you that the class of 1983, known for having produced the maximum ‘encounter specialists’, trained with me for three months at the Nashik Police Training College (PTC). Other IPS officers from my batch of 1981 had already completed the three-month training. The principal of the training college asked me to lead trainee sub-inspectors in outdoor activities including the daily morning run of about 4 km. These 1983-batch youngsters would keep requesting me to run fast, but would not overtake me, respecting my rank. They were young, disciplined and a motivated batch with ‘we will change the world for good’ kind of enthusiasm.

What is the typical profile of an encounter specialist – you have commented that it’s very different from the perceived one?

The ‘encounter specialists’, as they came to be known later, were a simple lot, most of them physically fit, all respecting the uniform, loyal, full of enthusiasm and positive energy.

When I worked with them at the crime branch, I noticed they were not high-handed or arrogant and were respected by other officers. They had successfully created an aura about themselves. Meticulous in planning, they always had officers who were good at paperwork, to ensure there would be minimum legal loopholes in their operations. I did not find them gung-ho, gun-happy kind of irresponsible officers. Not that I am defending what they did or do, but the traits of loyalty towards their teams, their superiors who handled them and even their informants is extraordinary.

Retired IPS officer Meeran Chadha Borwankar. Photo: Author provided.

Isn’t there any mechanism to keep a check on what seems to be an unnecessary evil – but one that is not going away? Do we need counter-encounter specialists?

No, we do not need ‘counter encounter specialists’ or even encounter specialists for that matter, but we do need brave and courageous officers. And it is not difficult to keep them under check. As I said earlier, they are generally very loyal to the police leadership. Due to a very slow and tardy trial judicial process for criminal cases where most of the dreaded criminals may well be acquitted, they [encounter specialists] were ‘created’ by police leaders to counter lethal organised crime in Mumbai. In fact, one of the senior officers during the late 90s used to say, “I know this is the wrong medicine, but what to do it is the only one working!”

Then somewhere down the line, the ‘encounter specialists’ who were uniformed sub-inspectors/inspectors, were romanticised and glorified, became aware of their powers and a few took to extortion and protection. Politicians, police leaders, builders and the rich started using them for settling civil disputes, personal enmity and to make money. A cult thus born can be demolished by substituting it with prompt and speedy trial of court cases.

You have said that Sachin Waze should not have been reinstated or at least not posted in the criminal investigation unit. What about Param Bir Singh’s transfer – was that correct?

Transferring the commissioner of police for the criminal acts of an assistant police inspector is very strange. Because there are five ranks in between and police being a uniformed service is very conscious of ranks. However, I have seen this kind of blurring of hierarchy when the junior officer directly collects money, or ‘hafta‘, for the senior, a widely prevalent practice in the state. The other day I was talking to an IPS officer of Delhi and he said it is known as ‘monthly’ in Delhi!

Also read: Extrajudicial Killings, Political Clout, Suspension: Tracing Mumbai Cop Sachin Waze’s Career

How was your experience of heading the crime branch in Mumbai and handling the larger-than-life cops?

I was posted in the crime branch in 2004-2007 after a lot of discussions at the home minister level. I was sounded about the proposal but received my orders about two months later. In the meanwhile, I had talked to a few experienced officers, brushed up my knowledge of law and also followed the crime branch and its activities closely. I was earlier DCP in Mumbai for five years which included a stint at the crime branch too.

I was very clear that I would not favour any particular group or any kind of officer. It made sense to me to take all the 200+ officers with me than to depend upon a few. During 2004-2007, the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) was also with the joint commissioner of police crime.

I decided to depend on the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) than on encounters as once booked under MCOCA, a gangster would be in custody till the end of the trial and thus unavailable to play havoc in the field. I must say that most officers supported me though I was aware that I was being called ‘bookish’ by some. I emphasised the need for good documentation, read case papers and frequently held consultations with investigating officers and prosecutors.

The ‘larger-than-life cops’ were very agitated about the delay in trials and had a valid point that most of the witnesses would not support us in courts, resulting in acquittals. It was a Catch 22-situation. Any acquittal of a case involving organised crime, would lead to ‘we told you….’ kind of looks all around.

I understood their viewpoint and worked harder on improving the quality of investigation and prosecution. I found the media was quite critical of me and said things like the ‘crime branch was losing its sheen’ with me as its chief, depending heavily on MCOCA instead of on encounters.

One remarkable trait of these larger-than-life cops was their information network. It was absolutely impressive. I also found them extremely protective of their informants. Once two of these cops got into a heated argument in my office, one accusing the other of poaching on his informants. Both had tears in their eyes. I had a tough time cooling them down!

I found these cops to be reserved, keeping their cards close to the chest and very possessive of their team of officers and informants.

And they look up to police leaders. And I must add that in our battle against organised crime, the additional commissioners of police and DCPs working in the crime branch fully supported me. The commissioner was of course a thorough professional.

Nevertheless, can there really be any justification for these encounter killings or vigilantism including the argument about instant delivery of justice as opposed to the tardiness of the system?

 No, there is absolutely no justification for ‘fake’ encounters. An efficient and prompt criminal justice system is the only solution to the vigilante and ‘instant justice’ phenomena we see all over the country now. Citizens are sick and tired of cases taking 20+ years to conclude.

Once again political interference in the police department has been highlighted, thanks to the letter written by Param Bir Singh, where he talks of the home minister’s 100 crore demand. Just how rampant is this interference?

Oh, very rampant and more so if the officer is himself or herself corrupt. In case the senior officer is honest, the politicians generally stay away or get occasional work done from juniors and bide their time. But if the seniors too are in the ‘hafta’ racket, they get all kinds of irregular and illegal ‘tasks’ done from them and through them. That is when the force too becomes unprofessional and demoralised as in police department everyone knows what goes on at the top and take their cue from there. And thus, citizens get a raw deal during their visits to police stations and investigation becomes mediocre. Poor conviction rate of crime reflects this.

The blame for Waze in a way lay with the commissioner of police, who in turn put the spotlight on the minister – where does the buck stop?

The roles of both the ex-commissioner and the minister need a thorough enquiry. I hope it is not brushed under the carpet considering that public memory is notoriously short. Speedy enquiry by a high court judge can bring out the truth in the allegations levelled by the ex-commissioner.

Sachin Waze. Photo: Twitter/@ColonelAR

Why is that the transfer of top cops the first knee-jerk reaction to anything that goes wrong? Does it help do damage control?

Yes, it helps damage control as far as naïve, unaware, uninformed citizens are concerned. Those who understand administration and the media know that these are face-saving tactics and things would be ‘normal’ soon! The cynicism is tragic.

The report that Devendra Fadnavis talked about regarding political interference in police postings and the money and touts involved, wasn’t this an open secret anyway?

Yes, and it was so even when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was in power in Maharashtra. But it is very difficult to prove, as generally both parties are happy with the transaction. It has been going on since the early 80s and has slowly become entrenched as police leadership too got corrupted during the last four decades. This is the sad state of affairs across the country and with all political parties, not in Maharashtra alone. It was flagged by the Vohra committee in its report during 1993 about the nexus among criminals, police, politicians and bureaucrats in India.

Also read: The Maharashtra Police Is Getting Dangerously Politicised and Partisan

Did you see anything changing after this report?

After the Telgi stamp paper scam of Maharashtra and Karnataka, electronic stamp papers were introduced and it changed the scenario for good. I hope something similar comes out after an enquiry of the current case.

What about the establishment board that is supposed to decide on postings of police officers – how has it been sidetracked, so effectively? What is its significance now?

The board is good on paper as it is in compliance with the Supreme Court-mandated police reforms of 2006 in Prakash Singh’s PIL. But I have seen how blatantly it is being breached. Politicians either ring up or send ‘unsigned paper chits’ advising transfer and postings to the board members. Officers are themselves at the mercy of these politicians for their own appointments and postings. Thus, they have to accede to these informal requests. However, wherever they feel strongly that an officer shall be a liability to a particular post, they take it up and most of the politicians respect such professional inputs and do not insist.

What do you make of Nationalist Congress Party (NCP)’s allegation that Rashmi Shukla’s report holds no significance as she’s known to be a BJP supporter?

I am surprised that an internal enquiry was not conducted after Rashmi submitted her report as the then home secretary was a thorough professional. He is the chief secretary of the state now. I would wait for his response.

Is she the same person that they talked about some months back when they said there is a lady official trying to topple the government?

Yes, the political parties at that time were referring to her but have brought out her name in open now.

File photo of Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh. Photo: Video screengrab.

We still don’t know anything about the Antilia incident per se – why was the SUV outside it laden with gelatin sticks? Your comments

In fact, the investigation of Antilia and Mansukh Hiren cases have been sidelined. We must not lose sight of them and follow them carefully. I wonder if the current allegations about corruption are for the purpose of diverting attention from these very sensitive cases. But as aware and informed citizens we need to ensure that both cases are investigated thoroughly. Considering the gravity of the offences and the interlink, I would recommend a special court for their immediate trial. As discussed earlier, due to the delay in trial of criminal and civil cases, not only citizens but even police officers are losing faith in the criminal justice system.

Where do you see the case going from here?

I only hope it does not go the 2G way. The whole country was in turmoil due to corruption charges in allotment of spectrum, toppled the government but the case finally went down with a whimper. The judge famously said that he waited for evidence to be brought out by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), when the law gives enough power to a judge to call for any document or evidence.

In the current scenario, both the criminal cases need to be tried in a special court at the earliest and there should be a judicial enquiry into the allegations made by the ex-commissioner. I hope the judiciary would stand up and hold the guilty accountable. Citizens want result now; we have had too many discussions and exposes!

Also read: As Mumbai Police Drama Continues, Probe Into MP’s Suicide Delayed

Why do you think Julio Ribeiro refused to head the investigation?

Asking Ribeiro sir to investigate at the ripe age of 92 was to my mind an attempt to silence him.

 So, is this unholy nexus between politicians and the police really the crux of the entire issue?

Yes, corruption and nexus between politicians and police officers is the crux of the issue. In a way, I am glad it has come out in the open. Vohra committee report of 1993 had highlighted it and yet the nexus continued to flourish as it is emerging during the investigation of both Antilia and Mansukh Hiren murder cases. So, the saga of 1993 continues and would do so if we as citizens do not hold police, politicians, bureaucrats accountable while convicting criminals.

I, therefore, suggest that we should pursue the Supreme Court mandated police reforms. And also insist that all political parties include overhauling of the criminal justice system in their electoral manifestos implementing it earnestly at the earliest.

Sunanda Mehta is a journalist and author.

Mexico’s New President Has Plans to Make His Country Safer. Will They Work?

Even with the best will in the world, there’s only so much social policy can do to stop organised crime.

Mexican voters upended their country’s political establishment this summer when they elected Andres Manuel López Obrador – the left-wing former mayor of Mexico City known as AMLO – by an overwhelming margin. His impressive victory owed a lot to his personal charisma and populist rhetoric, but it also reflected the public’s weariness with Mexico’s current state of affairs – and in particular, with criminal violence.

Long a problem for Mexico, deadly violence is now at an all time high. There were more than 31,000 murders in 2017, the highest number on record, and this year is shaping up to be even deadlier.

López Obrador’s term begins on December 1, but his incoming government has already pledged to reduce violent crime by between 30-50% within three years, and to bring crime rates in line with those in OECD countries within six years. To achieve this, it has come up with three strategies: tackling the “root causes” of crime through social policy, ending the war against organised crime, and restructuring security institutions.

One of the central ideas behind López Obrador’s approach to security is that when it comes to fighting crime, the best policy is social policy. But muddling social policy with crime policy is troublesome; rather than lifting people out of criminogenic conditions, it can simply spawn a welter of social programmes that have little bearing on crime at all.

This is what happened during the tenure of the outgoing administration, when every proposal from cooking lessons to handing out free glasses to schoolchildren was held up as a worthwhile crime prevention initiative. This sort of policymaking neglects the fact that the police can actually be very effective at preventing crime in the short term.

AMLO clearly sees things differently. He plans to roll out an extensive scholarship programme aimed at preventing the 7 million young people not in education, employment or training from joining criminal gangs, even though there is no consistent evidence showing that youth unemployment and poverty are the main drivers of involvement in organised crime. Though scant research on this topic has been conducted in Mexico itself, evidence from the UK has shown the opposite: as youth unemployment and poverty has increased, the amount of crime committed by this age group has actually decreased.

Beyond the drug war

On a different front, the incoming government has correctly identified the decade-long war on organised crime as one of the main drivers of violence. But while it has proposed a three-pronged plan to bring about peace, it is unlikely that this is achievable in the short term.

First, AMLO and his team have proposed implementing a process of transitional justice to break the cycle of violence, including a controversial amnesty for low-level drug-traffickers. There is still much uncertainty as to how this would be implemented, but it remains unclear whether it would actually help end violence in Mexico, since these mechanisms were designed to manage the aftermath of political and ethnic conflicts.

Second, with a growing global consensus that the current drug prohibition regime has failed, the new government plans to legalise cannabis and the cultivation of opium poppies. However, wholesale legalisation of cannabis has never been attempted in a country as large and complex – and as fraught with poor institutions – as Mexico. That means it may be years before legalisation is implemented, as the necessary regulatory frameworks and institutions will have to be established first.

In addition, legalisation in Mexico would create more opportunities for smuggling drugs into the US – potentially a boon for some organised crime groups, and potentially a serious risk to an already troubled relationship with Washington.

Finally, the new government has pledged to train enough police officers to remove the armed forces from the fight against organised crime in three years. But this plan is based on a highly optimistic estimate of the state’s capacity to recruit and train new police officers.

Between 2015 and 2016, there were 133,000 soldiers involved in the fight against organised crime; replacing them would require at least 50,000 new elite federal police officers. President Calderón (2006-2012) took six years to recruit 20,000 federal police officers. His successor, Peña Nieto, promised a 50,000-strong National Gendarmerie, but ultimately delivered a force of fewer than 5,000. It’s highly unlikely that the new government will be able to perform any better.

Reinventing the police

The incoming government has also hinted at yet another redesign of Mexico’s security institutions. Though they have dropped a plan to create a “National Guard” incorporating the army and the police, AMLO plans to recreate the Federal Security Ministry (dissolved by the outgoing president, Enrique Peña Nieto), to form a new police force charged with protecting tourist destinations, and to replace the country’s intelligence agency with an entirely new body.

These reforms are likely to take much longer than anticipated, wasting precious resources that could otherwise be spent on actual police work. And even if they’re implemented swiftly, they are unlikely to directly improve the security situation.

Mexico is simply too vast and too diverse for centralised control of security policy to work. The federal government does not and will not have the resources to properly deal with most of its crime problems. A better approach would be to delegate responsibility to state and local governments, using federal policy to induce improvements in local policing. Security institutions require continuity and time to mature; small, incremental improvements to their operations are a better bet than wholesale redesign.

The security situation in Mexico remains dire, and it’s likely to remain that way for some time. Social policy can help reduce poverty and improve welfare, but it’s no substitute for intelligent, evidence-based crime prevention delivered by a well-trained local police. Removing the army from the streets without capable police officers to replace them could strengthen organised crime groups and make the situation worse.

Patricio R. Estévez-Soto, PhD Candidate in Security and Crime Science, UCL

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Japan’s Controversial Anti-Conspiracy Bill Passed in Parliament

The law, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe claims, has been made to clamp down on organised crime. But the mandate is said to affect even those with no relation to these crimes by restricting freedoms and invading privacy.

The law, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe claims, has been made to clamp down on organised crime. But the mandate is said to affect even those with no relation to these crimes by restricting freedoms and invading privacy.

Opposition politician Yamamoto Taro signals his displeasure with the government’s anti conspiracy bill before submitting his vote. Caption: “Conspiracy law approved and enacted in Japan’s Upper House.”Credit: ANN News official YouTube channel.

On June 15, Japan’s parliament ratified a controversial “anti-conspiracy” Bill into law. Despite concerns by opposition politicians, ordinary people and even UN commentators about how the vague nature of Bill will affect ordinary Japanese citizens with no connections to organised crime, Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s ruling coalition used every parliamentary trick in the book to cut off debate and ram the bill through Japan’s bicameral Diet before a parliamentary recess starting on June 18.

There are fears the vague nature of the new law, which covers nearly 300 crimes, will erode personal liberties in Japan by providing authorities with broad surveillance powers, leaving the question of who can be monitored open to interpretation.

Japan’s ruling coalition, headed by Prime Minister Abe Shinzo has argued the new law is needed in time for the Tokyo Olympics in 2020, at a time when threats to national security are perceived to be increasing.

However this argument belies the fact that his Liberal Democratic Party has tried for years to revise Japan’s existing Act on Punishment of organised Crimes and Control of Crime Proceeds. The goal, according to the Japanese government, is to join the UN Convention Against Transnational organised Crime.

The Japanese government has also suggested conforming with UN conventions is the main motivation for creating the new law. But Colin Jones, a law professor who teaches at the University of Kyoto, noted in an article for the Japan Times that two UN representatives have explicitly criticised the new law:

“Ever since the Meiji Period (1868-1912), treaties and other countries have been used to justify laws the Japanese people neither want nor need, so there’s nothing new here. However, in this case there hasn’t been any serious effort to articulate concrete deficiencies in existing laws – such as bad guys who got away because of them – that will be remedied by the new ones. In fact, I read the convention in vain for mention of a requirement to criminalize conspiracy, other than in connection with money laundering.

The fact that a UN treaty is central to the justification for the new law might explain why the government seems particularly annoyed at concerns expressed by not one but two UN experts regarding the law’s potential for arbitrary use and infringement of civil liberties.”

The two UN experts are Joseph Cannataci, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, and David Kaye, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In a report released in May 2017, Kaye criticised Japan’s State Secrecy Act, implemented in late 2014 as having a chilling effect on journalism and free expression.

In a separate letter sent to the Japanese government (which can be read in its entirety here), also sent in May, Cannataci criticised the new anti-conspiracy Bill, which was at the time being debated in committee before being passed into law. In his letter, Cannataci worries that the broad scope of the law may “lead to undue restrictions to the rights to privacy and freedom of expression” in Japan.

Specifically, Cannataci says in his letter, the law, which is ostensibly aimed at organised crime in Japan, does not precisely define what an “organised criminal group” might be, while including 277 types of crimes that might be covered under the law. One example of a possible implementation of the law, Cannataci says in his letter, is that it may legitimise and facilitate government surveillance of NGOs perceived to be acting against the government interest.

Cannataci also noted the anti-conspiracy law covers crimes “which appear to be totally unrelated with the scope of organised crime and terrorism” such as the theft of forestry products and the destruction of cultural properties.

The Japanese government responded to Cannataci’s letter by saying his characterisation of the anti-conspiracy legislation was “extremely unbalanced” and adding that his behavior was “hardly that of an objective expert.”

However, there were Japanese voices who also made the same points as Cannataci. Following the passage of the bill into law Thursday, Osaka Seiji, an opposition politician who sits on the parliamentary judicial affairs committee that reviewed initial drafts of the bill, said:

“I have been completely opposed to the government’s rationale for the anti-conspiracy law ever since the legislation was proposed in the Diet. It’s possible that the law, which is intended to deal with organised crime groups, will expand to affect ordinary citizens. The law does not concretely define what, when and where it means to “plan” a crime. The rationale for the law is the polar opposite (of who the law will affect). Why did we even bother debating the bill in the Diet? This law should never have been passed.”

Yamamoto Taro, a popular populist politician said the new law will affect ordinary people:

“Does the new law treat everyone who lives in this country as potential criminals?” #conspiracy bill #yamamoto taro

Ordinary citizens themselves turned out to protest against the new law.

“I have uploaded a photo of protesters demonstrating in front of the National Diet as the anti-conspiracy law was ratified in the evening of June 15th. […]”

This article was originally published on Global Voices.