An exploration of extortion
| Pages | 163-185 |
| Published date | 03 May 2013 |
| Date | 03 May 2013 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13590791311322355 |
| Author | Denis Osborne |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
An exploration of extortion
Denis Osborne
Governance and Development Adviser, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to distinguish between bribes demanded (extortion) and
bribes offered (enticement); to indicate the causes of extortion and its consequences; and to suggest
action by different groups to help reduce it.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper takes the form of an examination of reported
extortion as miniature case studies and histories, leading to suggested actions to reduce it.
Findings – Extortion occurs when there are perceived opportunities to do so without penalty. It hurts
the poor more than the rich,denying them justice and fair treatment and, withtechnology giving more
powerto the poor, it brings increasing risksof political instability as well as generaldamage to society and
the economy. But extortion ismore vulnerable to investigation and prevention than collusive bribery.
Action to reduce it can be effectiveand recommendations for action are made for differentgroups.
Research limitations/implications – More study is needed at municipal as well as national level,
and by corporations, of the incidence of extortion and efforts to reduce it.
Practical implications – Better recognition of the differences between extortion and other types of
economic crime, and consequent recommendations for action, should help reduce it and bring benefits.
Social implications – Attention drawn to the risks of injustice and unfair treatment especially to the
poor brought by extortion. Governments and corporations alerted to these. Actions suggested to
reduce extortion.
Originality/value – The paper clarifies the character of extortion, the risks it brings and
opportunities for its reduction and recommended actions to bring that about.
Keywords Bribery, Extortion,Coercion, Collusion, Consequences,Action, Case studies
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
Extortion – the demand for a bribeby someone before they will provide a fairservice –
whether paid or notis a form of coercion and an especially cruel formof corruption. Quite
apart from the damage it does to an organisation whose officials make such demands,
the individuals from whom demands are made suffer a denial of justice unless they
pay, with loss of police protection or unfair shares of education or health care or some
other harm. Many get hurt badly; in particular the poor who cannot afford to pay.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-0790.htm
I am grateful to the organisers of the International Symposium on Economic Crime for inviting
me to lead a workshop on this topic. I thank the British Government’s Overseas Development
Administration (now the Department for International Development) for making me responsible,
while still a Civil Servant, for research into Governance and Development between 1990 and
1992. I was allowed to extend this to corruption which I recognised “makes a mockery of good
governance”. Since then I have given advice, lectures or training on matters of governance, ethics
and corruption on contracts in some forty countries. I am grateful to all with whom I have
worked in many places and from whom I have learnt much. I also acknowledge advice and
comments on drafts for this paper received from Adam Graycar, Professor of Public Policy,
Dean, Australian National Institute for Public Policy and Director, Research School of Social
Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra; Aiden Sidebotham of the Jill Dando Institute
of Security and Crime Science, University College London; and others.
Journal of Financial Crime
Vol. 20 No. 2, 2013
pp. 163-185
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1359-0790
DOI 10.1108/13590791311322355
An exploration
of extortion
163
But extortion is also more vulnerable to exposure than many other types of corruption.
Targeted action by citizens, managers, investigators and leaders should reduce the
damage it causes and the threats it brings. But what should they do? To support such
action this paperexamines the concerns and explores thedifferences between two forms
of bribery: extortion and enticement. Making that distinction, it is argued, can yield
important analytic advantages and prevention opportunities that lead to
recommendations for action. There are three sections:
(1) Concerns. Why extortion should concern politicians, managers and citizens in
general.
(2) Extortion. Its characteristics described and compared with enticement – the
offer of a bribe to get an unfair advantage which if accepted becomes an act of
collusion.
(3) Action. Actions to combat extortion described and recommendations made.
2. Concerns
On 17 December 2010, in Sidi Bouzid, a rural town in Tunisia, Mohamed Bouazizi set
himself on fire as an act of protest. Why the protest? “For years he and his fellow fruit
sellers had been tormented by local officials who demanded back-handers at every
turn”, as reported by the BBC (BBC TV2, 2011). That day Bouazizi had no money to
pay the “back-hander” – the bribe – and the police had beaten him severely. He went
to the Town Hall to protest but nobody would listen. Enraged he returned to the Town
Hall to set himself ablaze. He was a victim of extortion by those employed to manage a
local market and protect the stall-holders, but who harassed them instead. After
Bouazizi died from his burns on 4 January 2011, protests against Tunisia’s
Government escalated and the country’s President stepped down from power on
14 January, starting the now much-storied “Arab Spring”.
Why thatescalation? Protestsof thissort are by no meansexceptional. There have been
many such protestsin many countries before this, often hushedup by the authorities and
never shown on state-controlled media. The difference now was that pictures of the
burning Bouazizi and of the many who joined in subsequent protest were seen by
millions – includingthose who could not read the messagesbut heard explanations of the
vividscenes they saw from sharingmobile phones, the internetand social media sitessuch
as Facebook and Twitter. Bouazizi was one of Tunisia’s poor. Technologygave the poor
“voice” and “vision” as weapons against corruption and tyranny.
Exciting scenes of protest elsewhere are most likely to lead the viewers to protest if
they have similar groundsfor doing so. The rapid spread of protest in Tunisia suggests
that extortion had beena common practice among officials there, making the sound and
sight of protests against it to resonate withthe many who had been its victims. There as
elsewhere people blamed the government that the officials served as well as the
individual officialswho oppressed them. It is this that makes extortion merit the special
attention of governments everywhere. The power of protest by the semi-rural poor led
urban Tunisiansof all classes to rise in protest againstthe iniquities of government they
experienced, andthe overthrow of Tunisia’s government encouraged citizens to fight for
change in other countries nearby having some similarities of culture and history.
That makes action to reduce extortion a political priority anywhere. Ther e are
ethical, social and economic reasons – as well as political – why the reduction of
JFC
20,2
164
To continue reading
Request your trial