Under CoI law No. 30 of 2011, all persons who hold positions which titles are identified by article 17 shall submit annual financial disclosure as long as they occupy that job title.
The article 18 of the same law stipulated that every increase in the funds of persons covered by the provisions of article 17 and not commensurate with the regular resources gain is considered illegal unless proven by covered person that it was earned from legitimate sources.
Under article 19 and 20, CoI shall bring every covered person illegal gain increase to the investigative judge to consider asking him to prove that increase was gained from legal sources through providing his financial disclosure statement. For that act, the articles stipulated imprisonment and a fine equal to the value of the illegal gain or one of those penalties and confiscating the illegal gain taking into account penalties prescribed in existing laws.
When financial disclosure is considered the base under which CoI compares funds of covered person who recognizes having it and CoI procedures to detect those properties and the emergence of clear enrichment whether they are legal or not to reach acceptable level of protecting public money and not to use public position for personal interests. Therefore, response to requirements of applying articles contained in chapter 4/ illegal gain under CoI existing law is considered good faith in the public service. And to refrain from providing financial disclosure or submission of incomplete or inadequate information or discover inflation in financial resources of covered person, CoI shall take legal actions against those who refrain from providing that disclosure.
Pursuant to the provisions of articles 26 and 27 of CoI existing law in which they impose as a duty upon CoI to provide annual reports to the media and the public in the field of prosecution of illegal gain and in the field of transparency, accountability and ethical public service, CoI announces three presidencies responses rates and provincial councils, governors and the relevant authorities during 2012 and announces the names of people who did not respond during the same year to provide their financial disclosure statement.
To be mentioned, and along this year, the CoI adopted deliration of percentages and names who presented their financial interests disclosure to give opportunity to those who failed to send their financial interests. This is a message that we always believe in its positives.
As long as 2012 has ended, the CoI commitment and the volume of implementation of this field need to be review. Annual report is to be issued by CoI for 2012 in the first quarter of 2013 and to send it to relative entities and to broadcast on the most area of publics and to enable media, and to take legal measures over axes to be undertaken. For the significant of following up of the forth chapter provision of CoI law in forced of illicit gain, CoI shows responding levels by all entities as follows:
1- Response rate by the republic presidency 100%.
2-Response rate by cabinet presidency for 2012 is 75% due to the non-disclosure of Mr. salih Almutlak his financial interests.
3-Response rate by CoR presidency and members is 64.6%. (210) members have presented their financial disclosure and (115) have refrained.
4- Response rate of the high judicial council (HJC 99 .9%.
5- Response rate by Governors for 2012 is 100%.
6- Response rate by the ministers for 2012 is 96.7%.
7- Response by chairmen of bodies and commissions not associated with any ministry and the position of minister for 2012 is 100%.
8- Response rate by heads of governorate councils for 2012 is (86.7), (13) have presented their disclosure out of (15).
9- Response rate by the members of the governorate councils for 2012 is (80%). (386) members out of (483) have submitted their financial interests. Names that failed to send the financial interest disclosure for 2012, and positions they occupied.