AS FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE DEADLINE PASSES, MANY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 001153 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/16/2018 TAGS: PGOV ECON KCOR JO SUBJECT: AS FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE DEADLINE PASSES, MANY PARLIAMENTARIANS FAIL TO FILE REF: 06 AMMAN 7737 AMMAN 00001153 001.2 OF 002 Classified By: Ambassador David Hale for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) Summary: Under Jordan's Financial Disclosure Law adopted in 2006, parliamentarians and other government officials had until April 13 to disclose their assets to the Ministry of Justice. As of the deadline, 63% of MPs have met the requirement. MPs we talked to were mostly resigned to compliance, but were confused by the procedure and wary about the possibility of blackmail. The financial disclosure effort is part of the GoJ's broader effort to fight corruption. End Summary. Deadline Comes and Goes -------------- ¶2. (U) Jordan's Financial Disclosure Law was adopted in 2006 after vigorous discussions in Parliament and several years of proposed legislation (ref A). In 2006, the discussions were most heated over Article 2 of the legislation, which applies the law to members of both the upper and lower houses of parliament. The law was aimed at deterring public sector corruption, and requires public officials to announce their financial records before they take post. As passed, the law set a deadline of April 13, 2008 for MPs and government officials to reveal their assets to the Ministry of Justice. ¶3. (SBU) Dr. Nazem Jaoussi, Head of the Financial Disclosure Department at the Ministry of Justice, told EmbOff that as of April 16, 54 out of 55 senators; 69 of 110 members of parliament (MP); and all cabinet members had submitted financial disclosure statements. He does not believe that the delay of the non-filers is intentional, but rather that some deputies are out of town; ran out of time; or simply forgot. He also said that 2,600 out of 3,600 officials from public sector institutions, including judges, high-ranking ministry employees, and mayors, have completed the disclosure requirements, and that their deadlines vary based on when the individual became subject to the law. He added that most of the remaining 1,000 are junior and mid-level officials. ¶4. (SBU) According to the law, if an official misses the deadline, the Department will send him/her a judicial notification that compliance is mandatory within 30 days from receipt of the note. If the official does not comply within this timeframe, the department would then proceed to charge him with non-compliance. The penalty for non-disclosure ranges from six months to three years in prison. Jaoussi said that no notifications have yet been sent to MPs since the deadline only recently passed. He noted that the department has already sent 380 notifications to the 1,000 officials who have not yet complied. He added that the department has not yet referred any official to court to charge them with non-compliance. Jaoussi explained that MPs have immunity, and his department would need parliamentary approval in order to charge a member with non-compliance. The department intends to notify the cabinet on a periodic basis about officials who are not in compliance, but the names of those involved will not be released to the public. MPs Wary of Procedure, Suspicious of Blackmail Potential -------------- -------------- ¶5. (C) MPs we talked to were resigned to disclosing their assets, but several were wary about the procedure. "I asked a lawyer, a friend of mine, to fill it out for me," says Amman MP Tareq Khoury. He tried to do it himself, but was afraid of making a mistake and accidentally forgetting some part of his assets - a mistake that could later be politically fatal. He believes that MPs who failed to file were not consciously avoiding the process, but were merely confused or suspicious about the process. ¶6. (C) Mohammed Zreiqat, an MP from Jerash, purposely avoided filing the necessary paperwork. "I don't believe in this," he says. Zreiqat believes that accountability is being used as a cover by the government and security services to obtain information that will later be used for blackmail purposes. He and other MPs point out that there is no mechanism for verifying the truth of the disclosure statements - no receipts or other documentation is required. "MPs can list whatever they like, but the Ministry of Justice won't verify anything," Khoury notes. ¶7. (C) MP Mohammed Al-Shara'a also opined that he does not believe in the effectiveness or the value of the disclosure law, explaining that officials can easily overestimate their holdings at the time of the un-audited statement in anticipation of illicit earnings during the period they are AMMAN 00001153 002.2 OF 002 in office. He did not submit his statement, and gave the impression that he did not intend to comply. ¶8. (C) Hani Nawafleh, an MP from Ma'an, complied with the law and disclosed his finances on time. He believes that the financial disclosures of MPs will eventually become public at any rate, and that it is better to be ahead of the curve and reveal more rather than risk one's political skin by keeping assets hidden. Countering the conspiratorial leanings of his colleagues, Nawafleh points out that disclosures are sealed by the Ministry of Justice until a lawsuit or other administrative action causes them to be subpoenaed. He believes that once disclosure becomes a habit, MPs will file their statements with less of a fuss. NOTE: The law requires submission of financial statements every two years. END NOTE. HALE