Anyone who joins the Mauritius Revenue Authority (MRA) is obliged to declare his/her assets and business interests, as well as those of his/her spouse and of his/her minor children (if applicable). A new declaration will have to be submitted every three years. In the past few years, the MRA has made controls on the veracity of the information contained in such declarations a cornerstone of its integrity framework, which describes the instruments (policies and procedures), structures (committees) and cultural factors (values) that guide how the Authority and its officers practise, manage and account for integrity. Once bureaucratic and dull, the process has become a powerful mechanism for detecting illicit enrichment, tax evasion, and conflicts of interest.

The Mauritian declaration of assets (DOA) system is underpinned by a robust legal framework which includes key legislative instruments:

• The MRA Act of 2004 which established the Internal Affairs Division (IAF) within the MRA, tasked with investigating employee misconduct, including illicit enrichment, conflicts of interest, and financial impropriety.
• The Declaration of Assets Act and its Amendment Act, which govern the declaration of assets in the public sector. The Amendment Act, adopted in 2019, expands the definition of “assets” and the categories of persons required to make a declaration of their assets and liabilities, to include high-ranking officials across government sectors, including senior public officers.
• The Financial Crimes Commission Act of 2023 which criminalized illicit enrichment and shifted the burden of proof to officials. It also empowered the IAF to investigate discrepancies between officials’ declared assets and their lifestyle, holding them accountable for unexplained wealth accumulation.

Together, these regulations establish a legal environment where mis-declaration carries tangible consequences, ensuring that DOAs are not merely symbolic, but are enforceable tools in the fight against corruption.

Behind Mauritius’ efforts lies a small but formidable team with wide investigatory powers: the Internal Affairs Division (IAF). It is composed of 11 specialized officers, skilled in financial forensics and workplace investigations, and of two support officers, in charge of managing documents and making sure all declarations are duly received on time.

They believe that “every flagged case is a step toward accountability” and have been exposing multiple malpractices, including erroneous tax self-assessments, excessive and frequent gambling patterns, and unexplained wealth. Disciplinary actions have ensued, ranging from written warnings, to termination of employment contracts of staff of various ranks. Some cases have even been referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (now the Financial Crimes Commission) and the Mauritius Police Force for criminal investigations.

However, IAF work extends beyond investigations: the team also leads ethics training and integrity workshops, and conducts nationwide surveys to understand how corruption and integrity are perceived. Three of the specialized officers are WCO-accredited integrity experts, and one is a WCO-recognized integrity expert who has not gone through the accreditation process but whose experience and expertise qualify him to represent the WCO. During the last five years, these four officers have supported 39 WCO capacity building activities.

The steps to be taken in DOA verification, as well as referrals for tax audits, are documented in our Standard Operation Procedures (SOP) Manual.

The verification process includes two phases:

• Elementary risk assessment from the very start of staff tenure of office so that financial indebtedness may be detected early. The assessment involves analysis of asset declarations for discrepancies (such as assets growing faster than reported income) and for inconsistencies (for example, significant unexplained increases in declared assets, or disproportionate assets). Analytical tools are used to automatically and consistently analyse data and compare declarations over the years to identify patterns, changes or anomalies. Moreover, DOA verification works hand in hand with tax compliance assessment; most information required to conduct the tax audit is in-house and readily available to the investigators. Asset data is also cross-referenced with data on tax returns, property registries, financial operations, and international trade transactions.
• Lifestyle audits, which focus on the spending patterns of public officials, or unusual activities. If the net worth of the declarant does not align with his/her lifestyle – for example, owning luxury vehicles, or extravagant expenditure – this triggers a full examination. Interviews with the declarants are conducted, social media activity is analysed, and assets of family members or related parties are investigated using overt and covert methods.

The IAF works closely with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and other governmental bodies to trace hidden assets, even those stashed offshore. Utilizing a combination of intelligence gathering, forensic analysis and legal tools, the IAF may track illicit wealth across borders, ensuring that no illicit gains remain uncovered.

Asset declarations alone are insufficient: they must be part of an ecosystem where verification is systematic, consequences are real, and the system’s credibility is beyond reproach. In this regard, Mauritius offers proof that even small states can pioneer governance solutions.

One challenge that comes with the analysis of DOAs is the number of false positives. Discrepancies may arise from legitimate factors like inheritances or spousal wealth. It is therefore critical to establish a multi-stage verification process and to conduct a thorough investigation before making accusations, along with enforcing strict confidentiality protocols.

Another challenge is that manual verification can be resource intensive. While the MRA has made strides in automating the process and introduced AI-driven solutions, some countries may lack the necessary tools and underlying IT infrastructure.

Finally, depending on the legal framework, it may be difficult to prove illicit enrichment. The Financial Crimes Commission Act has shifted the burden of proof to officials, but it is a relatively recent measure, and its application is still evolving. Legal challenges may still arise.

Almost 100% of the cases earmarked for tax audit by Internal Affairs have resulted in the detection of tax evasion, illicit enrichment, undisclosed earnings, unexplained wealth, and corruption among MRA officers or their close collaborators/siblings. This seems to have strengthened the culture of integrity, with feedback collected from a wide array of stakeholders during the 2024 Organizational Integrity Perception Survey showing a positive assessment of the policies and practices in place. The Organizational Integrity Index rose from 75.7 to 76.8.

Countries such as Ghana, Kenya and Ukraine have adopted similar asset declaration frameworks with promising results, suggesting that the model can be adapted to different political and economic contexts. The MRA remains available to any Customs administrations wishing to learn more about its DOA system.

More information
Contact the author