Uruguay moves forward against corruption: a critical look at the new law on illicit enrichment for public officials
Maria Herrera Mellado 
Uruguay has taken a firm step in the fight against corruption by approving a law that incorporates the crime of illicit enrichment into the Penal Code. The legislation, approved unanimously in the Chamber of Deputies and supported by the Senate, introduces severe sanctions for officials who experience a significant and unjustified increase in assets.
However, while this step seems to be aimed at strengthening transparency in public administration, it is essential to carefully examine the possible effects and motivations behind this reform, especially considering its origin in a left-wing coalition.
This article explores the implications of the new law, questions some of its most controversial aspects and offers a critical reflection on its potential impact.
A framework for illicit enrichment: transparency or control?
The new legislation establishes penalties ranging from 18 months to six years in prison, accompanied by fines of up to 645 thousand dollars for those officials who enrich themselves illicitly. In addition, officials must submit a sworn declaration of assets and income, even up to two years after leaving office. On the surface, the law seeks to ensure greater accountability in public service, but is this really an effective measure or simply a mechanism for the State to control its officials?
From a critical perspective, it is legitimate to ask whether this law, which was promoted mainly by the Uruguayan left, is designed to combat corruption or whether, in essence, it could become a tool that affects the freedom of public officials and limits their ability to make decisions without fear of reprisals. While there is no doubt that corruption must be firmly combated, it is also important to prevent policies aimed at eliminating it from ending up promoting an excessively interventionist State.
The obligation to declare assets up to two years after leaving office may, at first, seem a reasonable measure, but what is the limit? The initial proposal of the Frente Amplio, which extended this period to five years, suggests that control over public officials could have been expanded even further. This type of regulation, if not implemented properly, runs the risk of stifling the individual freedom of public servants, who could be forced to make political decisions under constant scrutiny, instead of acting according to their convictions or the needs of their function.
Uruguayan public media explained the law:
«The senators of all parties that make up the commission agreed to approve an alternative text to the two bills, presented by the Frente Amplio and Cabildo Abierto, respectively. This new bill was proposed by the Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology of the Faculty of Law of the University of the Republic.
The text proposes that Article 159 Bis of the Penal Code establish the following: “Any public official with the legal obligation to file a sworn declaration of assets and income who, for his or her own benefit or that of third parties and while in office, including up to two years after having ceased to perform his or her duties, improperly obtains, through his or her function or through the illicit administration of public funds, by himself or herself or through an intermediary, a significant and unjustified increase in assets in relation to his or her legitimate income, shall be punished with a sentence of 18 months to six years in prison, a fine of 50 UR to 15,000 UR, and disqualification of two to five years.” At the value of the Readjustable Unit (UR) this month, the maximum fine would be around US$661,000.
This modification was accepted because it was understood that it “clears up doubts about the constitutionality,” said Eduardo Brenta, who will be the reporting member this Wednesday in the Plenary of the Senate, to the aforementioned media outlet.
The left-wing legislators who promoted the law say the intention of the law is clear: “It does not penalize the use of state assets, but rather the abuse of power to enrich oneself.” However, this statement raises some doubts. The law, by focusing exclusively on the “abuse of power,” could open the door to subjective interpretations of what constitutes “illicit” enrichment and who has the right to judge it.
It is crucial to ask: Who decides what is an abuse of power and what is not? This type of legislation can be susceptible to politicization, where those who have the power to investigate and sanction could use it for their own ends. In a country where political power tends to be concentrated in certain partisan forces, the implementation of this law could result in a double-edged sword: it is established with the intention of attacking corruption, but it could be used to punish those who disagree with the power in power.
In this regard, the law’s reference to «business lobbying» and the «abusive use of political power» also merits critical review. While there are undoubtedly cases where power has been used to the detriment of the public interest, not all relationships between public officials and businessmen involve corruption. The risk here is that the legislation punishes or discourages legitimate cooperation between the public and private sectors, hindering economic development and investment.
I remind you that the Broad Front is a left-wing political coalition in Uruguay.
This law was proposed many months ago, why did the Broad Front vote for its approval only now?…..
The risk of subjectivity and the principle of innocence
Another controversial point of this law is its potential to violate the principle of presumption of innocence, a fundamental right in any democratic system. Although legislators insist that the law does not reverse the burden of proof or presume guilt, in practice, the opposite could happen. Officials, having to justify their assets even after leaving office, find themselves in the position of having to prove their innocence, which puts at risk the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
Trending: October 12: Celebrating Hispanic Heritage as a Cultural Bridge for the United States and Beyond
On the other hand, the need to submit periodic and detailed tax returns may create unnecessary bureaucracy that absorbs time and resources, both for officials and for the entities in charge of supervising them. And although the argument behind this measure is to strengthen transparency, it is not clear whether the law will be able to prevent real cases of corruption or whether it will simply generate a greater administrative burden without addressing the underlying problem.
Is the law enough to prevent corruption?
At the regional level, several Latin American countries have implemented similar laws to fight corruption, although the results have been mixed. In Argentina, for example, regulations on illicit enrichment have existed for years, but corruption remains a structural problem in its public administration. In Peru and Brazil, scandals such as Odebrecht have highlighted the need for stricter measures, but laws alone have not been enough to curb the abuse of power.
The question then is: will this law be effective in Uruguay or will it simply serve as a symbolic gesture? The answer will likely depend on the ability of Uruguayan institutions to apply the law fairly and without political bias. While the approval of this legislation is a step in the right direction, it is important not to become complacent. Uruguay has been recognized as one of the least corrupt countries in Latin America, and must ensure that its anti-corruption policies do not become mechanisms for political persecution or abuse of power by the State itself.
While it is undeniable that corruption must be eradicated, it is also crucial that laws that seek to combat it do not generate collateral effects that could limit the autonomy of public servants or be used as tools of political control. The future will tell whether this law is effective or whether it will need adjustments to ensure that its application is fair and equitable, without compromising the fundamental rights of public servants.
María Herrera Mellado es una abogada de EE.UU. y licenciada en España. Doctora en Ciencias Jurídicas y Analista política. La Dra. Herrera es conocida por su amplia experiencia en análisis y consultas en el diseño de políticas públicas, propuestas de ley y gestión en relaciones internacionales.
Su reconocimiento proviene de sus contribuciones al análisis y representación legal de diversas organizaciones, empresas e individuos que han visto abusados sus derechos humanos, su privacidad o en la inclusión de políticas efectivas fundamentalmente en el ámbito de la transparencia y la rendición de cuentas, así como la lucha contra la corrupción.
Su formación académica y experiencias profesionales la convierten en una voz respetada en el debate público y en el análisis de temas de actualidad sobre todo en los desafíos políticos y legales contemporáneos.
María Herrera Mellado is a U.S.-based attorney also licensed in Spain. She holds a PhD in Legal Sciences and is known as a media legal and policy analyst.
Dr. Herrera is recognized for her extensive experience in analyzing and consulting on public policy design, legislative proposals, and international relations management.
Her recognition stems from her contributions to the analysis and legal representation of various organizations, companies, and individuals whose human rights or privacy have been violated, or who have benefited from the inclusion of effective policies, primarily in the areas of transparency, accountability, and the fight against corruption.
Her academic background and professional experience make her a respected voice in public debate and in the analysis of current issues, particularly in contemporary political and legal challenges.