A/HRC/36/52 B. Return of stolen assets 34. The situation is absolutely striking in relation to the return of stolen assets. Hundreds of millions of dollars of illicit provenance remain frozen in Switzerland. 53 The Government claims that it is seeking — honestly and vigorously — to return these funds to the countries of origin. 54 It also claims that the lack of restitution is eroding the good reputation and integrity of the Swiss financial centre. There is a similar willingness at the cantonal level. In Geneva, for example, the millions of dollars in illicit financial flows laundered through the housing market have led to a housing crisis that disproportionally affects the working class and the poorest sectors of the society. 35. A number of legal matters relating to the return of stolen assets are currently pending before the Swiss courts. National legislation provides means to appeal at all stages of the proceedings. Procedures are protracted and lawyers are making huge profits from assisting criminals to hide and benefit from illicit financial flows. In the case of the former dictator of Nigeria, for example, those assisting Sani Abacha in avoiding the restitution of the stolen assets took a total of $17 million. 55 They are competent and efficient in delaying tactics, which partially explains why the assets stolen by the Ben Ali-Trabelsi and Mubarak clans in 2011 have not yet been returned to the countries of origin. 36. The Foreign Illicit Assets Act 2015 was passed to facilitate the restitution of illicit assets also in cases where mutual legal assistance is not feasible or fails. However, the impact of this specific regulation remains to be seen in practice. The law may facilitate the release of illicit assets frozen when a solution of compromise is reached between the affected State and the person suspected of misappropriation. Such arrangements are controversial, since they also preclude any legal proceedings initiated in the country of origin as well as anti-money-laundering investigations taking place in Switzerland. 56 VI. Case studies on the repatriation of illicit financial flows 37. The following examples show the role financial institutions play by blatantly accepting suspicious funds. Banks and law professionals profit from these protracted and complex processes to make huge profits at the expense of the affected countries, which need the money for development and the enjoyment of all human rights. A. Nigeria 38. This is one of the exceptional cases in which a looted State managed within a reasonable period of time to successfully repatriate much of the illicit financial flows transferred outside its shores. As is well known, the former dictator, Sani Abacha, and his entourage managed to misappropriate over $2 billion of State funds. 57 Money was systematically diverted from the Central Bank to banks in Austria, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Switzerland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Jersey, and the United States. In Switzerland alone, the Abacha clan had a total of 130 bank accounts. 53 54 55 56 57 The country has returned $2 billion in the past 30 years. However, hundreds of millions of dollars are still frozen. Switzerland has recently published the booklet No Dirty Money: The Swiss Experience in Returning Illicit Assets, December 2016. S. Besson, “La fin de l’affaire Abacha enrichit deux études d’avocats genevois”, Le Temps, 17 March 2015. O. Longchamp and Herkenrath, “Money-laundering”, p. 136. The looted funds were transferred directly to bank accounts abroad held by offshore companies belonging to members of the Abacha clan or foreign businessmen, who then remitted the same sums to members of what were characterized as “a criminal organization”. See E. Monfrini and Y. Klein, “The Abacha case”, in M. Pieth, ed., Recovering Stolen Assets (2008), pp. 10-11. 11