The view of anti-graft agencies on the economic stance of citizens.

[Spaceman1000$]

This particular thought has been going through my head for a while so i felt i should bring it up here in the community, maybe there might be different opinions that will help me see things differently.

Anti-graft agencies ordinarily are set up to fight economic and financial crimes and other fraudulent activity that has to do with finances in our society, either by nipping it at the bud or going after perpetrators after the crime might have been done. However there is this seemingly attitude by a lot of anti-graft agencies to always double check wealthy people either by checking the source of their wealth or checking the process to which they make their money, in which I actually don't have a problem with that, but what I have a problem with, is the fact that the anti-graft agencies always turn a blind eye to the sources of people's poverty, because it's making it look as if the State does not like wealthy people rather they are very comfortable with people being poor and their source of poverty is not always checked while the rich are always scrutinize to know how they get their money. So my question, is the anti-graft agencies not seeing financial poverty as a financial crime that they also have to fight against too by looking at the sources of people's poverty or are they comfortable with people being financially poor?

[Zlantann]

So my question, is the antigraph agencies not seeing financial poverty as a financial crime that they also have to fight against too by looking at the sources of people's poverty or are they comfortable with people being financially poor?

Firstly, it is "antigraft and not antigraph". Check the post and make some corrections to avoid misconceptions and confusion.

Secondly, these agencies are created by statutory laws that stipulate their goals and objectives. Globally, their responsibility is to fight and reduce financial crimes. They are not designed to investigate why people are poor. Being poor is not a crime, but engaging in illegal financial activities is an offence. There are other government agencies that have the responsibility of investigating the rate of poverty and how to alleviate it among citizens, but thats not the job of anti-graft agencies.    

[Spaceman1000$]

So my question, is the antigraph agencies not seeing financial poverty as a financial crime that they also have to fight against too by looking at the sources of people's poverty or are they comfortable with people being financially poor?

Firstly, it is "antigraft and not antigraph". Check the post and make some corrections to avoid misconceptions and confusion.

Secondly, these agencies are created by statutory laws that stipulate their goals and objectives. Globally, their responsibility is to fight and reduce financial crimes. They are not designed to investigate why people are poor. Being poor is not a crime, but engaging in illegal financial activities is an offence. There are other government agencies that have the responsibility of investigating the rate of poverty and how to alleviate it among citizens, but thats not the job of anti-graft agencies.    

Thank you for the correction. However those statutory laws are what I am talking about, I haven't seen an agency that it's sole responsibility is to fight against financial poverty as it affects the people, being  poor is not a crime that's very true, but hence your rich, the anti-graft agencies are always keen to check your source of wealth, and this checks are not done to also check the source of people's poverty, so it's more like saying the state is not checking up on you because they are comfortable with you being poor, that's the point am trying to make.

[Zlantann]

Thank you for the correction. However those statutory laws are what I am talking about, I haven't seen an agency that it's sole responsibility is to fight against financial poverty as it affects the people, being  poor is not a crime that's very true, but hence your rich, the anti-graft agencies are always keen to check your source of wealth, and this checks are not done to also check the source of people's poverty, so it's more like saying the state is not checking up on you because they are comfortable with you being poor, that's the point am trying to make.

The fight against poverty is not handled by one agency. One of the major reasons why governments exist is to ensure that their citizens live a peaceful and prosperous life. The point here is to first discover why the people are poor and tackle the root cause of poverty. I guess you are a Nigerian, so I did a search on government poverty alleviation institutions in the country. 

People might be poor because of war and natural disasters; that's why there is the Federal Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction 

Unemployment could be another reason and the government has created Federal Ministry Of Labour & Employment

Every country needs investment and trade to reduce poverty and your country has created Federal Ministry Of Labour & Employment

The youths need to be trained on vaible skills for them to gain employment and come out of poverty and your government has established Federal Ministry of Youth Development

[Spaceman1000$]

Thank you for the correction. However those statutory laws are what I am talking about, I haven't seen an agency that it's sole responsibility is to fight against financial poverty as it affects the people, being  poor is not a crime that's very true, but hence your rich, the anti-graft agencies are always keen to check your source of wealth, and this checks are not done to also check the source of people's poverty, so it's more like saying the state is not checking up on you because they are comfortable with you being poor, that's the point am trying to make.

The fight against poverty is not handled by one agency. One of the major reasons why governments exist is to ensure that their citizens live a peaceful and prosperous life. The point here is to first discover why the people are poor and tackle the root cause of poverty. I guess you are a Nigerian, so I did a search on government poverty alleviation institutions in the country.  

People might be poor because of war and natural disasters; that's why there is the Federal Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction  

Unemployment could be another reason and the government has created Federal Ministry Of Labour & Employment

Every country needs investment and trade to reduce poverty and your country has created Federal Ministry Of Labour & Employment

The youths need to be trained on vaible skills for them to gain employment and come out of poverty and your government has established Federal Ministry of Youth Development

Yes I'm a Nigeria and I can stand to challenge you that most of these ministries you mention are just there for aesthetic purposes and they've not been able to fine-tune the sole reason why they where created and that is why you have such level of underdevelopment, whilst the anti-graft agencies like the EFCC are busy chasing whoever they perceive to be wealthy as proceeds of corruption. So it's not enough to have humanitarian ministries, how effective are they compared to the anti-graft agencies on how they've been fighting against financial corruption, which is why I'm saying such level of scrutiny of people's wealth should be on the same level with the scrutiny source of  people's financial poverty.

[hyudien]

So my question, is the anti-graft agencies not seeing financial poverty as a financial crime that they also have to fight against too by looking at the sources of people's poverty or are they comfortable with people being financially poor?

The path taken by official bodies with corruption inspection institutions by the people is always different. But do not be surprised that we will have difficulty finding an anti corruption institution that is truly independent when carrying out its duties. On the other hand poverty is not a matter of the responsibility of corruption investigators, regardless of the impact of the corruptors themselves the anti corruption agency still only carries out its duties according to the limitations contained in the country laws. This is a kind of different main task between the wealth monitoring agency and the problem of poverty. 2 tasks that have different roles in the field of government.

[Salahmu]

what I have a problem with, is the fact that the anti-graft agencies always turn a blind eye to the sources of people's poverty, because it's making it look as if the State does not like wealthy people rather they are very comfortable with people being poor and their source of poverty is not always checked while the rich are always scrutinize to know how they get their money.

Actually the Anti-graft agency are just like contractors or an employed body to investigate specifically to the wealthy people, so you can see the specification was not for the poor people, so that question is not for the Anti-graft to answer but to the people who created that agency, however it would have been good in what you said that the government that sent them should have look at the basis of the poor because is not fair when someone doesn't have money the government does not no you but immediately you become wealthy they send there agency on you to investigate your source of money but however that shouldn't be a bone of contention because if someone genuinely make there money to prove it is nothing serious.

[Gozie51]

So my question, is the anti-graft agencies not seeing financial poverty as a financial crime that they also have to fight against too by looking at the sources of people's poverty or are they comfortable with people being financially poor?

Well I don't know if you are trying to be funny, hilarious or ironical. But the anti crime agencies don't have business with the poor. They don't have business with those who have not embezzled money. Just as the modus operandi of their work destination, they are meant to go after those that have embezzled public funds or allegedly stolen such money. Of course, if people embezzle monies meant for public good then it means works or projects that were suppose to be done to uplift the standard of living of the people would be left undone, thereby impoverishing the people. So if they are able to go after those who stole, alleged to have stolen or about to steal, putting them into prison after conviction then more people will be far from stealing. Therefore, going after them could be the antidote for being rich if things and monies were utilized properly.

[alani123]

You expect class consciousness from state authorities? This will never happen under capitalism. The capitalist state is made and propped up by those it needs to serve. If you want something different, you'd need to live in a post revolutionary society.

Many people forget that you can't legislate your way out of unfairness. Capitalism is always unfair by design. The many work for the few. The many get taken advantage of. The rich become richer and the poor poorer. Anti-corruption agencies can only do so much. But when the rich can buy the media, promote the party they want into government, hire their favorite prosecutors etc... Essentially they control every branch of governmenance. America is a prime example of how fast this can happen. Not that previous administrations were better, but Musk getting a seat in government just by virtue of buy in is a great example.

You can't beat the system with the system really. It needs to be toppled if you want real change.

[Fortify]

This particular thought has been going through my head for a while so i felt i should bring it up here in the community, maybe there might be different opinions that will help me see things differently.

Anti-graft agencies ordinarily are set up to fight economic and financial crimes and other fraudulent activity that has to do with finances in our society, either by nipping it at the bud or going after perpetrators after the crime might have been done. However there is this seemingly attitude by a lot of anti-graft agencies to always double check wealthy people either by checking the source of their wealth or checking the process to which they make their money, in which I actually don't have a problem with that, but what I have a problem with, is the fact that the anti-graft agencies always turn a blind eye to the sources of people's poverty, because it's making it look as if the State does not like wealthy people rather they are very comfortable with people being poor and their source of poverty is not always checked while the rich are always scrutinize to know how they get their money. So my question, is the anti-graft agencies not seeing financial poverty as a financial crime that they also have to fight against too by looking at the sources of people's poverty or are they comfortable with people being financially poor?

You seem confused as to the purpose of this particular agency? You don't have fire fighters going around trying to run a zoo or do dental surgery, they are paid to do one specific job - put out fires. The responsibility of detectives and officers in an anti corruption office is to find cases of fraud or bribery that are taking place, which often involves following money trails that will usually end up at the door of somebody rich enough to pay them. They have little interest in talking to the poorest in society, because they are small fish in comparison and targeting them is not going to do much at all. There are other departments that cover welfare and benefits, which are tasked with solving the societal problems you describe.

[philipma1957]

So my question, is the antigraph agencies not seeing financial poverty as a financial crime that they also have to fight against too by looking at the sources of people's poverty or are they comfortable with people being financially poor?

Firstly, it is "antigraft and not antigraph". Check the post and make some corrections to avoid misconceptions and confusion.

Secondly, these agencies are created by statutory laws that stipulate their goals and objectives. Globally, their responsibility is to fight and reduce financial crimes. They are not designed to investigate why people are poor. Being poor is not a crime, but engaging in illegal financial activities is an offence. There are other government agencies that have the responsibility of investigating the rate of poverty and how to alleviate it among citizens, but thats not the job of anti-graft agencies.    

Thank you for the correction. However those statutory laws are what I am talking about, I haven't seen an agency that it's sole responsibility is to fight against financial poverty as it affects the people, being  poor is not a crime that's very true, but hence your rich, the anti-graft agencies are always keen to check your source of wealth, and this checks are not done to also check the source of people's poverty, so it's more like saying the state is not checking up on you because they are comfortable with you being poor, that's the point am trying to make.

America declared war on poverty in the 1960s it was a financial disaster.

Why work if the government gives you a check to bang out kids?

[franky1]

a much simpler explanation

why employ someone to investigate a crime of the value of a loaf of bread,
whereby the investigation itself becomes a cost of 2000loaves of bread jsut to investigate and put through a court system to punish the criminal. where as they can easily use the 2000loaves of bread investigation budget to investigate a rich guy that laundered 2,000,000 loaves of bread value. seize the 2,000,000 lob value. take out their costs and give back 1,999,800lob value back to victims

..
this is why when a poor person steals one loaf of bread, the police dont want to criminalise it, so its just handled as a civil matter, meaning the retailer would be the one that would have to decide if its worth the effort to put the thief through the court system. police only deal with larger thefts where its economically viable to treat as a criminal offence

this is why there is a separation in some countries of things being deemed either misdemeanour vs felony, civil vs criminal
certain agencies only want to handle felony/criminal cases as its not economical to investigate civil/misdemeanours

..
other agencies exist to handle the petty amounts and other agencies than those are the ones that handle the society conditions that cause the petty thefts.

[Lida93]

Thank you for the correction. However those statutory laws are what I am talking about, I haven't seen an agency that it's sole responsibility is to fight against financial poverty as it affects the people, being  poor is not a crime that's very true, but hence your rich, the anti-graft agencies are always keen to check your source of wealth, and this checks are not done to also check the source of people's poverty, so it's more like saying the state is not checking up on you because they are comfortable with you being poor, that's the point am trying to make.

The fight against poverty is not handled by one agency. One of the major reasons why governments exist is to ensure that their citizens live a peaceful and prosperous life. The point here is to first discover why the people are poor and tackle the root cause of poverty. I guess you are a Nigerian, so I did a search on government poverty alleviation institutions in the country.  

People might be poor because of war and natural disasters; that's why there is the Federal Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction  

Unemployment could be another reason and the government has created Federal Ministry Of Labour & Employment

Every country needs investment and trade to reduce poverty and your country has created Federal Ministry Of Labour & Employment

The youths need to be trained on vaible skills for them to gain employment and come out of poverty and your government has established Federal Ministry of Youth Development

Yes I'm a Nigeria and I can stand to challenge you that most of these ministries you mention are just there for aesthetic purposes and they've not been able to fine-tune the sole reason why they where created and that is why you have such level of underdevelopment, whilst the anti-graft agencies like the EFCC are busy chasing whoever they perceive to be wealthy as proceeds of corruption. So it's not enough to have humanitarian ministries, how effective are they compared to the anti-graft agencies on how they've been fighting against financial corruption, which is why I'm saying such level of scrutiny of people's wealth should be on the same level with the scrutiny source of  people's financial poverty.

The EFCC and the ICPC as agencies have their specific functions as stipulated by the Acts that created them as anti-financial graft bodies. It would be a misgiven or a departure of functions which could question that actual purpose of it creation logically. However, what I frown about these agencies is that they have lost their independence and it's been used as tools of attack and terror towards oppositions in the country by the ruling government thereby being selective in the fight against financial crime and corruption.

On that note, there have been many poverty elevation programmes that have been initiated to help fight poverty in the past and currently, through these agencies and ministries and parastatal that @Zlantann provided above but it's quite unfortunate that they more often than not reach their very targeted populace but rather its been diverted by the already rich people towards families members and cronies instead. Which has really made these programmes objectives unachievable.

Programmes such as:

National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP)

National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS)

N-Power

National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS)

Operation Feed the Nation (OFN), and a host of others.

[Faisal2202]

So my question, is the anti-graft agencies not seeing financial poverty as a financial crime that they also have to fight against too by looking at the sources of people's poverty or are they comfortable with people being financially poor?

Well you already gave the answer to this question, which is, these anti graft agencies are only responsible for finding financial crimes, or to make efforts to stop one from ocurring. Point is finding the root of why poverty is there in the first place, is not their department. They are being paid, they will be questioned by superiors, they have to generate reports and all that, they can't just do whatever they want to do.

The poverty and why it is there in the first place, is the depart of local government, NGOs, Social development, even education department etc have to work together to find the root and help to solve the problem. And they have to do it with the resources they are given.

[justdimin]

my question, is the anti-graft agencies not seeing financial poverty as a financial crime that they also have to fight against too by looking at the sources of people's poverty or are they comfortable with people being financially poor?

No government will end up having a ministry that will be fighting or chasing corruption, because they are the ones who are doing it, so even if the president himself doesn't do it, finding out their own party member, an elected official, end up doing something corrupting means they need to deny any existence of it, if they chase and jail every single one of them, they will find so many that they won't have anyone left over.

Moreover, most politicians go into politics because they are corrupt, so if you jail them all, you won't have any politicians left. Don't have hopes about how government could fix itself, or the people, with enough bribery they won't even help you and help the private citizens who bribe them instead.