—but if the case was solved or closed in a domestic Canadian investigation for money laundering, the situation, technically and legally speaking, presents itself differently. In that case Canada, legally, under the treaty, has the possibility of only giving back 25%, but politically, I can assure you, it is definitely not considered good practice—on the contrary.
There is a lot of debate between requesting and requested states, and I would love Canada's input to this debate. Currently we've been working with the UN system on this for years now. There is an expert panel coming up in February in Addis Ababa that will look at what good practice is, and good practice is for the requesting and the requested state to talk together about how the money can go back and be employed meaningfully in the former victim state in such a way that the damages that were caused by corruption can be somewhat remedied. This really should be a partnership approach, and certainly in no case should the requested state keep 75%. That's fairly shocking.