- Home
- About Us
- Our Work
- Why It Matters
- Defence Corruption Risks Typology
- Diagnosing Corruption Risks
- Metrics & Surveys
- Self-Assessment Process
- research
- TI Defence Company Index
- Preliminary Results
- Northrop Grumman
- Babcock International
- Boeing
- DCNS
- EMBRAER
- Finmeccanica
- Fujitsu
- Lockheed Martin
- Rolls Royce
- Safran
- Thales
- BAE Systems
- Dyncorp
- General Electric
- Harris Corporation
- Hewlett Packard
- Raytheon
- Honeywell
- ITT Corporation
- KBR Inc
- Kongsberg
- L3 Communications
- Nec Corporation
- Rockwell Collins
- SAIC Company
- ST Engineering
- Meggit
- Thyssen Krupp
- Arsenal AD
- Cobham
- Curtiss Wright
- Day & Zimmermann
- General Dynamics
- Patria
- QinetiQ
- Rafael Advanced Defense Systems
- Cobham
- RUAG
- Russian Helicopters
- Saab
- Textron
- Ultra Electronics
- Serco
- EADS
- Dassault Aviation
- Fluor
- Diehl Stiftung
- CAE Inc
- MDBA Missile Systems
- Thyssen Krupp 2
- Finmeccanica 2
- Goodrich Corporation
- United Technologies
- Aselsan
- Agility
- Preliminary Results
- Government Index
- With Governments & Armed Forces
- With the Defence Industry
- Education & Training
- Tackling Defence Corruption Around the World
- Focus Areas
- Tools & Resources
- Publications
- FAQ
- Media Room
- News Archive
- Upcoming Events
- Blog
- Press Releases
- What we are Reading/Listening to
- Defence Corruption News Digest
- Our Programme in the Media
- Events Archive
- 'The Transparency of Defence Budgets' got high media attention in launch in Malaysia
- Recruitment
Political Risks
Defence establishments should be under the democratic control of the political authority that is accountable to its population. Corruption in this context encompasses over-elaborate and opaque defence policy, hidden defence budgets, cronyism at the leadership level, organised crime links, misuse of intelligence for corrupt purposes, and ultimately state capture by officials linked to the defence establishment.





