Individual Corruption

According to the US Department of State 2010, the denial of public trials and the lack of due process in the judicial system continue to occur, especially for individuals who criticise the political system.

Business Corruption

The Bertelsmann Foundation 2008 reports that judicial professionalism is often limited, especially when it comes to technical areas of commercial law. Judicial corruption occurs, but is less rampant than in many other MENA countries. Companies surveyed by the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011 reveal that they generally perceive the Saudi judiciary to be independent, but that the efficiency of the legal framework in dispute settlement is relatively inefficient. According to the US Department of State 2011 and the US Department of State 2010, dispute settlement in Saudi Arabia is time-consuming and results in uncertain judgments, as court rulings often take years to enforce. In several cases, disputes have reportedly caused various problems for foreign investors. At times, investors have had their access to exit visas blocked, thus forcing them to remain in Saudi Arabia against their will. In cases of alleged fraud, foreign investors may also be jailed to prevent their departure from the country while awaiting police investigation or trial. Due to the fact that Saudi individuals have an advantage over foreign investors in investment disputes because of superior knowledge of Saudi law and culture, foreigners are highly advised to hire local attorneys with knowledge of Saudi legal practices.

Political Corruption

The king is the highest judicial, executive and legislative authority, and according to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2008, senior Saudi princes can avoid the judiciary more or less at will. A clergy appointed by the king has been given some limited autonomy to run the judicial system on a day-to-day basis, but Bertelsmann Foundation 2010 reports that overall the judiciary is seen as subject to the influence from the royal family. According to Freedom House 2010, the judicial system leaves judges with extended discretionary powers as no juries exist, and individual judges usually decide on both verdicts and punishments according to their interpretation of religious law. In 2007, King Abdullah announced the establishment of a new Supreme Court and an Appeals Court, thus replacing the old judiciary council which was widely seen as reactionary and inconsistent. The establishment of new courts was among the first steps of Abdullah's comprehensive judicial reform project that started with the implementation of the Law of the Judiciary in 2007. In February 2009, the King appointed new heads of the Supreme Court and the Appeals Court. Although the king still appoints members to the judiciary, sources such as the Carnegie Endowment 2009 see the new measures as practical steps toward increased judicial independence, as they introduce some institutional checks between judicial entities. Nevertheless, the US Department of State 2010 reports that the Saudi judiciary is not independent and political interference is not uncommon.

In April 2010, the Board of Grievances began trials for 14 staff members of the Ministry of Justice in Jeddah on charges related to the abuse of power. They were allegedly involved in counterfeiting official documents concerning property belonging to the King Abdullah University for Science and Technology, according to the US Department of State 2010.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011:
- Enforcing a commercial contract in Saudi Arabia requires a company to go through an average of 43 administrative procedures, which takes an average of 635 days at an average cost of 27.5% of the claim.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011:
- Business executives give the independence of the Saudi judiciary from influences of members of government, citizens, or companies a score of 5.2 on a 7-point scale (1 'heavily influenced' and 7 'entirely independent').

- Business executives give the efficiency of the legal framework for private companies to settle disputes and to challenge the legality of government actions and/or regulations a score of 4.4 on a 7-point scale (1 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'highly efficient').