Formal Review of Italy’s Compliance with OECD Antibribery Convention Requested

In a June 5 submission to Kathleen Roussel, Chair of the OECD Working Group on Bribery, three NGOs have asked the group to find Italy has failed to prevent political interference in a case where, in the face of overwhelming evidence, Italian oil giant Eni, Shell, and accomplices were acquitted of paying a $1.1 billion bribe to acquire rights to Nigerian oil field license OPL-245 (here).

As a party to the OECD Antibribery Convention, Italy pledged that the investigation and prosecution of foreign bribery cases would not “be influenced by considerations of national economic interest. . . or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved” (article 5). In their submission, the NGOs list 60 different instances where politics, Eni’s nationality, or both compromised the case. The evidence includes:

  • Admissions by Italian officials Eni associates conspired with state officials to “pollute” the OPL 245 investigation
  • The current trial of Eni’s former chief legal counsel for his alleged role in the plot
  • The termination of the OPL 245 prosecutions on overtly political grounds
  • The disciplining and criminal conviction of the two First Instance court prosecutors on charges that an independent judicial expert has described as “questionable conjectures

The complaining NGOs are Corner House Research of the United Kingdom; Hawkmoth, a Netherlands-stichting; and Nigeria’s HEDA Resource Centre.

The Working Group on Bribery is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Convention, and the NGOs’ submission is now circulating among its members. The Convention remains a signal commitment in the global fight against corruption.The Working Group should act promptly and decisively to see Italy observes its commitment to eradicating foreign bribery – no matter the political implications or the bribe payor’s identity.

The Corruption of Italian Democracy: Russian Influence Over Italy’s League

Italy’s largest far-right policy, La Lega (“the League”), has long had close ties with Putin’s regime in Russia. The League’s leader, Matteo Salvini, has been a vocal supporter of Putin for years (see also here, here, and here), and in 2017 the League signed a formal cooperation agreement with Putin’s United Russia party. Even before then, the League (then known as Lega Nord, the “Northern League”) often advocated within Italy and the EU for Russian interests. Notably, while the EU imposed sanctions on Russia after Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, the League opposed sanctions and tried (unsuccessfully) to upend the solidarity necessary to keep EU sanction in place. That opposition to sanctions only intensified after the 2017 cooperation agreement: At a 2018 conference in Moscow, Salvini—then Italy’s Interior Minister–insisted that Italy would work “day and night” to repeal the 2014 sanctions. Salvini’s efforts proved unsuccessful, as he was unable to convince his coalition partners to change Italy’s stance. But the Kremlin still benefitted from the League’s vocal opposition to sanctions, as it showed that Russia wasn’t isolated diplomatically and that the West is internally divided.

The League’s long history of cooperation with Moscow could be chalked up to shared ideology and policy goals. But it appears that corruption, not policy, might explain why the party is so close with Putin.

Continue reading

Is Italy Backtracking on the Fight Against Foreign Bribery?

Press reports, informed commentary, and the recent acquittal of ENI and Royal Dutch Shell despite overwhelming evidence they bribed Nigerian officials provide alarming evidence that Italy’s commitment to curbing foreign bribery is waning.

That commitment was never that strong to begin with. Although bound by the OECD Antibribery Convention to investigate and prosecute foreign bribery cases, in 2011 the OECD Working Group on Bribery found Italy had done little to comply. In the decade since ratifying the convention, only a few dozen cases had been brought, almost all against individuals for small-time bribery, and most had ended in acquittals. This dismal record was not surprising, the Working Group observed, given no one had been trained on how to investigate foreign bribery cases, and no public prosecutor’s office specialized in such cases.

The one bright spot the Working Group found was the Milan office of the public prosecutor.  It had aggressively pursued foreign bribery cases, opening by far the lion’s share of cases, including all those where a corporation was involved. Its future is now in doubt.

Continue reading