Tag Archives: UK Bribery Act

TI Report on Anti-Bribery Compliance Programs in the Defense Industry: Some Quick Reactions

Posted on by
Reply

Last April Transparency International UK released a very interesting report on the quality of corporate anti-bribery compliance programs in the defense industry. (This was the second such report; the first was issued in 2015). The report evaluated the ethics and anti-bribery compliance programs of 163 defense companies along five dimensions (leadership & governance, risk management, policies & codes, training, personnel & helplines) using publicly available information, supplemented with additional internal information from 63 cooperating firms, and assigned each firm a letter grade (A-F). The most eye-catching result, and the one that has gotten the most attention in the press releases and reporting on the report, is how badly the defense industry seems to be doing overall on this issue: Of the 163 firms included in the review, there were 4 As, 23 Bs, 29 Cs, 31 Ds, 19 Es, and 57 Fs. Thus, fewer than 17% of the defense firms examined scored in the A or B range, while close to half (47%) received a failing grade of E or F.

That’s certainly a notable and important (and depressing) finding, but digging a bit deeper, there are a few other interesting features of the report that have gotten a bit less attention, and are worth highlighting. Continue reading →

The Economist Gets It Badly Wrong on Anti-Bribery Law

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, The Economist published an op-ed entitled “Daft on Graft,” which argued that the enforcement of transnational anti-bribery laws like the U.S. FCPA and U.K. Bribery Act is “becoming ridiculous,” with costs that are “spiraling beyond what is reasonable,” and that we are now witnessing “a descent into investigative madness.”

If I spent all my time responding to poorly-reasoned claptrap that looks like it was written either by a shill for business lobbyists or by someone who didn’t know much about the topic, I wouldn’t have time to do anything else. But when such claptrap appears in a widely-read, well-respected publication like The Economist, I can’t just let it pass. I know, I know—it may be unfair to beat up on a short op-ed, a format that doesn’t lend itself to in-depth analysis or nuance. But still, even by the standards of op-eds in popular periodicals, this is pretty bad. The diagnosis of the problem is shrill, one-sided, and hyperbolic, and the proposed reforms are either already in place, or misguided.

Maybe the best way to approach this is to consider each of the op-ed’s four proposed “reforms” to anti-bribery law enforcement one at a time: Continue reading →

Dear Governments: Please Don’t Make Private Certification the Touchstone of an Adequate Anti-Bribery Program!!!

Posted on by
6

A little while back, I posted a couple of critical commentaries (here and here) about the efforts underway to develop an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard for corporate anti-bribery programs (ISO 37001), modeled on the already-existing UK standard developed by the British Standard Institute (BS 10500). (For those unfamiliar with these organizations or what they do, these standards are developed by a private consortium, and then private firms conduct–for a fee–audits of companies and provide a “certification” that the company is in compliance with the standard. These standards in the past have dealt with technical or quality control issues — the proposed anti-bribery standard is, to the best of my knowledge, the first ISO standard to deal with a legal issue of this type.) Without rehashing my earlier posts here, I raised questions both about how these certifications were supposed to work in practice, and about what they were for. I raised but dismissed the possibility that law enforcement might treat ISO/BS certification as an adequate indicator that a firm had a satisfactory compliance program (or that absence of ISO/BS certification as an indicator the compliance program was inadequate). I dismissed the possibility because lots of people (including those who work in the compliance certification business and those involved with the development of the ISO standard), assured me that such certification was not intended to have that kind of dispositive legal significance (even if it might be relevant to the law enforcement agency’s inquiry).

I would have left the matter there, and probably not written about it again, but for some remarks at last December’s World Bank International Corruption Hunters Alliance meeting. On a panel about “Fighting Transnational Bribery,” Detective Inspector Roger Cook, with the Operations area in the City of London Police’s Economic Crime Directorate, spoke with great enthusiasm about BS 10500, the model for the proposed ISO 37001. (This is perhaps unsurprising given that, as I just learned from his City of London police bio, he “contributed to the development and implementation of … BS 10500 and the developing ISO 37001.”) I don’t have a transcript or a video, nor am I a trained stenographer, but I tried to copy down Detective Inspector Cook’s remarks on this topic as close to verbatim as possible, and they went (according to my notes) more or less like this:

[If you’re a company, the BS 10500 standard] is going to give you a lot of comfort. Simply by getting accredited, then you have those adequate procedures that the UK Bribery Act requires companies to have [(that is, to satisfy the affirmative defense to the strict liability offense of failure to prevent foreign bribery)]. If the company has BS 10500 [certification], we’re not going to look much further, as long as they’re applying it properly. And an ISO standard [ISO 37001] is also in the works, about 18 months away. Think how good that would be, if every company going for a public contract were accredited. [We should] make that [certification] a condition for public contracts.

Now, Detective Inspector Cook was speaking in his personal capacity, not on behalf of the City of London Police or the British government. And he is not affiliated with the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), which has principal responsibility for bringing enforcement actions under the UK Bribery Act. But I nonetheless found these remarks quite troubling, so perhaps it’s worth restating the reasons why private anti-bribery certification or accreditation, according to something like the proposed ISO standard, should not be considered necessary or sufficient to establish the compliance defense under the UK Bribery Act, and should not be considered necessary or sufficient to engage in government contracting. Continue reading →

Guest Post: The Impact of Foreign Anti-Bribery Laws on the Demand-Side Countries

Posted on by
8

Francesco De Simone, an Advisor at the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, contributes the following guest post:

What are the consequences of “supply side” foreign bribery laws, like the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and UK Bribery Act (UKBA), on the developing countries that are often the bribe receivers in foreign bribery cases (the “demand side”)? When can OECD country (say, the United States) prosecutes a company for paying a bribe in a developing country (say Nigeria), what are the implications for Nigeria – for its institutions and for its overall corruption environment and anti-corruption framework? How does the investigation or prosecution affect Nigeria’s ability to investigate prosecute the same case? What are the consequences if the U.S. case is settled? How can Nigeria obtain restitution of the proceeds of the bribe? And should it?

Although foreign anti-bribery laws like the FCPA have attracted a great deal of analysis and discussion (including on this blog: see here, here, here, here, and here), there is much less material on those sorts of questions. (An exception is the work by Professor Kevin Davis, see here and here, also discussed on this blog.) In a new U4 paper I co-wrote with Bruce Zagaris, we attempt to provide a more in-depth analysis of how supply-side enforcement of foreign anti-bribery laws by OECD countries affects parallel investigation and enforcement action in the demand-side country whose officials allegedly took the bribes. Unfortunately, reliable information on how many supply-side enforcement actions result in parallel investigations by the demand-side host countries is not currently available (so far as we know), but we were able to extract a great deal of useful information from FCPA and UKBA cases, as well as other recent studies like the Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative (StAR) Left Out of the Bargain report.

The main takeaways from our study can be summarized as follows: Continue reading →

Curbing Corrpution in Papua New Guinea: What Australia Can do

Posted on by
7

A lively discussion is underway on the Development Policy Centre‘s DevPolicy Blog about what Australia can do to help control corruption in Papua New Guinea, the largest recipient of Australian foreign assistance.   It follows a government promise that by July 2015 the government will “detail the measures we [Australia] will adopt to protect Australian Government aid funds and how [Australia] will support our partner country’s anti-corruption efforts.”  What’s made the discussion so lively, as Grant Walton and Stephen Howes explain in the initial post, is the juxtaposition of Foreign Minister Julie Bishop’s recent discussion of the government’s plans to implement the policy with PNG Prime Minister Peter O’Neill’s evasion of arrest for his alleged role in a major corruption scandal and his attempts to dismantle PNG’s anti-corruption taskforce. Continue reading →

Guest Post: Compliance, No Science

Posted on by
1

Liz David-Barrett, the Director of the Oxford Centre for the Study of Corruption and Transparency, contributes the following guest post:

More and more countries are introducing and enforcing anti-bribery laws these days, as governments implement their commitments under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and the UN Convention Against Corruption.  By making companies liable for prosecution if they pay bribes to foreign public officials, the drafters hope to persuade companies to stop paying bribes and take measures to ensure that no bribes are paid on their behalf.  But do they work?   What do companies do when faced with a new anti-bribery law?

The United Kingdom since the introduction of the Bribery Act is a good laboratory for researching this question.  Passed in 2010, the Act came into effect only in July 2011.  But companies had ample time to prepare, given the prolonged hype as the Bill was debated in parliament. Some companies were — and still are — in denial, perhaps because they think they are not at risk, or the chances of being caught are slim. At the other end of the spectrum, some companies concluded that the Bribery Act created such serious legal risks that they opted to withdraw from certain high-risk markets entirely. But the vast majority of companies have responded to the Bribery Act by introducing or reforming their anti-bribery policies — that is, by amping up their corporate compliance programs.  So what have we learned so far from research on UK firms’ anti-bribery compliance programs? Continue reading →

The Prosecution of Bribery: What Lawmakers Can Learn from Bavaria and Virginia

Posted on by
5

Prosecutors thinking about whether to pursue a case against the recipient or payer of a bribe will surely think twice given events of the past weeks in the German state of Bavaria and the American state of Virginia.  In Bavaria the bribery prosecution against Formula One impresario Bernie Ecclestone collapsed mid-trial after the judge expressed strong doubts the case could be proved.  In Virginia prosecutors are slogging through the third of what is expected to be a six week trial as they try to show that Robert McDonnell, the state’s former governor, was paid to shill for a local business.  To prosecutors, the two cases remind that bribery is no easy crime to prove and that losing carries risks both personal and professional.  To lawmakers, the two cases should prompt a scrub of their nation’s bribery laws to see whether the bar they have set for proving a case is too high. Continue reading →

The FCPA’s “Facilitating Payments” Exception: Mostly Harmless

Posted on by
2

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) contains a sweeping prohibition on paying bribes to foreign officials—but also contains an exception for so-called “facilitating payments” (also sometimes called “grease payments”) meant to secure non-discretionary “routine government action.” The exception was included in the FCPA to respond to complaints by representatives of the U.S. business community that it was impossible to do business in certain countries without making these “grease payments” to low-level bureaucrats. The exception has been criticized—occasionally by those who think that the exemption is too narrow and should be expanded (or, to use their preferred euphemism, “clarified”), but more recently by a growing chorus of voices that has called for the elimination of the FCPA’s facilitation payments exception. This chorus has included, perhaps most prominently, the OECD’s Working Group on Bribery (responsible for the peer-review process under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention), along with several of the OECD’s senior officials. And, notably, more recent foreign bribery legislation—most prominently the UK Bribery Act—contains no exception for facilitating payments. Possibly for this reason, at several recent international anticorruption conferences I’ve attended, participants (especially from outside the U.S.) have asked whether (or when) the U.S. will eliminate the grease payment exemption.

Continue reading →

Brazil’s Clean Companies Act: Ineffective for Combating Local Corruption?

Posted on by
2

In January 2014, the Brazilian Clean Companies Act (CCA) came into effect. Under the CCA, Brazilian companies and foreign entities with a Brazilian registered office, branch, or affiliate can be sanctioned (civilly and administratively) for the bribery of domestic or foreign public officials, with penalties up to 20% of a company’s gross billings. The Act may be cause for optimism that Brazil is going to get serious about the corruption that has hampered its development, undermined trust in government, and provoked riots.

But despite the CCA’s tough sanctions and sweeping provisions, there are reasons to doubt whether the law will be effective at combatting corruption at the local level (as opposed to national-level officials).  Even if the CCA might go some way toward dealing with corruption at the national level, the new law fails to to adequately address local-level corruption in Brazil — and this is a major limitation, because local corruption in Brazilian business dealings is especially rampant.  There are at least two reasons why it is questionable the CCA will effectively combat local corruption. Continue reading →