DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction to the 2019 Anti-Corruption Regulation Survey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction to the 2019 Anti-Corruption Regulation Survey Jones Day Table of Contents GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................................................................... iii Africa ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Kenya ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Mozambique ........................................................................................................................................... 9 South Africa .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Asia Pacific .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Australia ................................................................................................................................................ 17 China ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 Hong Kong ............................................................................................................................................ 26 India ...................................................................................................................................................... 30 Indonesia ............................................................................................................................................... 33 Japan ..................................................................................................................................................... 37 Laos ....................................................................................................................................................... 42 Malaysia ................................................................................................................................................ 45 Myanmar ............................................................................................................................................... 49 Philippines ............................................................................................................................................. 53 Singapore .............................................................................................................................................. 57 South Korea .......................................................................................................................................... 61 Taiwan ................................................................................................................................................... 65 Thailand ................................................................................................................................................ 67 Timor-Leste .......................................................................................................................................... 74 Vietnam ................................................................................................................................................. 77 Europe ................................................................................................................................................................. 80 Austria ................................................................................................................................................... 80 Belgium ................................................................................................................................................. 84 France .................................................................................................................................................... 86 Germany ............................................................................................................................................... 94 Italy ........................................................................................................................................................ 97 The Netherlands ................................................................................................................................. 102 Poland .................................................................................................................................................. 105 Russia .................................................................................................................................................. 108 Spain .................................................................................................................................................... 110 United Kingdom ................................................................................................................................. 113 Qatar ................................................................................................................................................... 117 Middle East ....................................................................................................................................................... 120 Saudi Arabia ....................................................................................................................................... 120 United Arab Emirates ........................................................................................................................ 123 North America .................................................................................................................................................. 127 Canada ................................................................................................................................................ 127 Mexico ................................................................................................................................................. 131 United States of America ................................................................................................................... 136 South America .................................................................................................................................................. 142 Argentina ............................................................................................................................................ 142 Brazil ................................................................................................................................................... 148 Chile .................................................................................................................................................... 154 Colombia ............................................................................................................................................. 157 Ecuador ............................................................................................................................................... 162 Uruguay............................................................................................................................................... 165 Venezuela ............................................................................................................................................ 169 JONES DAY CONTACTS BY COUNTRY ................................................................................................................. 172 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ .... 172 Jones Day Introduction to the 2019 Anti-Corruption Regulation Survey Welcome to the 2019 edition of the Jones Day Anti-Corruption Regulation Survey of Select Countries. Since the 2017–2018 edition of this Survey, there has continued to be an increasing awareness among multinational companies of the significance of anti-corruption regulations in foreign countries and the potential risks of violating these regulations or of being associated with companies or individuals that have violated such regulations. A number of countries made significant changes to their anti-corruption regulations in 2018 and 2019 to date, including, among others, Chile, India, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam. Furthermore, since 2018, there have been significant developments in several countries related to anti-corruption, especially with respect to enforcement practice and policy, such as in Brazil, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. Other countries included in this Survey have indicated proposed amendments to anti-corruption regulations, the restructuring of anti-corruption enforcement bodies and enhanced coordination with the anti-corruption authorities of other jurisdictions. The 2019 edition of this Survey includes Qatar, a jurisdiction that had not been covered in previous years. This Survey is intended to provide an overview of the complex and evolving anti-corruption regulations in the 42 countries covered herein. Ways in which this Survey may be useful will vary depending on a company’s situation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Global Compact Principle 10
    30/09/2020 Reporting – Global Compact Principle 10 1 ANTI-CORRUPTION PRINCIPLE 10 With regard to ethics, ENGIE’s goal is to act in accordance with its values and commitments, always and everywhere, observing all applicable laws and regulations in force. Fighting corruption is one of the Group’s major commitments, reflected in its organization and modes of governance. ENGIE policy is based on the principle of maintaining a culture of integrity, trust and honesty, including a zero tolerance policy on fraud and corruption, both inside and outside the company when it deals with third parties. In 2012 the Group started reporting on the 10th principle against corruption for the Global Compact which comprises about 22 indicators. The reporting is made in accordance with the guidelines provided by UNGC and Transparency International. Basic Reporting Desired Reporting N° Actions Element Element 1. Commitment and policy B1-B2 D1-D5 2. Implementation B3-B6 D6-D11 3. Monitoring B7 D12-D15 This action is part of a broader program of voluntary initiatives taken by the Group to contribute improving integrity, as ENGIE is committed to developing the highest standards of ethics and transparency and supports multilateral international initiatives to fight corruption. “Behave honestly and promote a culture of integrity” is one of the 4 fundamental ethical principles guiding ENGIE, according to the Group Ethics charter, updated in 2016, published in 20 languages and distributed to all Group employees. ENGIE, which employs around 170,000 people, understands the need for inviolable ethics rules, the respect for integrity, and for adequate means of continuously raising the awareness of every employee on ethics.
    [Show full text]
  • FCPA & Anti-Bribery
    alertFall 2019 FCPA & Anti-Bribery Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP A New York Limited Liability Partnership • One Battery Park Plaza New York, New York 10004-1482 • +1 (212) 837-6000 Attorney advertising. Readers are advised that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. © 2019 Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP CORRUPTION PERCEPTION SCORE No Data 100 Very Clean 50 0 Very Corrupt Data from Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index 2018. SCORE COUNTRY/TERRITORY RANK 67 Chile 27 52 Grenada 53 41 India 78 35 Armenia 105 29 Honduras 132 23 Uzbekistan 158 88 Denmark 1 66 Seychelles 28 52 Italy 53 41 Kuwait 78 35 Brazil 105 29 Kyrgyzstan 132 22 Zimbabwe 160 87 New Zealand 2 65 Bahamas 29 52 Oman 53 41 Lesotho 78 35 Côte d’Ivoire 105 29 Laos 132 20 Cambodia 161 85 Finland 3 64 Portugal 30 51 Mauritius 56 41 Trinidad 78 35 Egypt 105 29 Myanmar 132 20 Democratic 161 85 Singapore 3 63 Brunei 31 50 Slovakia 57 and Tobago 35 El Salvador 105 29 Paraguay 132 Republic of the Congo 85 Sweden 3 Darussalam 49 Jordan 58 41 Turkey 78 35 Peru 105 28 Guinea 138 20 Haiti 161 85 Switzerland 3 63 Taiwan 31 49 Saudi Arabia 58 40 Argentina 85 35 Timor-Leste 105 28 Iran 138 20 Turkmenistan 161 84 Norway 7 62 Qatar 33 48 Croatia 60 40 Benin 85 35 Zambia 105 28 Lebanon 138 19 Angola 165 82 Netherlands 8 61 Botswana 34 47 Cuba 61 39 China 87 34 Ecuador 114 28 Mexico 138 19 Chad 165 81 Canada 9 61 Israel 34 47 Malaysia 61 39 Serbia 87 34 Ethiopia 114 28 Papua 138 19 Congo 165
    [Show full text]
  • Maria Virginia Nabuco Do Amaral Mesquita Nasser
    MARIA VIRGINIA NABUCO DO AMARAL MESQUITA NASSER ESTADO INVESTIDOR E GOVERNANÇA Tese de Doutorado Orientador Prof. Dr. Luís Fernando Massonetto UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO FACULDADE DE DIREITO São Paulo-SP 2019 MARIA VIRGINIA NABUCO DO AMARAL MESQUITA NASSER ESTADO INVESTIDOR E GOVERNANÇA Tese apresentada à Banca Examinadora do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito, da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo, como exigência parcial para obtenção do título de Doutora em Direito, na área de concentração Direito Econômico, Financeiro e Tributário sob a orientação do Prof. Dr. Luís Fernando Massonetto. UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO FACULDADE DE DIREITO São Paulo-SP 2019 Autorizo a divulgação total ou parcial deste trabalho, por qualquer meio convencional ou eletrônico, para fins de estudo e pesquisa, desde que citada a fonte. Catalogação da Publicação Mesquita Nasser, Maria Virginia Nabuco do Amaral Estado investidor e governança / Maria Virginia Nabuco do Amaral Mesquita Nasser. - São Paulo: USP / Faculdade de Direito, 2019. 179f. Orientador: Prof. Dr. Luís Fernando Massonetto. Tese (Doutorado), Universidade de São Paulo, USP, Programa de Pós- Graduação em Direito, área de concentração, Direito Econômico, Financeiro e Tributário, 2019. 1. Governança 2. Estado investidor. 3. Corrupção. 4. Interesse público. 5. Direito Econômico. I. Massonetto, Luís Fernando. II. Título. CDU MESQUITA NASSER, Maria Virginia Nabuco do Amaral. Estado investidor e governança. Tese apresentada à Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo para obtenção do título de Doutora em Direito. Aprovada em: Banca Examinadora: Prof. Dr. ___________________________ Instituição: ___________________________ Julgamento: ________________________ Assinatura: ___________________________ Prof. Dr. ___________________________ Instituição: ___________________________ Julgamento: ________________________ Assinatura: ___________________________ Prof. Dr. ___________________________ Instituição: ___________________________ Julgamento: ________________________ Assinatura: ___________________________ Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Verification of Anti-Corruption Compliance Programs
    VERIFICATION OF ANTI-CORRUPTION COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS Transparency International-USA is a non-profit, non-partisan organization founded in 1993 to combat corruption in government, business, and international development. Transparency International-USA promotes systemic reform in the United States and internationally by working with Transparency International and its worldwide network of nearly 100 Transparency International chapters, governments, the private sector, civil society organizations, and other international organizations. www.transparency-usa.org. Main Authors: Fritz Heimann, Claudia J. Dumas, and Shruti Shah Contributing Authors: Laura B. Sherman and Michael Fine Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All information was believed to be correct as of July 2014. Nevertheless, Transparency International-USA cannot accept responsibility for the consequences of its use. © 2014 Transparency International-USA. All rights reserved. Printed on 30% recycled paper. 2 VERIFICATION OF ANTI-CORRUPTION COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS 6 1. THE EVOLVING ANTI-CORRUPTION LANDSCAPE: LAW, RULES AND GUIDES 8 1.1 Framework of Laws and Treaties 8 1.2 Official Guides to Compliance 9 1.3 Rules of Conduct and Business Principles 10 2. ANTI-CORRUPTION COMPLIANCE 11 3. PROGRAM VERIFICATION 14 3.1 Importance of a Risk-Based Approach 15 3.2 Verification Process 15 3.3 Additional Considerations for Meaningful Verification 19 4. EVALUATION OF VERIFICATION METHODS 20 4.1 Public Reporting 20 4.2 Accounting Firms, Law Firms and Consulting Firms 25 4.3 Compliance Monitors 28 4.4 Certification Programs 29 4.5 Social and Environmental Certifications 31 4.6 Other Standards for Verification of Anti-Corruption Programs 32 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Full Survey
    Jones Day Table of Contents GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................................................................... iii Africa ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Kenya ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Mozambique ........................................................................................................................................... 9 South Africa .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Asia Pacific .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Australia ................................................................................................................................................ 17 China ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 Hong Kong ............................................................................................................................................ 26 India .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Anti-Corruption Compliance Drivers, Mechanisms and Ideas for Change
    CORPORATE ANTI-CORRUPTION MEASURES TO SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS Corporate Anti-corruption Compliance Drivers, Mechanisms and Ideas for Change 1 Corporate Anti-Corruption Compliance Drivers, Mechanisms, and Ideas for Change PUBE CORPORATE ANTI-CORRUPTION COMPLIANCE DRIVERS, MECHANISMS , AND IDEAS FOR CHANGE © OECD 2020 2 Please cite this publication as: OECD (2020), Corporate Anti-Corruption Compliance Drivers, Mechanisms, and Ideas for Change This report has been prepared with the support of the Government of Sweden This document is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. CORPORATE ANTI-CORRUPTION COMPLIANCE DRIVERS, MECHANISMS, AND IDEAS FOR CHANGE © OECD 2020 3 Foreword Anti-corruption compliance was a topic of interest in a limited number of countries ten years ago, but the past decade has seen the emergence of anti-corruption compliance systems in companies across the globe. Various factors have driven private sector companies to design systems to prevent, detect, and respond to the risk of corruption. These factors include legal and regulatory requirements, enforcement and reputational risks, and company changes warranting a closer look at transactional risk. In 2010, the OECD Working Group on Bribery, which brings together the 44 Parties to the OECD Anti- Bribery Convention, adopted the Good Practice Guidance on Internal Controls, Ethics, and Compliance as part of the 2009 Anti-Bribery Recommendation.
    [Show full text]
  • ANTI-CORRUPTION REGULATION SURVEY of 41 COUNTRIES 2017-2018 Jones Day
    ANTI-CORRUPTION REGULATION SURVEY OF 41 COUNTRIES 2017-2018 Jones Day Table of Contents GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................ iii Africa .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Kenya .................................................................................................................................. 1 Mozambique ...................................................................................................................... 8 South Africa ..................................................................................................................... 11 Asia Pacific ................................................................................................................................... 16 Australia ........................................................................................................................... 16 China ................................................................................................................................ 20 Hong Kong ....................................................................................................................... 24 Japan ................................................................................................................................ 28 South Korea ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Corruption
    The Year in Review Volume 50 International Legal Developments Year in Review: 2015 Article 28 January 2016 Anti-Corruption Leslie A. Benton Stuart H. Deming Mikhail Reider-Gordon Frank A. Fariello Christina M. Mitropoulos Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/yearinreview Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Leslie A. Benton et al., Anti-Corruption, 50 ABA/SIL YIR 403 (2016) https://scholar.smu.edu/yearinreview/vol50/iss1/28 This Public International Law is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Year in Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. Benton et al.: Anti-Corruption THE YEAR IN REVIEW AN ANNUAL PUBLICATION OF THE ABA/SECTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Anti-Corruption LESLIE A. BENTON, STUART H. DEMING, MIKHAIL REIDER-GORDON, FRANK A. FARIELLO, AND CHRISTINA M. MITROPOULOS* I. United States Developments Significant anti-corruption policy developments occurred in 2015, despite fewer Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) cases announced by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).1 The pace of developments with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) remained largely unchanged. A. SIGNIFICANT POLICY DEVELOPMENTS 1. Yates Memo In what has been referred to as the "Yates Memo," the DOJ announced a policy to increasingly target individuals in corporate crimes. 2 Corporations will now be eligible for cooperation credit only if they provide the DOJ with "all relevant facts" relating to all individuals responsible for misconduct, regardless of the level of seniority.3 DOJ criminal and civil investigations are required to focus on investigating individuals "from the inception of the investigation." 4 In order to resolve a case against a corporation, the DOJ should have a "clear plan" to resolve open investigations of individuals5 * Leslie A.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 FCPA/Anti-Corruption Year in Review Include Brigida Benitez, William L
    FCPA/Anti-Corruption Developments: 2018 Year in Review February 28, 2019 A publication of Steptoe’s FCPA/Anti-Corruption Practice, in collaboration with Steptoe’s White-Collar and Securities Enforcement Group FCPA/Anti-Corruption Developments: 2018 Year in Review1 Lucinda A. Low and Brittany Prelogar (eds.)2 Introduction US government enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in 2018 remained robust. While the 33 combined individual and corporate FCPA enforcement actions concluded by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2018 did not match the record of 61 enforcement actions concluded in 2016, the level of enforcement was largely consistent with the average number of enforcement actions brought over the last seven years. The US $2.91 billion in monetary sanctions levied in corporate FCPA enforcement matters in 2018 reached a record high, although the chart-topping $1.78 billion penalty imposed as part of the Petrobras settlement accounts for more than half of this amount. Notably, enforcement priorities of the DOJ and SEC appear to be increasingly diverging. The DOJ settled fewer corporate enforcement actions during the year but substantially increased the number of foreign corruption-related individual prosecutions. Only two of the six corporate enforcement actions settled by the DOJ in 2018 were not brought in conjunction with the SEC. Additionally, the DOJ issued four public declinations pursuant to the new FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, all but one of which included disgorgement. Consistent with requirements for eligibility under the program, all of the declinations cited the companies’ cooperation, voluntary self-disclosures, and remediation, and the DOJ appeared in at least one case to use a criminal declination to obtain disgorgement of proceeds that could not be reached by the SEC in parallel civil proceedings due to the five-year statute of limitations imposed on the SEC’s disgorgement penalty.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecting the Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Agendas: a Guide for Business and Employers’ Organisations
    Connecting the anti-corruption and human rights agendas: A guide for business and employers’ organisations September 2020 1 INTRODUCTION Business contributes to our societies, generating innovation, providing employment and fostering growth. Business fully recognises the importance of engaging in responsible business conduct, including the fight against corruption and the respect of human rights, and seeking to prevent and mitigate potential adverse impacts in line with legal requirements, where applicable, and expectations set out in internationally recognised frameworks, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD Guidelines). The anti-corruption and human rights agendas have much in common. Corrupt practices and human rights abuses share many of the same root causes, frequently occur in areas in which there is weak governance and pose similar risks to companies (reputational, financial, legal, operational, etc.). Moreover, there often exist interlinkages between the two areas. However, while the two agendas exist in parallel, they also have important differences. Corruption and human rights issues often involve different actors, laws, regulatory considerations, business standards and practices. As a result the agendas drive different (and often siloed) government and company approaches to understanding and responding to these potentially interrelated and significant societal challenges. As experience of companies with widely recognized global standards on responsible business conduct (RBC) and human rights increases, there is growing recognition of the potential value of a more coordinated approach to anti-corruption and human rights where appropriate. Thus, this guide has the following aims: (1) To compare and analyse the anti-corruption and human rights agendas to help businesses and business/employers’ organizations understand the synergies and differences in standards, policies and approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Combate À Corrupção Efetivo, Republicano E Democrático Como Redutor Da Desigualdade Social
    UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL FLUMINENSE FACULDADE DE DIREITO PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO STRICTO SENSU EM DIRETO CONSTITUCIONAL LEANDRO MITIDIERI FIGUEIREDO COMBATE À CORRUPÇÃO EFETIVO, REPUBLICANO E DEMOCRÁTICO COMO REDUTOR DA DESIGUALDADE SOCIAL (E COMBATE À DESIGUALDADE SOCIAL COMO REDUÇÃO DA CORRUPÇÃO) Niterói 2017 UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL FLUMINENSE FACULDADE DE DIREITO PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO STRICTO SENSU EM DIRETO CONSTITUCIONAL LEANDRO MITIDIERI FIGUEIREDO COMBATE À CORRUPÇÃO EFETIVO, REPUBLICANO E DEMOCRÁTICO COMO REDUTOR DA DESIGUALDADE SOCIAL (E COMBATE À DESIGUALDADE SOCIAL COMO REDUÇÃO DA CORRUPÇÃO) Dissertação apresentada ao Programa de Pós-graduação Stricto Sensu em Direito Constitucional da Universidade Federal Fluminense, como parte dos requisitos para a obtenção do grau de mestre em Direito Constitucional. Nível: mestre Área de concentração: Direito Constitucional Linha de pesquisa: Instituições Orientador: Prof. Dr. GustavoPolíticas, Sampaio Administração Telles Pública e Ferreira Jurisdição Constitucional Niterói 2017 Universidade Federal Fluminense Superintendência de Documentação Biblioteca da Faculdade de Direito F475 Figueiredo, Leandro Mitidieri. Combate à corrupção efetivo, republicano e democrático como redutor da desigualdade social: e combate à desigualdade como redutor da corrupção / Leandro Mitidieri Figueiredo. – Niterói, 2017. 298 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Direito Constitucional) – Programa de Pós-graduação em Direito Constitucional, Universidade Federal Fluminense, 2017. 1. Corrupção. 2. Desigualdade social. 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Thesis-Mello.Docx
    MEDIA AND PUBLIC OPINION: CASE STUDY COMPARISON OF THE MENSALÃO AND PETROLÃO CORRUPTION SCANDALS IN BRAZIL by ANA SOFIA MELLO A THESIS Presented to the Department of International Studies and the Robert D. Clark Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts June 2017 An Abstract of the Thesis of Ana Sofia Mello for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in the Department of International Studies to be taken June 2017 Title: Media and Public Opinion: Case Study Comparison of the Mensalão and Petrolão Corruption Scandals in Brazil Approved: _______________________________________ Erin Beck This thesis explores the conditions under which corruption scandals generate large-scale public backlash using a comparative case study of the Mensalão and Petrolão corruption scandals in Brazil. Drawing on public opinion data and content analysis of newspaper coverage of scandals, it explores the effects of a number of factors in shaping public reaction to corruption scandals, including economic climate, type of corruption, and media framing. The findings indicate that while media engages in first order agenda setting – establishing corruption scandals as important events – it only sometimes engages in second order agenda setting by framing corruption scandals and politicians in a positive or negative light. In addition, the data reveals that in Brazil, the state of the economy is a strong determining factor that shapes public perceptions concerning the importance of corruption as a major issue. Lastly, the results indicate that the Brazilian public did not distinguish between the different types of corruption, and instead protested and demanded the end of corruption generally.
    [Show full text]