March 4, 2010

OECD Issues Good Practice Guidance

Posted by wrageblog under Compliance Strategies, OECD | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

TRACE welcomes the practical guidance provided by the OECD in its March 3rd release of a “Good Practice Guidance on Internal Controls, Ethics, and Compliance,” which now forms Annex II to the Working Group on Bribery’s Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions initially issued on November 29, 2009.  The Good Practice Guidance was negotiated and agreed by the 38 member states comprising the Working Group and, as such, represents the first real attempt to conform anti-bribery compliance expectations across borders.  Going forward, the Working Group’s monitoring mechanism will include monitoring countries’ progress in encouraging their respective private sectors to implement the document’s principles.

As emphasized in the OECD press release, the Good Practice Guidance calls on companies and organizations to: (i) adopt a clear and visible anti-bribery policy that is strongly supported by senior management; (ii) instill a sense of responsibility for compliance with the policy at all levels of the company, as well as independent compliance structures; (iii) keep up regular communication and training on foreign bribery for all employees, as well as with business partners; and (iv) encourage observance of anti-bribery compliance measures, and disciplinary procedures to address their violations.  The document also recommends that companies implement compliance procedures specifically addressing due diligence on business partners, gifts, hospitality and travel, political contributions, charitable donations and sponsorships, facilitation payments, and solicitation and extortion.

The Good Practice Guidance also contains a section on “Actions by Business Organisations and Professional Associations.”  The section discusses the important role business organizations and professional associations can play in supporting companies’ efforts to develop and implement effective compliance programs by (i) disseminating information on foreign bribery issues, including regarding relevant developments in international and regional forums, and access to relevant databases; (ii) making training, prevention, due diligence, and other compliance tools available; (iii) providing general advice on carrying out due diligence; and (iv) providing general advice and support on resisting extortion and solicitation.  TRACE is proud to be an active member of the community of organizations supporting businesses in these crucial areas.

 

December 11, 2009

TRACE Compendium Update: German Authorities Impose EUR 150.6 Million in Fines Against MAN Group

Posted by wrageblog under Germany, OECD, enforcement | Tags: , , , |
Leave a Comment 

On December 10, 2009, public prosecution authorities at the Munich District Court imposed a EUR 75.3 million fine against each of two MAN subgroups – MAN Nutzfahrzeuge AG (the Group’s commercial vehicles division) and MAN Turbo AG (the Group’s compressors/turbines division) – in connection with improper payments made to foreign officials in various undisclosed countries between 2002 and 2009. This settlement marks the conclusion of the Munich Public Prosecutor’s Office’s investigation into wrongdoing by the corporate entities. The investigations into several former managers in the MAN Group continue. According to MAN, it was able to reach settlement with the government as a result of the company’s extensive internal investigations into the alleged bribery and its cooperation with prosecutors. MAN’s internal investigations are reported to have cost a total of EUR 50 million since May 2009.

For more information on this and other international anti-bribery enforcement actions, please visit the TRACE Compendium.

 

December 9, 2009

Good News at Today’s OECD Celebration

Posted by wrageblog under Facilitating Payments, OECD | Tags: , |
Leave a Comment 

TRACE received an early Christmas present today when the OECD announced a new recommendation on facilitation payments more closely aligned with TRACE’s longstanding position on this form of business bribery. The recommendation was made at the OECD’s celebration of “International Anti-Corruption Day” and the Tenth Anniversary of the Entry into Force of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. The OECD also used the forum to introduce its Initiative to Raise Global Awareness of Foreign Bribery.

This is a timely and welcome move by the OECD that brings the considerable problems associated with facilitation (or ‘grease’ or ‘expediting’ payments) in the international business arena into keener focus. Just like large commercial bribes, grease payments abuse the public trust and corrode corporate governance. Treating them as anything other than outright bribery muddies the compliance waters and adds confusion where there should be clarity. We are delighted to see the OECD take a stronger stance.

OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke jointly unveiled the OECD’s new Recommendation for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials via video-link from Washington, D.C. during the celebration, opened by remarks from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

TRACE has worked with companies for eight years to help them voluntarily end their reliance on facilitation payments. With management support, a clear message, careful planning and good internal controls, companies tell us avoiding this form of bribery is no more challenging than avoiding any other form – and the benefits are considerable. Of the companies that have moved away from reliance on these payments, none has reported a significant delay or disruption to their business.

Both the 2009 Facilitation Payments Survey Results and The High Cost of Small Bribes are available on the TRACE website. The High Cost of Small Bribes is available in English and French.

 

December 9, 2009

International Anti-Corruption Day

Posted by wrageblog under OECD | Tags: , , , |
Leave a Comment 

December 9th marks the United Nations’ International Anti-Corruption Day. The OECD celebrates the 10th Anniversary of the Entry into Force of its Anti-Bribery Convention with, among other things, a new set of recommendations addressing the Convention. The OECD and UN both launch initiatives today to raise awareness of the cost of corruption. These efforts reinforce recent speeches by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that have called for reform in kleptocratic regimes and demanded greater transparency in resource-rich countries. Attitudes are shifting quickly against the grasping, thuggish greed that was once seen as regrettable, but unavoidable.

December 9th is also a good day to remember the more than 100 journalists who have, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders and others, been murdered worldwide over the same ten year period while investigating corruption. Anti-corruption efforts owe much to these reporters, without whom little would be known about the true extent of this global problem.

 

September 8, 2009

International Corruption: Squarely on the Foreign Policy Agenda

Posted by wrageblog under Africa, FCPA, Russia, US Government, enforcement | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

It has been a long time since a president shouldered a major new issue onto the foreign policy agenda. Five presidents back, Jimmy Carter committed the vast political capital that it took to make human rights, as he put it , “the soul” of his foreign-policy. Since then, there have been few attempts at the difficult feat of changing a major contour of American foreign policy.

It seems to be happening now, however. President Obama has placed anti-corruption efforts high among his foreign policy goals. He has done it more subtly and with more success than Carter managed, but he is being as deliberate and comprehensive as Carter ever was. In his Inaugural Speech, and in Russia and Ghana in July, (and, it is safe to predict, in Asia in November at the APEC meetings), the President has kept corruption near the center of every meeting.

President Carter was criticized for making his human rights campaign too much of a one-man show, and it was. For him, it was a campaign issue and a way to create an identity as a candidate. President Obama has not spoken alone. He has made sure that his Departments of State, Commerce, Justice and Defense are pulling with him. The conversation about corruption has changed.

In Russia, President Obama sought out an audience of business school students and told them corruption will stunt their careers and their country’s prospects by deterring foreign investment and the growth and technology it brings. In Africa, Secretary of State Clinton spoke out against rampant graft on every stop of her seven-country tour. Secretary of Defense Gates, General Odierno and General McChrystal have said corruption makes cooperation difficult and good governance impossible. Odierno even called corruption a second front in the war in Iraq. Attorney General Eric Holder and Securities and Exchange Chairman Mary Schapiro have made prosecutions for payments to the officials of other governments under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act a priority.

Jimmy Carter was first mocked, then later imitated, both by American politicians and foreign governments. Every Western country now features human rights in its foreign policy and every subsequent American president has as well. This is often the case with the progress of an unassailable idea: its proponents are ignored or resisted until, finally, their programs are adopted, entrenched and hailed as self evident.

The timing is right for Obama. Other countries are poised to follow suit. The UN and OECD have conventions fashioned after the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and both continue to gain momentum. Prosecutions are increasing everywhere, fines have grown to the hundreds of millions of dollars.

This will prove to be a signature issue for President Obama. Corruption has long been ignored or dismissed as a fact of life or mislabeled as a victimless crime. President Obama and his administration are sweeping aside those pretexts. They are talking about the schools that collapse, the tainted pharmaceutical products that are shipped, the security measures that are breached and the drugs and humans that are trafficked because bribery makes it all possible. They are voicing the connections between transparency and the legitimacy of governments and they are making corporations and foreign officials understand that corruption will cost them. Already the validity of putting corruption high on the foreign policy agenda is self evident, and, as with human rights, it will prove permanent.

 

July 7, 2009

Moscow Summit: Recommendations

Posted by wrageblog under Russia, US Government | Tags: , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

The Russia-US Joint Working Group on Investment and Institutional Integrity presented the following Executive Summary and Recommendations to President Obama in Moscow this afternoon.  President Medvedev did not attend the “joint” session.   A copy of the full report will be posted at www.TRACEinternational.org later this week.

*     *     *

The Russia-US Joint Working Group on Investment and Institutional Integrity –  twelve concerned Russian and US business leaders, civil society representatives, and academics – has formulated concrete and actionable recommendations for collaborative public and private sector initiatives to strengthen institutions of integrity, governance, and transparency in Russia.  The Working Group believes that a better business climate and reduced levels of corruption are keys to stimulating economic growth, attracting investment, creating jobs, lowering costs, and facilitating Russia’s further integration into the global economy.

 

The Working Group applauds the anticorruption measures introduced in recent years – notably President Medvedev’s National Anticorruption Plan – but urges increased attention to the “incentive system” in Russia’s economy, as well as to:

 

  • Ensuring that existing laws function as intended;
  • Improving governance in problem areas; and
  • Engaging with the international community, through both the private sector and various international agreements.

 

Overall, the Joint Working Group encourages the Russian and international business communities, along with civil society, to support government efforts to increase transparency and reduce tolerance for corruption by making use of its experience and intellectual capital to:

 

  • Perform anticorruption-expert analysis of laws at the national level;
  • Provide expertise in the development of anticorruption instruments;
  • Launch campaigns to build public support for anticorruption measures;
  • Create independent centers to study and to monitor corruption; and
  • Study and advocate for the introduction of proven international anticorruption measures in Russia.

 

Recommendations

 

The Joint Working Group identified eleven actionable areas which build on President Medvedev’s initiatives and measurably address the integrity issues confronting both Russia and the international business community today.

 

  • The private sector should advocate for the adoption and the implementation of international commitments, most notably accession to, and ratification of, the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Officials.  Along with compliance with the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), Russia’s definition of “government official” should be consistent with global standards, the promising of bribes should be banned, and the concept of criminal liability for legal entities should be introduced.

 

  • In the realm of government procurement, Russia should retain the requirement that bidders submit guarantees or advance payments to obtain preliminary qualification, as well as the policy of “hard” contract prices. Russia should also institute auctions as the preferred method for awarding contracts, and perform random independent quality audits of procured products and services.

 

  • To promote transparency and reduce opportunities for corruption, foreign investors and Russian firms should comply with international corporate governance practices and guidelines. To maintain these guidelines, corporate boards of directors should recruit independent directors, and ensure that such directors are trained in anticorruption compliance, and are subject to strict performance evaluation criteria.

 

  • The two countries’ law enforcement agencies should create mechanisms for exchanging relevant data on corruption issues. Top prosecutors from both countries should establish a platform for sharing best practices, and an expert advisory group on the G8 and G20 levels could use successful experiences in other countries to support the development of anticorruption measures.

 

  • A new law reducing barriers for businesses limits inspections and requires entrepreneurs only to notify the government, rather than obtain prior approval, before launching certain business activities. Further reforms are needed to remove the remaining barriers to those businesses not subject to the new procedures.

 

  • A law passed in February 2009 grants citizens the right of access to information on state agencies but fails to establish procedures to enable such access. Additional regulations are needed to guarantee accurate, timely, and unencumbered access to information from all levels of government, particularly via the Internet.

 

  • All draft laws should undergo anticorruption expert evaluation to determine both their potential for corruption and compliance with existing guidelines.  Such a federal program can be modeled after successful programs in Russian regions.

 

  • To ensure the effectiveness of President Medvedev’s executive orders requiring the declaration of earnings and assets by civil servants and office-seekers, the government must guarantee public access to this information and create mechanisms preventing officials from transferring illicit assets to relatives or friends.

 

  • To ensure public control over the implementation of the National Anticorruption Plan, including business associations and other civil society institutions.

 

  • New laws must establish liability for corruption covering a variety of violations beyond bribery, reduce bureaucrats’ too-frequent “immunity” from criminal prosecution, and protect whistleblowers who expose corruption.

 

  • Because the judicial system itself is often associated with corruption, a number of court reform measures are in order: creating a system of administrative courts; reviewing the role of court chairmen; overhauling the legal education system; and bolstering the independence of regional and local courts.

 

  • Russia may consider the establishment of an autonomous anticorruption agency answering to only the President.  Such an agency’s transparency must be guaranteed through an independent body that can monitor and publicize its activities.

 

  • Build public awareness of the dangers of corruption and promote intolerance to corruption at all levels of society.
 

July 1, 2009

Update on Canada’s Foreign Anti-Bribery Law

Posted by wrageblog under Canada, enforcement | Tags: , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

In honor of Canada Day, I had hoped to post an update on anti-bribery enforcement in Canada, but the entry would have been very brief indeed. So, instead, I turned to James Klotz of Miller Thomson, TRACE’s partner firm in Canada, for an update on proposed changes to the CFPOA.

*      *      *

“Shortly after Canada enacted its Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (the “CFPOA”) in 1999, a working group of the OECD reviewed it and concluded that although the CFPOA met the requirements set by the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, there were some issues that might benefit from further examination, such as the exemption of reasonable expenses incurred in good faith to secure performance of any act of a routine nature from the purview of the offence, sentencing courts’ discretion in imposing fines, and, Canada’s decision not to establish nationality jurisdiction with respect to bribery of foreign public officials.

In the following ten years, Canada was faulted by the OECD for not taking strong action to enforce the CFPOA, and indeed, with the exception of only one small case (itself one with atypical facts), there have been no prosecutions brought under the CFPOA.

However, it does appear that the Canadian government is beginning to take its international commitments under the Convention and under the more recently ratified UN Convention Against Corruption, more seriously. Last year, the RCMP created an International Anti-Corruption Unit staffed with fourteen officers, half in Calgary and half in Ottawa, to investigate and lay charges under the CFPOA.

Some legal commentators (such as this one), continued to point out that without nationality jurisdiction under the CFPOA, that is, the ability to charge a Canadian for a crime committed while not in Canada (and without a “substantial connection” to Canada as the common law requires), a conviction would be difficult to obtain.

Fortunately, in May, the Canadian government finally decided to close the “nationality” loophole by tabling Bill C-31. This Act, if enacted would amend the CFPOA (and several other unrelated pieces of law). The primary amendments are to extend the jurisdiction of the CFPOA to acts committed by Canadian citizens and permanent residents outside of Canada. This is indeed the closure of the nationality jurisdiction issue.

Unfortunately, when Bill C-31 will receive second and third readings in the House of Commons is not yet known. There is already some opposition to some of the non-CFPOA changes to other legislation, which are also contained in Bill C-31, so it is as yet unknown as to when the law will be in force.”

 

June 1, 2009

From Golf Bags to Million Dollar Bribes: Evolution of Foreign Bribery Prosecution in Japan

Posted by wrageblog under Japan | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

We’ve been hearing that pressure by the OECD on Japanese prosecutors to pick up the pace of anti-bribery enforcement in that country may be beginning to bear fruit. Yas Fuke and Ted Paradise of Davis Polk & Wardwell’s Tokyo office describe recent enforcement activity there.

* * * *

“In a major shift, Japanese prosecutors are now proactively enforcing the Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Law (“UCPL”), which criminalizes the bribery of foreign public officials. Japan has seen a dramatic rise in enforcement activity, although the scale and scope of enforcement remain modest in comparison to FCPA enforcement actions. Japanese prosecutors have overcome significant logistical challenges to conduct overseas corruption investigations that resulted in convictions.

In a ground-breaking case in January 2009, Japanese prosecutors obtained convictions in the Pacific Consultants International (“PCI”) bribery scandal in Vietnam. PCI had paid $820,000 in bribes to the public management unit director of Ho Chi Minh City to win road construction contracts worth more than $25 million. PCI executives were sentenced to suspended prison terms of between 1.5 to 2 years and PCI was fined approximately $700,000. For the first time, Japanese prosecutors relied extensively on a foreign government for assistance with gathering evidence in a foreign bribery case.

In addition to the PCI bribery prosecution, the Japanese Government pressed the Vietnamese Government to act to curb bribery. The Japanese Government suspended all Japanese Overseas Development Assistance to Vietnam until the completion of a joint report on anti-corruption measures and the launch by the Vietnamese government of a criminal investigation and detention of former government officials involved in the PCI bribery scandal.

Japanese prosecutors also appear to be pursuing a similar investigation into alleged bribery by Nishimatsu Construction of a high-ranking Bangkok government official. According to news reports, Nishimatsu and its Thai joint venture partner each paid approximately $2 million to secure a $58 million contract for construction of a Bangkok drainage tunnel for flood prevention. Press reports say that Tokyo prosecutors have provided information to and are seeking cooperation from Thai officials. In April 2009, the Thai National Anti-Corruption Commission launched an inquiry into the alleged corruption.

This recent flurry of Japanese foreign anti-bribery enforcement comes after nearly 8 years of non-enforcement following the 1999 revision of the UCPL that made it a crime to bribe foreign public officials. International political pressure may have motivated Japanese prosecutors to begin actively enforcing the UCPL. In particular, two OECD extraordinary review reports singled out Japan for poor enforcement. In 2006 the OECD prodded Japan to urgently reduce the impediments to effective investigation and prosecution of foreign bribery. In 2007, the OECD criticized Japan for failing to be “sufficiently proactive in investigating and prosecuting foreign bribery cases”. In response to these reports, the Japanese government has strongly encouraged the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office to increase their efforts to combat foreign bribery. In addition, recent high profile FCPA enforcement actions relating to Siemens and Halliburton/KBR may have inspired Japanese prosecutors to more actively investigate and prosecute foreign bribery offenses.

Japanese companies probably did not expect a dramatic increase in enforcement when the first UCPL case was prosecuted in March 2007. Japanese prosecutors obtained convictions of two employees of a subsidiary of Kyushu Electric Company for bribing Philippines officials with gifts of expensive golf bags to promote sales of a fingerprint identification system. The employees were punished with fines of approximately $7,000 in total.

Under the UCPL, it is illegal to give, offer or promise money or other benefits to a foreign public official in connection with an international commercial transaction in order to obtain an unfair advantage in business. “Foreign public official” is broadly defined to include direct government employees, employees of an entity directly or indirectly controlled by a government and employees of public international organizations. There must also be an intent to influence the foreign public official to take a certain action or refrain from performing his or her duties.

Like the FCPA, the UCPL has expansive jurisdictional reach. The UCPL covers actions by Japanese citizens and entities anywhere in the world, actions in Japan and actions that affect Japan. A foreign company may also be punished if it employs a Japanese citizen who is punishable under the UCPL.

In contrast to the FCPA, the UCPL does not explicitly provide for an affirmative defense for “reasonable bona fide expenditures” such as travel and meal expenses. As a result, any payments to foreign public officials may potentially result in criminal charges.

Although the scope of the UCPL is quite broad, several features make it challenging for Japanese prosecutors to pursue enforcement. Unlike the FCPA, the UCPL does not explicitly prohibit knowingly giving money to a third-party agent in order to facilitate payment to a foreign official. Furthermore, the mere “authorization” of a bribe is not prohibited under the UCPL. Although a person can be charged for bribes through intermediaries, if the person conspires with, or solicits or aids the intermediary in giving, offering or promising a bribe to a foreign public official, Japanese prosecutors must also prove that a bribe has been given, offered or promised to a foreign public official. This often requires gathering specific evidence with the cooperation of foreign authorities.

After years of non-enforcement, Japanese prosecutors appear to have overcome at least to some extent these challenges to active enforcement of Japanese foreign bribery laws. If these trends in bribery enforcement continue, Japanese prosecutors may emerge as a force for change, particularly in Asian countries where Japanese companies and Japanese government funds exert considerable influence.”

 

April 6, 2009

BAE: “It’s all tosh”

Posted by wrageblog under FCPA, UK Government | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

At a pre-screening event at Berkeley this weekend, Frontline’s Lowell Bergman and Oriana Zill de Granados launched “Black Money”, their documentary about international bribery. Amongst those in the audience were Helen Garlick, formerly of the Serious Fraud Office, Mark Mendelsohn of the Department of Justice, Mark Pieth of the OECD, and Nuhu Ribadu, formerly of Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. The screening was part of Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism “Reporting on Corruption” Symposium.

While KBR and Siemens are mentioned briefly in the film, the BAE matter steals the show. There are some very funny moments, including a clip in which Tony Blair and George Bush are interrupted, departing a G8 summit, with a question about Prince Bandar’s role in the BAE matter. Watch for their blinking, baffled delay as each hopes the other will take the question.

If Bush and Blair make you wince, Louis Freeh will make you cringe. Freeh represents Prince Bandar and argues that a plane given to Bandar by BAE was for Saudi Arabia’s military purposes and was not a personal gift. And, no, according to Freeh, the fact that Bandar used the plane himself and had it painted in the colors of his beloved Dallas Cowboys doesn’t change the aircraft’s military nature.

The Frontline producers promise that more of Freeh’s interview will be posted to the website shortly. Don’t miss this website, which has additional footage and background information from this year-long project. The documentary airs on PBS stations tomorrow at 9:00pm EST.

* * *

The article below about the Al-Yamamah deal was originally published in Ethical Corporation magazine in February 2007.

The Price of the UK’s Capitulation on Corruption

For years, the UK Serious Fraud Office had been looking into payments by BAE Systems, a major domestic defence firm, to members of the Saudi royal family in connection with a huge contract known as al-Yamamah.

The ongoing deal was largely for Tornados, Hawks and, later, Eurofighter Typhoons. People were taken into custody, offices were raided, and a vast slush fund, lavish gifts and all-expenses-paid travel had come to light. The allegations were startling.

This was the first significant investigation of bribery initiated by the SFO and it put Britain on its way to establishing a reputation for being serious about enforcement. The investigation gathered momentum when it looked like the SFO would gain access to Swiss bank accounts and finally get answers to the “who received what and when did they get it?” questions, those smoking guns of a bribery investigation.

But in mid-December last year, after a representative of the Saudi government reportedly threatened to end diplomatic ties with the UK, terminate the lucrative al-Yamamah deal and curtail co-operation on anti-terrorist efforts, the SFO ended the investigation.

The Saudi government, which essentially is the Saudi royal family (or the House of Saud), appears to have panicked and pulled out the big guns. The UK government folded at once. The “public interest”, we are told, demanded that the SFO shut down the investigation. But the interests of the public, the UK government, the House of Saud or even of BAE were not well served by this capitulation.

It is difficult to imagine what interest of the people trumps their interest in the rule of law. The interest of the British government is not served when it is seen to bow to foreign princes in a commercial scandal.

How can representatives of the UK possibly attend the antibribery conferences of the world, pound the table and credibly demand that other countries take this issue more seriously? Clearly the House of Saud puts its narrow interests first, and has proved it
is willing to use oil money and anti-terrorism enforcement as chips in its defence. Allies will question whether such fickle friends can be depended upon in the long run.

Even the interests of BAE Systems are ill served by this decision. Of course share prices jumped as the immediate threat of prosecution retreated, but this scandal has harmed the company’s reputation and now this “resolution” has cost BAE the opportunity to vindicate itself.

Case not closed

Moreover, the legal risk is not now in the past as far as the company is concerned; the matter is not closed. There is no international law or convention to prevent another country’s enforcement agency from investigating this matter, and the US Department of Justice has already shown it is ready to go far beyond borders to enforce US laws. It recently investigated and fined Norway’s Statoil for conduct that the Norwegian government had already punished.

And there are obvious jurisdictional links: BAE has offices in the US and some of the questionable gifts and hospitality were allegedly provided there. That is more than enough for US prosecutors.

Tony Blair’s government should not have caved in. It sold out its commitment to the enforcement of the laws and it bought shallow and transient relief from pressures that ultimately were healthy for the business community.

The Saudi royals could have weathered this investigation. It is not even clear that an absolute monarchy like the House of Saud can be guilty of accepting bribes; the monarchy is already entitled to all that its country has. Instead, their belief that they can bully foreign governments and escape with impunity has been confirmed.

And now the business community will wait to see the impact of this decision. Will UK companies dismiss the issue of bribery as lightly as their government has?

And will the large and growing number of companies devoting time, staff and money to anti-bribery compliance be able to justify the cost when the risk of prosecution for non-compliance seems remote?

Alexandra Wrage

 

March 26, 2009

Toxic Transactions: Bribery, Extortion and the High Price of Bad Business

Posted by wrageblog under FCPA, Training | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Last night in New York, at an event graciously hosted from his Director’s chair by Martin Weinstein of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, TRACE launched its new anti-bribery training DVD. OK, it’s a training DVD, but everyone got into the “red carpet” spirit while they watched clips from some of the 14 interviews. Produced by NBC’s Peacock Productions with much clanging of prison doors and occasional pole dancers (illustrating inappropriate hospitality), the DVD endeavors to make the topic lively and accessible.

Mark Mendelsohn of the Department of Justice and Cheryl Scarboro of the SEC talk about enforcement trends. Michael Mines of the FBI offers rare insight into the investigative tools available to that organization. Richard Alderman of the UK’s Serious Fraud Office speaks, well, briefly about their record on this issue. Mark Pieth and Nicola Bonucci provide the OECD’s perspective and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of the World Bank discusses frankly the cost of corruption to the developing world. Finally, Peter Solmssen and Brackett Denniston, General Counsels of Siemens and General Electric respectively, provide a candid in-house perspective.

Our thanks to everyone who appears in the DVD. This project was a lot of fun and will be, we hope, a timely addition to the antibribery training toolkit.

View a clip from the DVD here.

 

Next Page »