Anti-Corruption Regulation - 2020 Contributing editor James G Tillen - Norton Rose ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Anti-Corruption
Regulation
2020
Contributing editor
James G Tillen
© Law Business Research 2020Publisher
Tom Barnes
Anti-Corruption
tom.barnes@lbresearch.com
Subscriptions
Claire Bagnall
Regulation
claire.bagnall@lbresearch.com
Senior business development manager
Adam Sargent
adam.sargent@gettingthedealthrough.com
Published by
Law Business Research Ltd
Meridian House, 34-35 Farringdon Street
London, EC4A 4HL, UK
2020
The information provided in this publication Contributing editor
is general and may not apply in a specific
situation. Legal advice should always James G Tillen
be sought before taking any legal action
based on the information provided. This Miller & Chevalier Chartered
information is not intended to create, nor
does receipt of it constitute, a lawyer–
client relationship. The publishers and
authors accept no responsibility for any
acts or omissions contained herein. The Lexology Getting The Deal Through is delighted to publish the fourteenth edition of Anti-Corruption
information provided was verified between Regulation, which is available in print and online at www.lexology.com/gtdt.
December 2019 and February 2020. Be Lexology Getting The Deal Through provides international expert analysis in key areas of
advised that this is a developing area. law, practice and regulation for corporate counsel, cross-border legal practitioners, and company
directors and officers.
© Law Business Research Ltd 2020 Throughout this edition, and following the unique Lexology Getting The Deal Through
No photocopying without a CLA licence. format, the same key questions are answered by leading practitioners in each of the jurisdictions
First published 2007 featured. Our coverage this year includes new chapters on Australia, China, Denmark, Greece,
Fourteenth edition Hong Kong, Portugal and Russia.
ISBN 978-1-83862-299-2 Lexology Getting The Deal Through titles are published annually in print. Please ensure you
are referring to the latest edition or to the online version at www.lexology.com/gtdt.
Printed and distributed by
Every effort has been made to cover all matters of concern to readers. However, specific
Encompass Print Solutions
legal advice should always be sought from experienced local advisers.
Tel: 0844 2480 112
Lexology Getting The Deal Through gratefully acknowledges the efforts of all the contribu-
tors to this volume, who were chosen for their recognised expertise. We also extend special
thanks to the contributing editor, James G Tillen of Miller & Chevalier Chartered, for his assis-
tance with this volume.
London
February 2020
Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd
This article was first published in April 2020
For further information please contact editorial@gettingthedealthrough.com
www.lexology.com/gtdt 1
© Law Business Research 2020Contents
Global overview 5 Hong Kong 72
James G Tillen Kyle Wombolt, Jeremy Birch and Cynthianna Yau
Miller & Chevalier Chartered Herbert Smith Freehills
Compliance management system certification 11 India78
Daniel Lucien Bühr Aditya Vikram Bhat and Shantanu Singh
Lalive AZB & Partners
Combating corruption in banking – the Indian experience 12 Italy91
Aditya Vikram Bhat and Shantanu Singh Roberto Pisano
AZB & Partners Studio Legale Pisano
Australia15 Japan100
Howard Rapke, Alana Giles, Katerina Stevenson, Gemma Hannah Yoshihiro Kai
and Jyoti Haikerwal Anderson Mōri & Tomotsune
Holding Redlich
Liechtenstein107
Brazil21 Siegbert A Lampert
Renato Sobrosa Cordeiro, João Accioly, Pedro Demori and Lampert & Partner Attorneys at Law Ltd
Liana Sobrosa
Sobrosa & Accioly Advocacia Mexico113
Luis F Ortiz and Maria Paula Boustani
Canada28 Gonzalez Calvillo
Milos Barutciski
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Portugal119
Paulo de Sá e Cunha, Miguel Pereira Coutinho
China38 and Marta Saramago de Almeida
Kyle Wombolt, Jeremy Birch and Tracey Cui Cuatrecasas
Herbert Smith Freehills
Russia126
Denmark45 Hannes Lubitzsch and Maxim Vladimirov
Tormod Tingstad Noerr
Kammeradvokaten Poul Schmith
Singapore134
France51 Wilson Ang, Jeremy Lua and Ian Cheong
Kiril Bougartchev, Emmanuel Moyne, Sébastien Muratyan Norton Rose Fulbright (Asia) LLP
and Nathan Morin
Bougartchev Moyne Associés AARPI Sweden146
Hans Strandberg, Olle Kullinger and Carl-Johan Allansson
Germany60 Nordia Law
Sabine Stetter and Christopher Reichelt
stetter Rechtsanwälte Switzerland152
Daniel Lucien Bühr and Marc Henzelin
Greece66 Lalive
Ilias G Anagnostopoulos and Jerina (Gerasimoula) Zapanti
Anagnostopoulos Turkey159
Gönenç Gürkaynak and Ceren Yıldız
ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law
2 Anti-Corruption Regulation 2020
© Law Business Research 2020Contents
United Arab Emirates 169
Charles Laubach and Alex Vromans
Afridi & Angell
United Kingdom 178
Caroline Day and Áine Kervick
Kingsley Napley LLP
United States 194
James G Tillen, Amelia Hairston-Porter and Leah Moushey
Miller & Chevalier Chartered
www.lexology.com/gtdt 3
© Law Business Research 2020Singapore
Wilson Ang, Jeremy Lua and Ian Cheong
Norton Rose Fulbright (Asia) LLP
RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LAW The Penal Code also contains provisions that relate to the bribery
of public officials (sections 161 to 165). Public officials are referred to
International anti-corruption conventions in the Penal Code as ‘public servants’, which have been defined in the
1 To which international anti-corruption conventions is your Penal Code to include mainly domestic public officials.
country a signatory? Sections 161 to 165 describe the following scenarios as consti-
tuting bribery:
Singapore became a signatory to the United Nations Convention against • a public servant taking a gratification, other than legal remunera-
Corruption on 11 November 2005 (ratified on 6 November 2009) and to tion, in respect of an official act;
the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime • a person taking a gratification to influence a public servant by
on 13 December 2000 (ratified on 28 August 2007). corrupt or illegal means;
Singapore has been a member of the Financial Action Task Force • a person taking a gratification for exercising personal influence
since 1992, was one of the founding members of the Asia-Pacific Group over a public servant;
on Money-Laundering in 1997, and was admitted as a member of the • abetment by a public servant of the above offences; and
Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units in 2002. Singapore is also a • a public servant obtaining anything of value, without consideration
member of the Asia Development Bank’s and Organisation for Economic or with consideration the public servant knows to be inadequate,
Cooperation and Development’s joint Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia from a person concerned in any proceedings or business conducted
and the Pacific, which it endorsed on 30 December 2001. by such public servant.
Foreign and domestic bribery laws In addition to the above, the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other
2 Identify and describe your national laws and regulations Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA) (Cap 65A, 2000
prohibiting bribery of foreign public officials (foreign bribery Rev Ed) – Singapore’s key anti-money laundering statute – provides
laws) and domestic public officials (domestic bribery laws). for the confiscation of benefits derived from corruption and other
criminal conduct.
The primary Singapore statutes prohibiting bribery are the Prevention
of Corruption Act (PCA) (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) and the Penal Code (Cap Successor liability
224, 2008 Rev Ed). 3 Can a successor entity be held liable for violations of foreign
Sections 5 and 6 of the PCA prohibit bribery in general. Section 5 and domestic bribery laws by the target entity that occurred
makes active and passive bribery by individuals and companies in the prior to the merger or acquisition?
public and private sectors an offence. Section 6 makes it an offence for
an agent to be corruptly offered or to corruptly accept gratification in In a situation where the acquiring entity purchases shares in the
relation to the performance of a principal’s affairs or for the purpose target entity, the acquiring entity is not legally liable for acts of bribery
of misleading a principal. The term ‘gratification’ is interpreted broadly. by the target entity that occurred prior to the merger or acquisition.
Sections 11 and 12 of the PCA prohibit the bribery of domestic This is because of the common law doctrine of separate legal person-
public officials, such as members of parliament and members of a ality. Likewise, there is no change to the legal liability or otherwise of
public body. A public body is defined as: the target entity following the change of identity of its shareholder or
shareholders.
[A]ny corporation, board, council, commissioners or other body Subsequent to the acquisition, the commercial value of the target
which has power to act under and for the purposes of any written entity sought by the acquiring entity may be adversely affected in the
law relating to public health or to undertakings or public utility event that the target entity is investigated, prosecuted or ultimately
or otherwise to administer money levied or raised by rates or held liable for acts of bribery that occurred prior to the acquisition.
charges in pursuance of any written law. The target entity may be liable for investigation costs, suffer business
disruptions and loss of revenue and may have to bear financial penal-
The Singapore Interpretation Act defines the term ‘public officer’ as ties or debarment consequences. These may adversely impact the
‘the holder of any office of emolument in the service of the [Singapore] value of the shares in the target entity, which are in turn owned by the
Government’. acquiring entity.
The PCA does not specifically target bribery of foreign public
officials, but such bribery could fall under the ambit of the general
prohibitions, namely section 6 on corrupt transactions with agents.
134 Anti-Corruption Regulation 2020
© Law Business Research 2020Norton Rose Fulbright (Asia) LLP Singapore
Civil and criminal enforcement a DPA, the prosecution can agree not to prosecute a corporation in
4 Is there civil and criminal enforcement of your country’s exchange for strict compliance with certain conditions, which may
foreign and domestic bribery laws? include implementing adequate compliance procedures or remediation
efforts. Self-reporting may also be a factor taken into account in the
Yes, criminal enforcement against corrupt activities is provided for prosecution’s decision whether to agree to a DPA, and in deciding on
in both the PCA and the Penal Code. In particular, if the court rules any penalty imposed.
that there has been a violation of the general prohibitions on bribery On the mechanism for companies to disclose violations of domestic
in the PCA, a penalty of a fine, imprisonment or both will be imposed and foreign bribery laws in exchange for lesser penalties, the PCA and
on the offender. The offender may also have to pay the quantum of the the Penal Code do not expressly provide a formal mechanism for compa-
bribe received. nies to disclose violations of bribery laws in exchange for leniency.
With regard to civil enforcement, a victim of corruption will be While there are no formal legislative mechanisms in place, an
able to bring a civil action to recover the property of which it has been informal plea-bargaining process with the public prosecutor is available
deprived. Section 14 of the PCA expressly provides that, where gratifi- as described above.
cation has been given to an agent, the principal may recover, as a civil Apart from the informal plea-bargaining process, Singapore’s
debt, the amount or the money value thereof either from the agent or courts introduced a voluntary Criminal Case Resolution programme in
the person paying the bribe. This provision is without prejudice to any 10 October 2011, where a senior district judge functions as a neutral
other right and remedy that the principal may have to recover from mediator between the prosecution and defence with a view to parties
his agent any money or property. The objective of imposing this addi- reaching an agreement. Once proceedings have been initiated, the
tional penalty is to disgorge the offender’s proceeds from the corrupt accused may, having reviewed the evidence in the prosecution’s case,
transaction. choose to plead guilty and enter a plea mitigation to avoid a public
The case Ho Kang Peng v Scintronix Corp Ltd (formerly known as trial. In appropriate cases, the judge may also provide an indication of
TTL Holdings Ltd) [2014] SGCA 22 provides an example of a company sentence. However, such indication will only be provided if requested
successfully bringing a civil claim against its former chief executive and by the accused. If the mediation is unsuccessful, the judge will not
director, Ho Kang Peng, for engaging in corrupt activities. The Court hear the case.
of Appeal dismissed Ho’s appeal from the High Court, holding that he In October 2010, there was a court ruling involving the CEO of
had breached his fiduciary duties owed to the company by making and AEM-Evertech, a Singapore-listed company, who exposed corrupt prac-
concealing unauthorised payments in the name of the company. The tices by the company’s top management, including himself (see Public
Court of Appeal found that although the payments were for the purpose Prosecutor v Ang Seng Thor [2010] SGDC 454 – the AEM-Evertech
of securing business for the company, Ho could not be said to be acting case). In sentencing the CEO, the district judge took into considera-
in the genuine interests of the company because the payments were, in tion the fact that his whistle-blowing helped to secure the conviction
effect, gratuities and thereby ran the unjustified risk of subjecting the of other members of the company’s management and consequently did
company to possible criminal liability. not impose a prison sentence. However, in May 2011, the prosecution
successfully appealed against this decision. It was held by the High
Dispute resolution and leniency Court that the judge in the first instance, had, on the facts, incorrectly
5 Can enforcement matters involving foreign or domestic found that the CEO’s role in the matter demonstrated a low level of
bribery be resolved through plea agreements, settlement culpability (see Public Prosecutor v Ang Seng Thor [2011] 4 SLR 217).
agreements, prosecutorial discretion or similar means It also found that the CEO was not an archetypal whistle-blower, owing
without a trial? Is there a mechanism for companies to to the fact that he only admitted personal wrongdoing when placed
disclose violations of domestic and foreign bribery laws in under investigation by the main government agency that enforces
exchange for lesser penalties? bribery laws in Singapore, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau
(CPIB) in May 2007 and had failed to approach the authorities directly
The public prosecutor has discretion to initiate, conduct or discon- with evidence of unauthorised activities. The sentence imposed at first
tinue any criminal proceedings. It may be possible for a person under instance was, therefore, set aside and substituted with a sentence of six
investigation to convince the public prosecutor not to initiate criminal weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of S$25,000 on each of the two charges,
proceedings against him or, if criminal proceedings have already been with each prison sentence to run consecutively.
initiated, an accused person may submit letters of representation (on Although the High Court overruled the first instance decision,
a ‘without prejudice’ basis) to the public prosecutor to negotiate the the case confirms that a genuine whistle-blower would potentially be
possible withdrawal, amendment, or reduction of charges. The public treated with a degree of leniency during sentencing. The exercise of
prosecutor has sole discretion whether to accede to such letters of judicial discretion will depend, in part, on the motivation of the whistle-
representation. It may also be possible for an accused person to plead blower and the degree of cooperation during the investigation.
guilty to certain charges, in return for which the public prosecutor will In addition, in December 2017, a Singapore-based shipbuilding
withdraw or reduce certain other charges. The accused may also plead company was issued a ‘conditional warning’ by Singapore’s CPIB as
guilty to the charges brought against him so as to resolve a particular part of its global resolution between the US Department of Justice (US
matter without a trial, and then enter a mitigation plea. DOJ), Brazilian and Singapore authorities. In announcing the resolution,
In March 2013, the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) and the the CPIB and AGC stated that in issuing the ‘conditional warning’, due
Law Society issued the Code of Practice for the Conduct of Criminal consideration was given to the company for self-reporting to CPIB and
Proceedings by the Prosecution and Defence, which is a joint code of AGC the corrupt payments that had been made.
practice that sets out the duties of prosecutors and lawyers during Self-disclosure of violations is also likely to be a significant factor
criminal trials and deals with various matters including plea bargaining. in the public prosecutor’s consideration on whether to enter into a DPA
The Criminal Justice Reform Act was passed by Parliament on with a company to resolve corporate misconduct under the DPA regime
19 March 2018 and came into force on 31 October 2018, amending the recently enacted in Singapore.
Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to introduce Deferred Prosecution
Agreements (DPAs) into Singapore’s criminal justice framework. Under
www.lexology.com/gtdt 135
© Law Business Research 2020Singapore Norton Rose Fulbright (Asia) LLP
FOREIGN BRIBERY the PCA, which deals with the abetment of a corrupt act abroad, could
be wide enough to address that scenario.
Legal framework The CDSA, which primarily deals with the prevention of laundering
6 Describe the elements of the law prohibiting bribery of a of the proceeds of corruption and other serious crimes, also has extra-
foreign public official. territorial application. The CDSA expressly applies to property whether
situated in Singapore or elsewhere. In particular, section 47 of the
There are no provisions in the PCA or the Penal Code that specifically CDSA provides that any person who knows or has reasonable ground
prohibit bribery of a foreign public official. However, the general prohi- to believe that any property represents another person’s benefits from
bition against bribery in the PCA, in particular on corrupt transactions criminal conduct is guilty of an offence if he or she conceals, disguises,
with agents, read together with section 37 of the PCA, prohibits, in converts, transfers or removes that property from the jurisdiction for
effect, the bribery of a foreign public official outside Singapore by a the purposes of assisting any person to avoid prosecution. Criminal
Singaporean citizen. conduct is defined to include any act constituting a serious crime in
Section 37 of the PCA gives the anti-corruption legislation extrater- Singapore or elsewhere.
ritorial effect, because if the act of bribery takes place outside Singapore
and the bribe is carried out by a Singaporean citizen, section 37 of the Definition of a foreign public official
PCA states that the offender would be dealt with as if the bribe had 7 How does your law define a foreign public official, and does
taken place in Singapore. that definition include employees of state-owned or state-
Under section 5 of the PCA, it is an offence for a person (whether controlled companies?
by himself or herself, or in conjunction with any other person) to:
• corruptly solicit, receive, or agree to receive for himself, herself or As the PCA and the Penal Code do not specifically deal with the bribery
any other person; or of a foreign public official, the statutes do not define this term.
• corruptly give, promise, or offer to any person, whether for the
benefit of that person or of another person, any gratification as an Gifts, travel and entertainment
inducement to or reward for, or otherwise on account of: 8 To what extent do your anti-bribery laws restrict providing
• any person doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of foreign officials with gifts, travel expenses, meals or
any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed; or entertainment?
• any member, officer or servant of a public body doing or
forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or trans- There are no express restrictions in the PCA or Penal Code on providing
action whatsoever, actual or proposed, in which such public foreign officials with gifts, travel expenses, meals or entertainment.
body is concerned. However, any gift, travel expense, meal or entertainment provided with
the requisite corrupt intent will fall foul of the general prohibition under
It is also an offence under section 6 of the PCA for: the PCA, and would constitute an offence.
• an agent to corruptly accept or obtain any gratification as an The PCA prohibits (among other things), the offer or provision of
inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do any act in rela- any ‘gratification’ if accompanied with the requisite corrupt intent. The
tion to his or her principal’s affairs; term ‘gratification’ is broadly defined under the PCA to include:
• a person to corruptly give or offer any gratification to an agent as • money;
an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do any act in • gifts;
relation to his or her principal’s affairs; or • loans;
• a person to knowingly give to an agent a false or erroneous or • fees;
defective statement, or an agent to knowingly use such statement, • rewards;
to deceive his or her principal. • commissions;
• valuable security;
Section 4 of the Penal Code also creates extraterritorial obligations for • property;
all public servants of Singapore and states that any act or omission • interest in property;
committed by a public servant outside of Singapore in the course of • employment contract or services or any part or full payment;
his or her employment would constitute an offence in Singapore and • release from or discharge of any obligation or other liability; and
will be deemed to have been committed in Singapore. Accordingly, if • any other service, favour or advantage of any description whatso-
the public servant accepted a bribe overseas, he or she would be liable ever (see Public Prosecutor v Teo Chu Ha [2014] SGCA 45).
under Singaporean law.
The extraterritorial effects of the PCA and Penal Code are limited Under the Penal Code, the term ‘gratification’ is used but not expressly
in the respect that they only apply to Singapore citizens and Singapore defined. The explanatory notes to the relevant section stipulate that
public servants respectively. In Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong the term is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or those with
[1998] 2 SLR 410, a case involving a constitutional challenge to the monetary value.
extraterritoriality of section 37 of the PCA, the court upheld the provi- Singapore’s courts have also held that questionable payments
sion and concluded that it was ‘rational to draw the line at citizenship made pursuant to industry norms or business customs will not consti-
and leave out non-citizens, so as to observe international comity and tute a defence to any prosecution brought under the PCA (see Public
the sovereignty of other nations’. The court further observed that Prosecutor v Soh Cham Hong [2012] SGDC 42) and any evidence
the language of the provision was wide and ‘capable of capturing all pertaining to such customs will be inadmissible in any criminal or civil
corrupt acts by Singaporean citizens outside Singapore, irrespective of proceedings under section 23 of the PCA (see Chan Wing Seng v Public
whether such corrupt acts have consequences within the borders of Prosecutor [1997] 1 SLR(R) 721).
Singapore or not’.
As regards non-citizens committing corruption outside Singapore
that could cause harm in Singapore, the court opined that section 29 of
136 Anti-Corruption Regulation 2020
© Law Business Research 2020Norton Rose Fulbright (Asia) LLP Singapore
Facilitating payments the company if they were not personally responsible for, or otherwise
9 Do the laws and regulations permit facilitating or ‘grease’ involved in, that particular offence. However, section 59 of the CDSA
payments to foreign officials? provides that where an offence under the CDSA committed by a body
corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or conniv-
Neither the PCA nor the Penal Code expressly permits facilitating or ance of an officer or to be attributable to any neglect on his or her part,
‘grease’ payments. This prohibition also applies to foreign officials. the officer as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of the offence. It is
Such payments would technically constitute an act of bribery under also possible that an individual such as a director or officer of a company,
the general prohibitions of both the PCA and the Penal Code. Notably, although not personally guilty of committing a corrupt act, may be held
section 12(a)(ii) of the PCA prohibits the offer of any gratification to any liable for consequential offences including money-laundering or failure
member of a public body as an inducement or reward for the member’s to report a suspicion that certain property or the transfer of assets was
‘expediting’ of any official act, among other prohibited acts. connected to criminal conduct. In addition, individual directors who
ignore red flags of criminal misconduct committed by employees of
Payments through intermediaries or third parties the company may also find themselves liable for failing to use reason-
10 In what circumstances do the laws prohibit payments through able diligence in performing their duties under the Companies Act (Cap
intermediaries or third parties to foreign public officials? 50). A former president of a shipyard was recently prosecuted for this
infraction.
Corrupt payments through intermediaries or third parties, whether such Ultimately, the decision on whether to pursue an individual or a
payments are made to foreign public officials or to other persons, are corporate entity for criminal conduct is a matter of prosecutorial discre-
prohibited. Section 5 of the PCA expressly provides that a person can tion. In this regard, an opinion-editorial written by Singapore’s then
commit the offence of bribery either ‘by himself or by or in conjunction attorney-general, Mr VK Rajah SC, in November 2015 sheds some light on
with any other person’. Singapore’s approach on such matters. In his opinion-editorial, Mr Rajah
stated that in Singapore both individuals and corporate entities should
Individual and corporate liability expect prompt enforcement action for financial misconduct. However,
11 Can both individuals and companies be held liable for bribery he pointed out that, ‘[t]he emphasis, if there is one, is placed on holding
of a foreign official? accountable the individuals who perpetuated the misconduct’. In addi-
tion, he stressed that ‘significant attention is also given to the culpability
Both individuals and companies can be held liable for bribery offences, of corporations . . . especially if the offending conduct is institutionalised
including bribery of a foreign official. The various provisions in the PCA and developed into an established practice in an entity over time’.
and Penal Code set out certain offences that may be committed by a In August 2018, the Penal Code Review Committee released its
‘person’ if such person were to engage in certain corrupt behaviour. The report setting out its recommendations on reforming the Penal Code.
term ‘person’ has been defined in the Singapore Interpretation Act to Among other things, the Committee considered the current rules on
include ‘any company or association of body of persons, corporate or corporate liability under Singapore law and recommended that the
unincorporated’. government study the adequacy of the current rules and consider
In addition, Singapore case law indicates that corporate liability can reform if necessary.
be imposed on companies for crimes committed by their employees,
agents, etc (see Tom Reck Security Services Pte Ltd v PP [2001] 2 SLR Private commercial bribery
70). A test for establishing corporate liability is whether the individual 12 To what extent do your foreign anti-bribery laws also prohibit
who committed the crime can be regarded as the ‘embodiment of the private commercial bribery?
company’ or whose acts ‘are within the scope of the function of manage-
ment properly delegated to him’. This test, known as the ‘identification There are no provisions in the PCA or the Penal Code that specifically
doctrine’, was derived from English case law (Tesco Supermarkets Ltd prohibit bribery of a foreign public official. The general prohibition
v Nattrass [1971] 2 All ER 127). It was subsequently broadened in the against bribery in the PCA extends to both private commercial bribery
Privy Council case of Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd as well as bribery involving public officials, whether domestic or foreign.
v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500, which held that the test for
attributing mental intent should depend on the purpose of the provision Defences
creating the relevant offence. This broader approach has been affirmed 13 What defences and exemptions are available to those accused
in Singapore (The Dolphina [2012] 1 SLR 992) in a case involving ship- of foreign bribery violations?
ping and conspiracy but not in the context of bribery offences.
However, the test for corporate liability is different in relation to There are no specific defences and exemptions available to those
money-laundering offences. Section 52 of the CDSA introduces a lower accused of foreign bribery violations.
threshold of proof for corporate liability. It provides that where it is There is no statutory defence for bribery under the PCA, including
necessary to establish the state of mind of a body corporate in respect for foreign bribery violations. In other words, in defending a bribery
of conduct engaged by the body corporate it shall be sufficient to show charge, the accused will be required to challenge the elements of
that a director, employee or agent of the body corporate acting within the charge.
the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority, had that state of
mind. Likewise, any conduct engaged in or on behalf of a body corporate Agency enforcement
by a director, employee or agent of the body corporate acting within the 14 What government agencies enforce the foreign bribery laws
scope of his or her actual or apparent authority, or by any other person and regulations?
at the direction or with the consent or agreement of the above, shall be
deemed, for the purposes of the CDSA, to have been engaged in by the The main government agency that enforces bribery laws in Singapore is
body corporate. the CPIB. The CPIB derives its powers from the PCA and is responsible
Generally, individual directors and officers of a company will not for investigating and preventing corruption in Singapore, focusing on
be held strictly liable for offences found to have been committed by corruption-related offences arising under the PCA and the Penal Code.
www.lexology.com/gtdt 137
© Law Business Research 2020Singapore Norton Rose Fulbright (Asia) LLP
Under the PCA, the CPIB has extensive powers of investigation, National Crime Agency in London until 2021. The IACCC aims to coordi-
which include powers to require the attendance of witnesses for inter- nate law enforcement action against global grand corruption. The CPIB
view, to investigate a suspect’s financial and other records and the power has announced that it will be sending an officer to serve at the IACCC.
to investigate any other seizable offence disclosed in the course of a Singapore’s participation in the IACCC is likely to result in Singaporean
corruption investigation. Seizable offences are also known as ‘arrestable authorities taking a more proactive role in investigating foreign bribery
offences’ (ie, offences where the persons committing the offences can be cases with Singaporean links.
arrested without a warrant of arrest). Special investigative powers can On 1 April 2019, the Serious Crimes and Counter-Terrorism
be granted by the public prosecutor, such as the power to investigate (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (the SCCT Act) came into force, which
any bank account, share account, purchase account, expense account or among other things, enhances the ability of Singapore authorities to
any other form of account or safe deposit box and to require the disclo- share financial intelligence with financial intelligence units overseas.
sure of all information, documents or articles required by the officers. The SCCT Act amends the CDSA by allowing Singapore authorities to
The CPIB carries out investigations into complaints of corruption share information under an international arrangement (as opposed to
but does not prosecute cases itself. It refers the cases, where appro- sharing intelligence with countries with which Singapore has a bilateral
priate, to the public prosecutor for prosecution. The PCA provides that arrangement), provided that there are safeguards to protect the confi-
no prosecution under the PCA shall be instituted except by or with the dentiality of information shared and control their use. Consequently,
consent of the public prosecutor. when the amendments come into force, Singapore would be able to
The Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) is the principal white- exchange financial intelligence with more than 150 financial intelligence
collar crime investigation agency in Singapore. CAD investigates units of overseas jurisdictions that are members of the Egmont Group.
complex fraud, white-collar crime, money laundering and terrorism In addition, the SCCT Act also introduces a new section 47AA to
financing. CAD’s Financial Investigation Division is specially empowered the CDSA that criminalises the possession or use by an accused person
to combat money laundering, terrorism financing and fraud involving of property that would be suspected by a reasonable person of being
employees of financial institutions in Singapore and works closely with benefits from criminal conduct, if the accused person cannot satisfacto-
financial institutions, government agencies and its foreign counterparts. rily explain how he or she came by the property. This new offence would
In January 2019, the Criminal Justice Division and Financial and significantly bolster Singapore’s ability to combat grand corruption and
Technology Crime Division were merged into a single Crime Division foreign bribery, by allowing the authorities to prosecute the laundering
within the AGC to bring the prosecution of all criminal offences under of criminal proceeds from such illegal conduct through Singapore.
a single division’s purview. However, there remain specialist prosecu- Public sector complaints and prosecutions remain consistently low
tion teams within the reorganised Crime Division who specialise in the due, in part, to the aggressive enforcement stance taken by the CPIB, as
enforcement, prosecution and all related appeals in respect of financial well as to the high wages paid to public servants that reduce the finan-
crimes and corruption cases within and outside of Singapore. cial benefit of taking bribes as compared to the risk of getting caught.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is responsible for The majority of the CPIB’s investigations relate to the private sector,
issuing guidelines on money laundering and terrorist financing to which for 2018 made up 88 per cent of its investigations registered for
financial institutions and conducting regulatory investigations on such action. In its 2018 annual report, the CPIB highlighted two main areas of
matters. MAS may also refer potential criminal offences to CAD for concern: (i) construction activities; and (ii) building maintenance work.
further investigation. In this regard, in 2015, MAS and CAD embarked on There is a trend of law enforcement agencies using anti-money
an initiative to jointly investigate market misconduct offences under the laundering laws and falsification of accounts provisions (section 477A of
Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289, 2006 Rev Ed). The first conviction the Penal Code) to prosecute foreign bribery cases. This is because it is
of market misconduct under the joint investigations arrangement was often difficult to prove the predicate bribery offences in such cases, owing
reported in March 2017. to the fact that key witnesses are often located overseas. An example of
this approach can be seen in the prosecution of Thomas Philip Doerhman
Patterns in enforcement and Lim Ai Wah (the Questzone case), who were sentenced to 60 and 70
15 Describe any recent shifts in the patterns of enforcement of months’ jail respectively on 1 September 2016, for falsifying accounts
the foreign bribery rules. under section 477A and money-laundering offences under the CDSA.
Doerhman and Lim, who were both directors of Questzone Offshore
Significantly, in January 2015, Singapore’s prime minister announced Pte Ltd (Questzone), were prosecuted for conspiring with a third indi-
that the capabilities and manpower of the CPIB were to be strength- vidual, Li Weiming, in 2010 to issue a Questzone invoice to a Chinese
ened by more than 20 per cent, as corruption cases had become more telecommunications company seeking payment of US$3.6 million for a
complex, with some having international links. This announcement fictitious subcontract on a government project in a country in the Asia-
follows the reorganisation of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to the Pacific. Li was the chief representative for the Chinese company in that
Financial and Technology Crime Division (FTCD), signalling an intent by country. A portion of the monies paid out by the Chinese company to
the AGC to actively enforce and prosecute complex bribery offences, Questzone, pursuant to its invoice, was then subsequently redistributed
including cybercrime, committed outside Singapore that may involve by Doerhman and Lim to Li and the then prime minister of that Asia-
foreign companies and foreign public officials. Pacific country in 2010.
The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act was revised in July Even though no corruption charges were brought under the PCA
2014 to improve Singapore’s ability to provide mutual legal assistance against the parties, it is plainly conceivable that Questzone functioned
to other countries and demonstrates a commitment to cross-border as a corporate conduit for corrupt payments to be made. On the facts,
cooperation. The amendments primarily ease requirements that foreign some key witnesses were overseas – with Li having absconded soon
countries would need to satisfy to make requests for legal assistance after proceedings against him commenced. The use of section 477A and
and widen the scope of mutual legal assistance that Singapore can money-laundering charges under the CDSA allowed the prosecution to
provide. In a related development, on 5 July 2017, the CPIB joined its proceed against Doerhman and Lim as they only needed to prove that
counterparts from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom the invoice was false, in respect of the section 477A charge; and that
and the United States in launching the International Anti-Corruption the monies paid out pursuant to the invoice – which would be proceeds
Cooperation Centre (IACCC). The IACCC will be hosted by the UK of crime or property used in connection with criminal conduct – were
138 Anti-Corruption Regulation 2020
© Law Business Research 2020Norton Rose Fulbright (Asia) LLP Singapore
transferred to Li and the then prime minister of the Asia-Pacific country, In Singapore, the company received a ‘conditional warning’ from
in respect of the money-laundering offences. the CPIB for corruption offences under section 5(1)(b)(i) of the PCA
The use of section 477A of the Penal Code was also employed in the and committed to certain undertakings under the ‘conditional warning’,
case relating to a Singapore shipyard, which involved senior executives including an undertaking to pay US$105.55 million to Singapore as part
of the shipyard conspiring to bribe employees of its customers to obtain of the total criminal penalties imposed pursuant to the global resolution.
business from these customers. The bribes were disguised as bogus In a statement on the resolution, Singaporean authorities pointed
entertainment expenses that were paid out from petty cash vouchers out that in deciding to issue a ‘conditional warning’ to the company, due
as approved by the senior executives. It is pertinent to note that these consideration had been given to the company for its substantial coopera-
senior executives did not carry out the actual payment of the bribes but tion (including the company’s self-reporting to Singaporean authorities
had approved the fraudulent petty cash vouchers, which they knew did for the corrupt payments) and the extensive remedial measures taken by
not relate to genuine entertainment expense claims. the company thus far.
In addition, a former lawyer from the Singapore-based shipbuilding
Prosecution of foreign companies company drafted and approved contracts between the company and its
16 In what circumstances can foreign companies be prosecuted Brazilian agent, knowing that the contracts were fraudulent and meant
for foreign bribery? to conceal bribes to government party officials and members of the
ruling political party. The bribes were disguised as consulting fees paid
Under the general offences of the PCA, foreign companies can be pros- to intermediaries and helped the company secure rig-building deals.
ecuted for the bribery of a foreign public official if the acts of bribery are In 2017, the lawyer entered into a plea agreement with the US DOJ to
committed in Singapore. In addition, section 29 of the PCA read together assist in its probe against the company and its American unit. He pleaded
with section 108A of the Penal Code allows foreign companies to be guilty for conspiring to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign
prosecuted for bribery that was substantively carried out overseas, if the Corrupt Practices Act and was sentenced to a year’s probation, a fine of
aiding and abetment of such bribery took place in Singapore. US$75,000 and a special assessment sum of US$100 by a US District
Judge. His probation will be served in Singapore, where he resides.
Sanctions The issues faced by the Singapore-based shipbuilding company
17 What are the sanctions for individuals and companies arose from a wider investigation by Brazilian authorities called Lava
violating the foreign bribery rules? Jato or Operation Car Wash (see Brazil chapter). In this connection, in
July 2019, a second Singapore-based offshore and marine company,
The PCA provides for a fine, a custodial sentence, or both for the contra- Sembcorp Marine (SembMarine) reported that authorities had executed
vention of the general anti-corruption provisions under sections 5 and 6 a search warrant on Estaleiro Jurong Aracruz Ltda (EJA), a Brazilian
(which include the bribery of foreign public officials in Singapore, and the subsidiary of SembMarine. The search warrant was executed as part of
bribery of foreign public officials overseas by a Singaporean citizen when the ongoing investigations relating to Operation Car Wash. SembMarine
read with section 37). The guilty individual or company may be liable to a announced that EJA’s former president was facing ongoing criminal
fine not exceeding S$100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding charges and was also being investigated.
five years, if appropriate. In connection with the transnational money-laundering investi-
Where the offence involves a government contract or bribery of gation linked to a Malaysian state investment fund, MAS ordered the
a member of parliament, the maximum custodial sentence has been closure of BSI and Falcon Bank for serious lapses in anti-money laun-
extended to seven years. There are also civil remedies and penalties for dering requirements. Several other major banks in Singapore were also
the restitution of property pursuant to the PCA. A person convicted of an censured and fined for their role in the scandal. In connection with the
offence of bribery under the Penal Code may be sentenced to a fine and investigation, several individuals have been charged in court. A former
a custodial sentence of up to three years. BSI banker, Yak Yew Chee, pleaded guilty to four criminal charges of
There are other statutes imposing sanctions on the guilty individ- forgery and failing to report suspicious transactions in November 2016.
uals or companies. For example, under the CDSA, where a defendant is He was sentenced to 18 weeks’ jail and a fine of S$24,000. The trial of
convicted of a ‘serious offence’ (which includes bribery), the court has the another former BSI banker, Yeo Jiawei, for witness tampering concluded
power, under section 4, to make a confiscation order against the defendant on 22 December 2016. He was sentenced to 30 months’ jail at the time.
in respect of benefits derived by him or her from criminal conduct. Under He subsequently pleaded guilty to money laundering and cheating in
the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed), a director convicted of bribery July 2017 and was sentenced to four-and-a-half years’ jail – this would
offences may be disqualified from acting as a director. run concurrently with his earlier 30-month jail sentence. During the
course of the trial, details emerged as to how the banker allegedly facili-
Recent decisions and investigations tated the flow of illicit funds through Singapore’s financial system. Falcon
18 Identify and summarise recent landmark decisions or Bank’s branch manager, Jens Sturzenegger, was also prosecuted and
investigations involving foreign bribery. sentenced to 28 weeks’ jail and a fine of S$128,000. Among other things,
Sturzenegger was charged with consenting to the bank’s failure to file a
In December 2017, a Singapore-based company in the shipbuilding suspicious transaction report to MAS. A total of S$29.1 million in financial
industry entered into a global resolution led by the US DOJ in connec- penalties have been imposed on eight banks for breaches of anti-money
tion with corrupt payments made to officials of a Brazilian state-owned laundering requirements. Various individuals involved in the matter
enterprise, Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras), and other parties, to have also been sanctioned by MAS.
win contracts with Petrobras or its related companies. The company In June 2017, siblings Judy Teo Suya Bik and Teo Chu Ha were
concealed these corrupt payments by paying commissions to an inter- charged in Singapore for corruption-related offences allegedly
mediary, under the guise of legitimate consulting agreements, who then committed in China between April 2007 and November 2010. Teo Chu
made payments for the benefit of officials of Petrobras and other parties. Ha was a former senior director of Seagate Technology International.
Under the terms of the global resolution, the company entered into a DPA The siblings allegedly conspired to obtain bribes from Chinese transport
with the US DOJ and agreed to pay total criminal penalties amounting to companies as a reward for helping these companies secure contracts
US$422.2 million to the United States, Brazil and Singapore. with Seagate Technology International. The siblings were also accused
www.lexology.com/gtdt 139
© Law Business Research 2020Singapore Norton Rose Fulbright (Asia) LLP
of one count each of an offence under the CDSA, in connection with a and for corporations convicted of such an offence, a fine not exceeding
purchase of a condominium unit. Judy Teo and Teo Chu Ha were charged S$500,000.
with the offences under the PCA even though the offending conduct Section 424 of the CPC also imposes reporting obligations on every
allegedly took place in China because the PCA has extraterritorial juris- person aware of the commission of or the intention of any other person
diction over Singapore citizens. to commit most of the corruption crimes (relating to bribery of domestic
public officials) set out in the Penal Code.
FINANCIAL RECORD-KEEPING AND REPORTING Section 69 of the CPC allows the police to conduct a formal criminal
discovery exercise during the course of corruption investigations, empow-
Laws and regulations ering them to search for documents and access computer records.
19 What legal rules require accurate corporate books and Apart from these express reporting and disclosure obligations under
records, effective internal company controls, periodic financial the CDSA and the CPC, the requirements imposed by the Companies Act,
statements or external auditing? Securities and Futures Act, Listing Rules, regulations and guidelines
issued by MAS may also impose obligations on a company or finan-
The Companies Act is the main statute that regulates the conduct of cial institution to disclose corrupt activities and associated accounting
Singapore-incorporated companies. Among other things, the Companies irregularities.
Act requires the keeping of proper corporate books and records that: On 6 August 2018, MAS issued a revised Code of Corporate
• sufficiently explain the transactions and financial position of Governance, which, in conjunction with the Listing Rules, sets out a
the company; number of obligations that listed companies are expected to observe.
• contain true and fair profit and loss accounts and balance sheets for This version of the Code retains the stringent requirements introduced
a period of at least five years; in 2012, relating to the role and composition of the board of directors
• allow for the appointment of external auditors; and (Principles 1 and 2), risk management and internal controls (Principle
• include the filing of annual returns. 9) and the need to have an adequate whistle-blowing policy in place
(Principle 10). The revised Code now places a greater emphasis on
The Act was amended in October 2014 to reduce the regulatory burden the need to have well-rounded and competent boards with diverse
on companies, provide for greater business flexibility and improve corpo- perspectives by imposing further conditions to strengthen director inde-
rate governance. Amendments include revised requirements for audit pendence and to enhance board composition and diversity. The revised
exemptions, inclusion of a requirement that CEOs disclose conflicts of Code also imposes requirements to enhance shareholder engagement
interest and the removal of the requirement that private companies keep and to encourage transparent remuneration practices. Even though the
a register of members. revised Code has newer areas of emphasis, it is actually now streamlined
Apart from the requirements set out under the Companies Act, with a net reduction of three Principles and 31 Provisions, and demon-
section 477A of the Penal Code also criminalises the falsification of a strates a move towards being more concise and less prescriptive, so as
company’s accounts by a clerk or a servant of the company with intent to encourage thoughtful application and to move away from a box-ticking
to defraud. mindset. The Listing Rules require listed companies to disclose, in their
Singapore-listed companies are also subject to stringent disclosure, annual reports, a board commentary assessing the companies’ internal
auditing and compliance requirements as provided by: control and risk management systems.
• the Securities and Futures Act;
• the Singapore Exchange Limited (SGX) Listing Rules; Prosecution under financial record-keeping legislation
• the Code of Corporate Governance; and 21 Are such laws used to prosecute domestic or foreign bribery?
• other relevant rules.
No. The laws primarily used to prosecute domestic or foreign bribery are
The SGX Listing Rules state that a company’s board ‘must provide an the PCA and the Penal Code.
opinion on the adequacy of internal controls’. The Code of Corporate
Governance provides that the board ‘must comment on the adequacy Sanctions for accounting violations
and effectiveness of risk management and internal control system’. 22 What are the sanctions for violations of the accounting rules
Companies that do not comply with the laws and regulations may associated with the payment of bribes?
be investigated by CAD, the Accounting and Regulatory Authority of
Singapore or other regulatory bodies. Falsifying accounts to facilitate the payment of bribes is a violation of
section 477A of the Penal Code. The penalty for violating section 477A of
Disclosure of violations or irregularities the Penal Code is imprisonment for a term of up to 10 years, or a fine, or
20 To what extent must companies disclose violations of anti- a combination of both.
bribery laws or associated accounting irregularities? Apart from section 477A, sanctions for violations of the laws and
regulations relating to proper account keeping, auditing, etc, include
Section 39 of the CDSA imposes reporting obligations on persons who fines and terms of imprisonment. The amount of any fine and length of
know or have reasonable grounds to suspect that there is property imprisonment will depend on the specific violation in question. Liability
that represents the proceeds of, or that was used or was intended to may be imposed on the company, directors of the company and other
be used in connection with criminal conduct. Criminal conduct includes officers of the company.
acts of bribery (which potentially extends to acts of bribery overseas)
and falsification of accounts under section 477A of the Penal Code. A Tax-deductibility of domestic or foreign bribes
breach of these reporting obligations attracts a fine of up to S$20,000. 23 Do your country’s tax laws prohibit the deductibility of
The penalties for an offence under section 39 of the CDSA have been domestic or foreign bribes?
enhanced with the SCCT Act. An individual convicted of an offence under
section 39 of the CDSA will be liable to a fine of S$250,000 or imprison- Tax deduction for bribes (whether domestic or foreign bribes) is not
ment not exceeding three years if the offender is an individual, or to both, permitted. Bribery is an offence under the PCA and the Penal Code.
140 Anti-Corruption Regulation 2020
© Law Business Research 2020Norton Rose Fulbright (Asia) LLP Singapore
DOMESTIC BRIBERY [C]orporation, board, council, commissioners or other body which
has power to act under and for the purposes of any written law
Legal framework (ie, Singapore’s legislation) relating to public health or to under-
24 Describe the individual elements of the law prohibiting bribery takings or public utility or otherwise administer money levied or
of a domestic public official. raised by rates or charges in pursuance of any written law.
The general prohibition on bribery in the PCA specifically states, at In the Ng Boon Gay case and Public Prosecutor v Peter Benedict Lim
section 5, that it is illegal to bribe a domestic public official. Sin Pang DAC 2106-115/2012 (Peter Lim case) – in which the former
Where it can be proved that gratification has been paid or given to Singapore Civil Defence Force Chief was found guilty and sentenced to
a domestic public official, section 8 provides for a rebuttable presump- six months jail for corruptly obtaining sexual favours in exchange for
tion that such gratification was paid or given corruptly as an inducement the awarding of contracts – both the Central Narcotics Bureau and the
or reward. The burden of proof in rebutting the presumption lies with Singapore Civil Defence Force were unsurprisingly held by the courts
the accused on a balance of probability. In Public Prosecutor v Ng Boon to be public bodies.
Gay [2013] SGDC 132 (Ng Boon Gay case), the prosecution argued that In Public Prosecutor v Tey Tsun Hang [2013] SGDC 164 (Tey Tsun
the threshold to establish the presumption was very low and ultimately Hang case) – where the former law professor at National University
any ‘gratification’ given to a public official by someone intending to deal of Singapore was convicted for obtaining sex and gifts from one of his
with the official or government would be enough to create the rebuttable students but was later acquitted on appeal – despite the arguments of
presumption. On the facts of the case, however, the defence succeeded defence counsel, the National University of Singapore (NUS) was also
in rebutting the presumption. found to be a public body, being a ‘corporation which has the power to
Prohibition of the bribery of a domestic public official is also set out act . . . relating to . . . public utility or otherwise to administer money
in sections 11 and 12 of the PCA as outlined below. Section 11 relates to levied or raised by rates or charges’, as ‘public utility’ included the provi-
the bribery of a member of parliament. It is an offence for any person sion of public tertiary education. The receipt by the NUS of funds from
to offer any gratification to a member of parliament as an inducement the government and its function as an instrument of implementing the
or reward for such member’s doing or forbearing to do any act in his government’s tertiary education policy further supported the finding
capacity as a member of parliament. It will also be an offence for a that the NUS was a ‘public body’.
member of parliament to solicit or accept the above gratification. Section The provisions in the Penal Code pertaining to domestic public offi-
12 relates to the bribery of a ‘member of a public body’. It is an offence cials use the term ‘public servant’. This has been defined in section 21
for a person to offer any gratification to a member of such a public body to include:
as an inducement or reward for: • an officer in the Singapore Armed Forces;
• the member’s voting or abstaining from voting at any meeting of • a judge;
the public body in favour of or against any measure, resolution or • an officer of a court of justice;
question submitted to that public body; • an assessor assisting a court of justice or public servant;
• the member’s performing, or abstaining from performing, or aid in • an arbitrator;
procuring, expediting, delaying, hindering or preventing the perfor- • an office holder empowered to confine any person;
mance of, any official act; or • an officer of the Singapore government;
• the member’s aid in procuring or preventing the passing of any vote • an officer acting on behalf of the Singapore government; and
or the granting of any contract or advantage in favour of any person. • a member of the Public Service Commission or Legal Service
Commission.
It will, correspondingly, be an offence for a member of a public body to
solicit or accept such gratification described above. It would appear from the above definitions under the PCA and the Penal
The Penal Code also sets out a number of offences relating to domestic Code that an employee of a state-owned or state-controlled company
public officials (termed ‘public servant’). The Singapore government may not necessarily be a domestic public official. Such employees of
also issues the Singapore government Instruction Manual (Instruction state-owned or state-controlled companies may be considered domestic
Manual) to all public officials. The Instruction Manual contains stringent public officials if they fall within the definitions set out in the PCA and
guidelines regulating the conduct of public officials. the Penal Code.
It should also be noted that the Singapore Interpretation Act defines
Scope of prohibitions the term ‘public officer’ as ‘the holder of any office of emolument in the
25 Does the law prohibit both the paying and receiving of a bribe? service of the [Singapore] Government’.
Yes. Singapore law prohibits both the paying and receiving of a bribe. In Gifts, travel and entertainment
particular, sections 5, 11 and 12 of the PCA prohibit both the paying of a 27 Describe any restrictions on providing domestic officials
bribe to, and receiving of a bribe by, a domestic public official. with gifts, travel expenses, meals or entertainment. Do the
restrictions apply to both the providing and the receiving of
Definition of a domestic public official such benefits?
26 How does your law define a domestic public official, and does
that definition include employees of state-owned or state- Domestic public officials are not permitted to receive any money or
controlled companies? gifts from people who have official dealings with them, nor are they
permitted to accept any travel and entertainment, etc, that will place
A domestic public official is referred to as a ‘member, officer or servant them under any real or apparent obligation.
of a public body’ in the PCA. There are also specific provisions at
section 11 of the PCA in respect of members of parliament. ‘Public body’
has been defined in section 2 of the PCA to mean any:
www.lexology.com/gtdt 141
© Law Business Research 2020You can also read
