Archive for the ‘United Nations’ Category

Checking In With Richard Alderman

Tuesday, June 24th, 2014

Richard Alderman is the former Director of the United Kingdom Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”).  Since leaving the SFO in April 2012, Alderman has remained active in anti-corruption projects.

In this Q&A, Alderman discusses certain of these projects and offers insight on the following issues:  the current international enforcement climate including multi-jurisdictional issues; voluntary disclosure; DPAs; and a compliance defense.

*****

In April 2012, you left the SFO.  What have you been doing since?

I have been working with some international institutions and NGOs dealing with anti-corruption on the front line. This is what I wanted to do because I had met a number of individuals who inspired me. Recent examples are the Convention on Business Integrity in Nigeria and an initiative by the Egyptian Junior Business Association aimed at the vibrant SME sector in Egypt. I have also had the privilege of meeting individuals involved in the radical transformation of the procurement practices of Moscow City Council.

How do you see the current international corruption enforcement scene?

We have moved on from where we were a few years ago when there were only a few states that took action in these cases. Examples of issues now are-

  • How do we deal with the interests of the different states that want to enforce the law?
  • What will be the impact of more enforcement by demand states (including demand states that are also supply states)?
  • When will law enforcement agencies uncover and prosecute corrupt companies that have no intention of complying with global rules?
  • How do we get the proceeds of settlements back to the demand states?
  • Can a system of incentives be devised to reward companies with top quality anti-corruption systems?

In current enforcement era, multiple sovereigns may have jurisdiction over the same alleged conduct.  What issues do you see regarding multi-jurisdictional enforcement?

This is becoming a key issue. I prepared a detailed report for the UNCAC conference in Panama in November 2013 that covered these and other issues.

Companies are undoubtedly at risk here. If we look at violations first, different states can prosecute for the same violation. The company’s only protection is the principle of double jeopardy but this is interpreted in different ways in different states. For example it is not an issue for the US because the US does not recognise foreign convictions and acquittals for this purpose.

This will become a particular issue when one of the enforcing states is the demand state. Why should such a state be prevented from taking action in its own courts because of a resolution elsewhere? We can expect national sovereignty issues.

Companies can also seek to exclude a state with a wide concept of double jeopardy by reaching a settlement with another state and then pleading double jeopardy in the first state. I have seen this.

The issue also arises with asset forfeiture. I do not understand how multiple states can confiscate the same asset or profit. Once the money has been paid to law enforcement somewhere then any further disgorgement is actually a criminal fine.

What about global settlements?

I am very much in favour of these. I know from my own experience that they are very difficult to bring about. The international mechanisms in Article 47 of UNCAC and Article 4(3) of the OECD Convention should be used to discuss how the different enforcing states should work together and how a global settlement should be structured. Neither mechanism has yet been used for this purpose but they are available. Enforcing states will be nervous but these mechanisms will be vital as more and more states start to enforce the law.

Do the recent Libor settlements have any implications for global settlements in corruption cases?

These settlements have been very remarkable. A UK prosecutor cannot however enter into such an agreement if there are criminal pleas in the UK. This is because the senior judge in the Innospec case said that it was wrong for the SFO to discuss the penalty to be paid by the company even if the penalty was subject to the overall approval of the court.

One consequence of the new UK DPA system is that the UK enforcing authority can enter into these discussions if what is being discussed is a DPA rather than a traditional prosecution. It will be up to the judge to decide if this is the right way forward.

The result is that UK prosecuting authorities will not be able to participate in global settlements in the future unless there is a DPA approved by the court. I see this as an issue that will be increasingly important in the UK.

Do you still favour corporate self-reporting of conduct that could implicate bribery and corruption laws?

Yes. I remain a keen supporter of self-reporting. This has however become more difficult for companies. There are two main reasons. These are-

  • No enforcing state has set out its policy on when it will refer the self-report to another state.  A company considering a self-report therefore has to think about the other states that may see the report (and whether employees are at risk). We need a proper understanding of what enforcing states should do. This needs to be publicly available and agreed by the UN and the OECD.
  • Even if the report is not passed to another state, that other state is likely to see media reports of the resolution and the admissions made by the company and decide to start its own action. There is an increasing risk of these follow up cases.

Should companies carry out their own investigations when alerted to alleged instances of improper conduct?

My experience is that major global companies take these allegations very seriously and want to see what happened. There is an issue about whether the company should self-report immediately or whether it should carry out some preliminary work to satisfy itself that there is something in the allegation. The expectations of enforcing authorities can vary here. My view has always been that the company should be satisfied first that there is something that requires detailed investigation.

I am in favour of companies carrying out their own investigations with agreement from the enforcing state about scope, milestones and regular updates. I know that some enforcing states will also want to carry out their own independent investigation. I understand the reasons for this but it means that the authority is spending its scarce resource on a case where the company is willing to cooperate and not on the more difficult cases where the company has no intention of self-reporting and cooperating. As I see it there is too little action by enforcing authorities in finding such companies and dealing with them.

Recently the U.K. adopted DPAs.  How do you feel about DPAs and what are the issues as you see them?  What issues do you see regarding DPAs?

I have always been in favour of DPAs as one tool available to prosecutors. My experience was that the UK was in a poor position in global cases with international resolutions with the traditional criminal justice tools. I saw two main advantages of DPAs. These are-

  • They can form part of a system of incentives to encourage companies to self-report and cooperate and to improve compliance.
  • They enable prosecutors to discuss global resolutions without contravening the Innospec case.

I know that the FCPA Professor has expressed considerable public opposition to DPAs. I agree that they need to be transparent and that the judges have to be fully involved. I also agree that we still need to see the traditional full prosecution with debarment in suitable cases. This could be where the company is systemically corrupt and has no intention of abandoning corruption. I want to see more of these cases being pursued by enforcing states.

The full prosecution should be part of the toolkit of the prosecutor. There should be other tools for other types of case. It is notable that the only states that have made a sustained attack on corporate corruption over the years have either not used traditional prosecution or have used it sparingly and have also used alternatives. This is significant although it seems to me to be insufficiently appreciated.

Should corporate compliance be a defence to a bribery or corruption offense or merely mitigate the potential fine and penalty amount?

I remain in favour of the compliance defence. The Bribery Act offence is an excellent model in this area. I have seen how much impact this had on companies and the scale of the improvement made in their anti-corruption work. There are a number of other states that have compliance as a defence.

There is however an issue that is going to be increasingly relevant in those states that have compliance as a defence. The public wants to see the offence produce results in terms of criminal convictions. So far there do not appear to be any in the states with a compliance defence. There will be a question about whether compliance as a defence is right or whether the US approach with compliance as mitigation is to be preferred because of the results achieved. We can expect a lot more on this. It may be one of the issues to be considered in the recently announced UK review of the effectiveness of the enforcing institutions.

You have talked publicly about sanctions and incentives for companies as it relates to bribery and corruption offenses.  Can you elaborate on this issue?

Alternatives to traditional prosecution together with self-reporting and cooperation are important incentives in the area of violations. There is though a wider issue that is not sufficiently recognised and discussed. This is whether there should be more general incentives to companies that have brought about an excellent standard of anti-corruption compliance.

There was a Recommendation by the OECD in 2009 encouraging states to look at public procurement, licenses, aid funding and export credits as a way of recognising companies with the highest standards of anti-corruption. There has been little progress on this although a few states have introduced some initiatives.

I am very much in favour of this. For example the citizens of a state will benefit if a company that meets very high standards is successful in a public procurement exercise and companies with a poor anti-corruption approach are not. If those companies with a poor record decide that they have to reform then that is a benefit to everyone.

I see this as one of the key issues in anti-corruption that will become increasingly prominent in the coming years. It has great potential to make a difference.

World Bank / U.N. Report Rightly Identifies A Problem, Yet Ends With Contradiction

Thursday, December 12th, 2013

The Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative, a partnership between the World Bank Group and the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, recently released this report titled “Left Out of the Bargain:  Settlements in Foreign Bribery Cases and Implications for Asset Recovery.”

The report addresses the “core issue of how the imposition of monetary sanctions through settlement compares to the requirements of the U.N. Convention Against Corruption on the recovery and return of the proceeds of corruption.”

This post highlights other topics, beyond the above core issue, addressed in the lengthy report.

For starters, the report is a useful resource in understanding how other nations prosecute and resolve bribery and corruption offenses as well as how settlements in one jurisdiction affect legal actions in other jurisdiction (that is double jeopardy issues).  Also informative was the section of the report detailing countries who “have taken enforcement actions against foreign companies or individuals who have bribed their public officials” In other words, carbon-copy prosecutions (see here for the prior post).

From my perspective, the most notable feature of the report was its call for greater transparency of bribery and corruption settlements.

As the report notes, “over the past decade, there has been significant progress in battling foreign bribery, with the clear trend of many cases being resolved through settlements rather than full trials.”

In the Executive Summary, under the heading “Additional Observations,” the report states:

“This study calls for greater transparency in settlements. The negotiation of settlements takes place between the authorities and implicated parties behind closed doors. One critical step would be to inform affected jurisdictions that a negotiation toward a settlement is taking place. The study shows that forms of settlements (such as Non-Prosecution Agreement, Deferred Prosecution Agreement, penalty notice, or a guilty plea) provide varying degrees of transparency. In some jurisdictions, the outcomes of settlements are publicly available, illustrating that greater transparency is possible. Most settlements are negotiated with little oversight by a judge and sometimes without any public hearing at the conclusion. The report emphasizes that once an agreement has been reached, it should not be shielded from public view. More transparency helps ensure fairness to all affected jurisdictions and parties.”

After noting that the “United States has resolved more foreign bribery cases by way of settlement than any other nation,” the report states that the U.S. has some “unique procedural features” in that non-prosecution agreements and deferred prosecution agreements are “unique even among the common law jurisdictions.”

The report notes that NPAs in the U.S. have no judicial involvement and then states that “in general, if a judge oversees the [settlement] process, the public will have more confidence in the outcome” and that “without the stamp of judicial approval, settlements may have less legitimacy.”

Elsewhere, the report notes that settlements, and the “abbreviated procedures [they contain] have also helped in no small measure to boost the enforcement of foreign bribery laws and regulations globally.”

Under the heading “reduced role of the courts,” the report states:

“The more cases are concluded by means of a settlement rather than proceeding to trial, the more the role of the courts is reduced.  In common law systems, in particular, the greater involvement of courts usually leads to greater clarification of what the law means.  But as greater use is made of settlements and guilty pleas, this clarifying role is diminished.  In a trial, issues are litigated with full arguments made on each side, permitting a judge to weigh the merits of the legal issues in light of the facts.  In common law jurisdictions, such case law plays a large role, and its effect on the development of law is considered desirable.  Moreover, in such systems, legal precedent is often binding on future cases.”

Despite the above spot-on statements on the issue of settlements, the report ends with a Conclusion section and the first conclusion is stated as follows.

“Over the past decade, enforcement actions against foreign bribery have increased.  This is a positive and welcome trend, especially since improvements in enforcement also improve the climate for asset recovery.  This progress in enforcement has largely been due to the effective use of settlements in a steadily increasing number of jurisdictions.”

From calling for greater transparency of settlements, to stating that settlements have less legitimacy, to criticizing the reduced role of the judiciary in settlements, to calling such a state of affairs “effective.”

That is quite the contradiction.

Safeguarding Against Corruption In The Context Of Sporting And Other Major Public Events

Wednesday, November 27th, 2013

Note:  Professor Juliet Sorensen (Northwestern University School of Law) and Northwestern Law students Akane Tsuruta and Jessica Dwinell are attending the Fifth Conference of the State Parties (CoSP) to the United Nations Convention against Corruption in Panama City, Panama.  See here for a live feed of the States Parties’ discussions.

This post regarding the proceedings is by Jessica Dwinell.

*****

News broke yesterday that oilfield services company Weatherford International agreed to pay $253 million to settle federal charges in the United States, including FCPA charges in which an allegation by the SEC was that Weatherford funded a trip to the 2006 World Cup for two officials from a state-owned Algerian company. At the same time, members of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the Global Alliance for Integrity in Sports and the OECD were gathering at the fifth CoSP to the UNCAC to present on the importance of safeguarding against corruption in the context of sporting events.

As Nicola Bonucci (Director for Legal Affairs of the OECD) explained, “sport events are sport, but sport is also a . . . business,” and a highly lucrative one at that. Unfortunately, though hosting public and sporting events can serve as a great honor for a country, many major events also breed corruption.

Alexey Kronov (the Head of the Expert Group on Anti-Corruption for the Department of Public Administration and Russian G20 expert) outlined three factors that create the corruption-prone environment surrounding major sporting events. First, countries or regions who want to host events often feel pressure to “overcome other bidders,” a pressure which can lead to bribe offers or solicitation. Second, after winning a bid, the host country controls significant funds to build infrastructure, creating numerous opportunities for public abuse for personal gain during the procurement process. Third, sporting events are unique in that all projects must be completed by a specified time; where the opening of a transnational tunnel can be delayed, the start of the World Cup games cannot. The Executive Summary to the UNODC report, “A Strategy for Safeguarding against Corruption in Major Public Events,” similarly suggests that the high risk of corruption “is largely because such events involve significant resources and large amounts of funds as well as complex logistical arrangements within very tight timeframes.”

Representatives from Russia (set to host the Winter Olympics in 2014) and Brazil (the host of the World Cup in 2014 and the Summer Olympic games in 2016) provided information on measures their respective governments have taken to prevent corruption surrounding their upcoming major events, including efforts to undertake extensive risk assessments, audit event budgets and project proposals to ensure accurate price projections and quality designs, creation a public website detailing project expenditures to increase transparency, and conduct periodic on-site visits.

Such measures are a step in the right direction; however, Mr. Bonucci suggested several additional steps that could further decrease corruption in sports. For instance, Mr. Bonucci stressed the need for a multi-stakeholder approach, an approach of utmost importance given the constant interaction between government officials and private companies during the procurement process. Further, he recommended that the global community establish clear international standards, which include provisions detailing conflict of interest disclosure requirements, and complete transparency.

Olajobi Makinwa (Head of the Transparency & Anti-Corruption Initiatives for the UN Global Compact) stated that “it is necessary to keep sports clean because people look up to sports heroes.” Sports offer hope, break down barriers and provide role models. Sporting events can also prove crucial for morale building. A mishandling of funds, however, can quickly derail any positive advances. Though further research must be done, transparency, multi-national and multi-stakeholder approaches appear key to combating corruption in the context of sporting events.

Designing Corruption Out of The System: Collective Action Through Transformation Mapping

Wednesday, November 27th, 2013

Note:  Professor Juliet Sorensen (Northwestern University School of Law) and Northwestern Law students Akane Tsuruta and Jessica Dwinell are attending the Fifth Conference of the State Parties (CoSP) to the United Nations Convention against Corruption in Panama City, Panama.  See here for a live feed of the States Parties’ discussions.

This post regarding the proceedings is by Akane Tsuruta.

*****

Companies can be agents of change.  But it is better if they act together, and act with a focus.

Representatives from the World Economic Forum`s Partnering Against Corruption Initiative (PACI), the OECD, the Basel Institute on Governance, and Siemens agreed on the need for collective action by companies against corruption and “transformation mapping” as an innovative way to focus their action.

Collective action in the corruption context is a “coordinated, sustained process whereby businesses and their partners jointly tackle the problems of corruption that affect them all.”  To be successful, action requires trust, time, and a joint understanding of the risks and potential areas for change.  But in an area as complex as corruption, companies and their collective endeavors may not know where to start.

Transformation mapping is a method to figure that out.  It “helps companies be more efficient about where to engage in collective action.”  It works by first brainstorming central topics and then radiating outward by identifying related issues, stakeholders, solutions, and challenges, until there is a “constellation” of ideas.  Such a visual may build understanding by illuminating connections and gaps between the various points – areas where company action may be especially impactful.

Yesterday at the CoSP , state delegates and observers tried transformation mapping corruption.  Some ideas that emerged were:

  • Corruption as an interaction between human beings and a system.  Human beings create the system but also react to it.
  • Corruption is the big elephant in the room, and the best way to tackle an elephant is bit by bit.
  • Language is important.  Just like visual mapping may build understanding, visual words may also better aid the emergence of new ideas.  Language may also be an indicator of business and country readiness to engage in real anti-corruption initiatives.  For example, if a company’s compliance officer cannot bear to say “corruption” and prefers “circumlocution,” the company might not be ready to take effective action.
  • Balancing collective action and anti-trust allegations. Collective action among industry competitors may raise eyebrows.  In the course of collective action, company competitors may need to discuss details that would verge on collusion.
  • Effective anti-corruption collective action may be realistically limited to companies who together hold a significant share of their market.  If competition abounds, a small band of small companies may not make a difference – bribe solicitors can just go to someone else.
  • An anti-corruption “tone from the top” should come from business leaders and government leaders, but anti-corruption recommendations should also be sensitive to the real consequences in some countries of “sticking your head above the parapet.”

In an area like corruption, where the target is always moving and adapting, transformation mapping may be a valuable means of gathering experts–whether CEOs or state delegates—and identifying the gaps where corruption may not exist now, but has the potential to spring up like a weed in the future.

The Legal Profession’s Contribution To The Global Fight Against Corruption

Wednesday, November 27th, 2013

Note:  Professor Juliet Sorensen (Northwestern University School of Law) and Northwestern Law students Akane Tsuruta and Jessica Dwinell are attending the Fifth Conference of the State Parties (CoSP) to the United Nations Convention against Corruption in Panama City, Panama.  See here for a live feed of the States Parties’ discussions.

This post regarding the proceedings is by Jessica Dwinell.

*****

Politicians with legal training routinely participate in state reporting procedures and legislation drafting. Yet, the question remains, how can practicing attorneys join in the anti-corruption efforts? Yesterday at the CoSP, members of international and national bar associations, the OECD, the UNODC and the Brazilian Institute of Business Law discussed how practicing attorneys could influence countries’ anti-corruption efforts.

Practicing attorneys can assist anti-corruption efforts in three main ways: by revising and/or drafting legislative anti-corruption laws, by participating in either OECD on-site visits or during the UNCAC review process, and by serving, more or less, as an enforcement arm of the government.

In the legislative drafting context, the value of practitioners’ insight is obvious. Practitioners work daily with corporate clients, often in transnational situations, and thus understand the business realities and likely consequences of proposed laws both on domestic and foreign business. Though the politician may be well-versed in how to draft legislation, the practicing attorney will better understand the law’s practical implications.

In regards to practitioners’ participation in the UNCAC review processes, Annika Wythes (Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer of the UNODC) stressed that attorneys are invaluable objective participants, able to assess strengths and weakness of national legislation and can highlight enforcement weaknesses.

Although it may appear counter-intuitive that private attorneys could serve as a “leveraged enforcement tool of the government,” the panelists often spoke of the attorney’s ability to teach clients how to comply with anti-corruption laws. By reducing resistance from the business community and ensuring compliance with new anti-corruption bills, private attorneys can effectively save governments the resources traditionally needed to investigate and prosecute corruption cases.

Governments may not universally seek assistance from private practice attorneys to draft legislation or complete anti-corruption review processes. Nevertheless, attorneys who want to participate in anti-corruption efforts should reach out to government personnel to see how they can assist and, if necessary, send written submissions to the OECD during their countries’ review process. The OECD, UNODC and most countries to date would welcome their participation and view attorneys’ insights into business realities and objective assessments of enforcement gaps as invaluable.