This Anti-Corruption Helpdesk brief was produced in response to a query from one of Transparency International’s national chapters. The Anti-Corruption Helpdesk is operated by Transparency International and funded by the European Union.
Query
Could you provide details on the consideration of victims (states or individuals) in the enforcement of the FCPA and the UKBA (in DPAs, NPAs or in entering judgment)?
Summary
Foreign bribery not only fosters a culture of corruption in business but it has a devastating effect on the countries where the bribes are paid (Kaplan 2020; Transparency International 2020a). While there is no dearth of anti-bribery legislation at the international and national levels, there is no consensus on victims' remedies or rights (Transparency International 2019). The jurisdictions of two of the most recognised foreign bribery laws (FCPA and UKBA) allow for restitution and compensation for victims; however, they differ in their approach.
Contents
- Background
- Victims of corruption in foreign bribery
- What can victims do?
- Road ahead
- References
Main points
- FCPA and UKBA remain the most recognised state legislations dealing with foreign bribery that seek to prevent corruption globally with their extra-territorial reach.
- Consensus on the definition, rights and compensation of victims of foreign bribery in the cases of FCPA, UKBA, other state legislations and international conventions is still lacking.
- Consequences for perpetrators ought not to stop at “supply side” countries.
- Enforcement agencies should aid investigations in countries where bribes are paid (the ‘demand side’) and provide them with a share of the penalties.
Authors
Kaunain Rahman, [email protected]
Reviewers
Gillian Dell, Transparency International
Date
28/05/2020
