Foreign Bribery Gaps and Sealants: International Standards and Domestic Implementation

摘要

The promise, offer or provision of money, goods or other benefits to a foreign public official (FPO) in order to influence favourable business deals - otherwise known as foreign bribery or transnational bribery - is a form of grand corruption, against which the international community has taken a strong stance. Many states focus on the demand side of corruption, ensuring that domestic public officials are penalised for accepting bribes. It is only since the 1990s with the adoption of a series of regional conventions on corruption, mainly in the Americas and Europe, that states have begun to consider the supply side of corruption. One exception to this rule is the United States, which, since the 1970s, has had transnational bribery laws. The Organization of American States' Inter-American Convention, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) anti-bribery convention and the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption were all adopted in the 1990s, making foreign bribery a punishable crime. Up until the early 2000s when the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the OECD devised an anti-corruption action plan for Asia and the Pacific, the region had been relatively quiet in addressing foreign bribery. With the adoption of the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption and the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) in 2003, the international fight against corruption seems to have reached its peak and it appears it is now up to states to ensure effective implementation of the international standards that have evolved. This article will examine the approach of the United Kingdom, United States and Singapore towards sealing foreign bribery gaps compliant with international standards. Specifically, it will consider foreign bribery offences, corporate liability and jurisdictional challenges and advances in the three countries.