In Australia, enforcement officials provide only a few directions or guidelines. The Commonwealth Prosecution Policy, issued and maintained by the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP), is the most useful guidance from enforcement agencies in regards to violations against Commonwealth legislation. Belgium is a country in Europe. The Belgian College of Public Prosecutors released a circular in October 2015 that was geared exclusively to the battle against corruption. The goal of this circular is to emphasize the importance of both public and private corruption, as well as to make public corruption prosecution a priority for prosecutors, particularly in cases involving foreign officials. Prosecutors will get guidelines as part of this circular to guarantee that anti-corruption measures be enforced more effectively.
Criminal courts: Unlike the US Department of Justice, which, for example, published guidelines on the evaluation of corporate compliance programs in April 2019, the French courts and prosecution agencies have yet to issue any formal guidance. The Agence française anticorruption (AFA), which was recently established by the Sapin II Act, has the authority to issue non-binding guidelines such as its Recommendations to Help Private and Public Sector Entities Prevent and Detect Corruption, Influence Peddling, Extortion by Public Officials, Unlawful Taking of Interest, Misappropriation of Public Funds and Favoritism, and a number of others. The majority of these recommendations are produced after a public consultation with all relevant actors and are revised on a regular basis. Although the AFA guidelines are not legally binding, French practitioners generally believe that any entity subject to the Sapin II Act’s requirements should follow them because they “form a coherent set of measures that the AFA regards as constituting an effective anti-corruption program,” according to the AFA. The AFA provides advice and guidance to entities subject to the Sapin II Act requirements, including training and awareness-raising efforts, and responds to particular technical concerns, in addition to publishing guidance materials.
There is no directive or guideline in Germany that is analogous to the UK Bribery Act guidelines. Only the public sector has legally binding norms for preventing corruption. A federal government order, for example, oversees anti-corruption efforts at the federal level. Ireland is a country in Europe. The Irish government has yet to issue instructions on how to comply with anti-corruption and bribery legislation. However, a review panel directed by James Hamilton, the former director of public prosecutions, was recently created to examine anti-fraud and anti-corruption structures and procedures. The goal of the study is to determine how well various governmental organizations involved in the prevention, detection, investigation, and punishment of fraud and corruption collaborate, as well as to identify any gaps or bottlenecks. By the summer of 2019, the review committee is expected to submit its findings and recommendations to the Minister of Justice and Equality. It is envisaged that recommendations will be made as part of this study on the dissemination of guidelines on anti-corruption laws compliance. In compliance with the Ethics Acts, the Standards in Public Office Commission issues guidelines. The recommendations aid in informing office holders and specified public officials (usually medium and senior-ranking civil servants and public entities) of their legal obligations.
The following has been made public: The Ministry of Justice’s Guidance on the Bribery Act of 2010; The director of public prosecutions (DPP) and the director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) have issued joint guidance for prosecutors and joint guidance on corporate prosecutions. Anti-Corruption Strategy for the United Kingdom, 2017–2022; May 2014 BBA Anti-Bribery and Corruption Guidance; and The OECD and the International Bar Association published a paper on May 31, 2019 recommending worldwide conduct norms for attorneys working on business entities. SFO Director Lisa Osofsky announced in April 2019 that she was planning to offer instructions to corporations on what to expect from her agency if they self-report misconduct. This guidance was released in August of this year. It indicates that when the SFO decides whether to charge, collaboration will be a factor to examine, and that “cooperation” includes going above and above what the law requires. Collaboration is defined as identifying suspected wrongdoing and the people responsible, reporting it to the SFO within a reasonable timeframe, and retaining accessible evidence – albeit the guideline states that even full, robust cooperation does not ensure a specific conclusion. Surprisingly, the guideline stipulates that a company’s assertion that documentation is confidential and hence unavailable to the SFO must be supported by independent legal counsel.
Yes. The government has published the Bribery and Corruption Laws and Regulations, as well as creating requirements for businesses under the Federal Law on Commercial Companies (2/2015), which lays out the rules for businesses to follow. The Federal Law on the Organization of the Auditing Profession (12/2014), which regulates the professions of auditing and accountancy and stipulates that an auditor must have more than five years of experience in auditing private and public companies, includes a requirement to appoint a completely independent auditor who is listed in the Register for Auditors and Accountants. The following are prohibited by Article 153 of the Law on Commercial Companies: A joint stock firm may not give any loans or guarantees to any member of the board of directors, according to Article 153(1). It goes on to say that family members of board members, up to the second degree, will be deemed “board members” under the statute. A loan may not be issued to a firm in which a board member (or family member, as defined in Article 153(1)) owns more than a 20% share, according to Article 153(2). Article 153(3) specifies that any agreement that violates Article 153 is null and void, and the auditor must report on the company’s level of compliance in its annual report to the general assembly. Article 222 prohibits the company or its subsidiaries from providing financial assistance to a shareholder in order for the shareholder to hold the firm’s shares, bonds, or Sukuk. It goes on to define ‘financial aid’ as the following: granting loans; donating or giving presents; putting the company’s assets up as collateral; or Providing security or guarantees for another person’s responsibilities. Article 242 forbids the corporation from making any charitable contributions for the first two years. Donations may be made after this time if they match the following criteria: The donation can’t be more than 2% of the company’s average net profits over the last two years; The donation must be for the good of the community; The donation’s recipient must be identified in the company’s audit report; and To make the donation, a special resolution must be enacted.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) jointly issued guidance in 2012, and updated it in 2015, titled “A Resource Guide to the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,”. In addition, the Department of Justice’s FCPA Business Enforcement Policy (updated in March 2019) outlines the criteria it will use to determine whether a corporate entity has an effective compliance and ethics program, which are similar to those mentioned in the Resource Guide.