Failure to implement a sufficient anti-corruption program is not a regulatory or criminal infraction in Australia in and of itself. For the reasons stated above, the lack of an adequate anti-corruption program is likely to contribute significantly to an investigator and prosecutor’s conclusion that, if the underlying conduct constitutes foreign bribery, corporate criminal liability should be attributed to a company for its failure to address and implement either a corporate culture of compliance with the law or a corporate culture of compliance with the law.
Failure to put in place an effective anti-corruption program is not a criminal or regulatory offense. It may, however, result in criminal culpability if the firm engages in unlawful behavior as a result of it (see questions 1.1 and 4.1).
Failure to implement an anti-corruption compliance program that complies with the Sapin II Act’s provisions is a regulatory breach that could result in administrative sanctions by the AFA Enforcement Committee. Failure to implement an anti-corruption compliance program that complies with the Sapin II Act’s provisions is not a criminal offence in and of itself. However, there is a chance that in doing its duties, the AFA will come across facts that are likely to qualify as a criminal offense and submit them to the public prosecutor, culminating in a criminal prosecution.
On a case-by-case basis, insufficient anti-corruption compliance programs are sanctioned. Only if acts of corruption occur as a result of a manager’s failure of supervisory duty is the corporation accountable for omitted compliance measures under Section 30 of the Act on Administrative Offenses.
In Ireland, failing to implement a sufficient anti-corruption policy is not a regulatory or criminal offense. The implementation of such a program, on the other hand, is considered best practice and may help a body corporate defend any charge brought against it by demonstrating (at least in part) that the body corporate took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.
As previously stated, if a crime is committed in the course of an employee’s duties and the company fails to create a sufficient anti-corruption program to avoid such offenses, the firm may face criminal culpability under Article 102 of the SCC. However, anti-corruption provisions must have been violated in order for Swiss law to penalise the failure to create a sufficient anti-corruption program — simple compliance is not enough (ie, the mere failure to implement compliance measures is not liable to prosecution). In the case of prudentially monitored organizations such as banks, however, failure to execute a sufficient anti-corruption program may constitute a regulatory breach.
It is not a crime in the United Kingdom to lack a competent anti-corruption program. However, if a firm is being investigated for a Bribery Act Section 7 crime of failing to prevent bribery, having such a program in place might be critical, as the only defense to this accusation is that the corporation had “sufficient processes” in place to avoid bribery. The Section 7 offence is intended to make failures that lead to bribery and corruption illegal.
No, bribery and anti-corruption legislation does not require corporations to have adopted an anti-corruption program. Companies, on the other hand, create their own compliance programs, as stated in question 4.1, because bribery and corruption penalties are vigorously enforced and severe.
In the United States, failing to create a sufficient anti-corruption policy is not a criminal offense.