When SGS discusses the benefits of an ETHIC Intelligence anti-corruption certification with subscriber companies it becomes clear that there are common, recurring internal benefits enjoyed as a corollary to the certification process. It is taken for granted that the certification process assists companies in their external communications strategy as it helps to demonstrate to its stakeholders that appropriate steps have been taken to prevent corruption. However, both SMEs and large multi-nationals have indicated that their compliance teams use the introduction and implementation of the certification process as a functional management tool as well.
There are several ways to negotiate practical audit rights provisions in a manner that allays concerns by the third party, while also maintaining the company’s right to access the information it needs. One of the more common concerns third parties express relates to privacy considerations. Companies can alleviate this concern by agreeing to sign a confidentiality agreement prior to the audit, and agreeing to review records in accordance with all applicable laws.
A large and diversified company such as Alstom, serving complex worldwide markets, cannot rely solely on its own sales resources even though this might be the case for the majority of its projects. Depending on the circumstances, the operational businesses may need to complement their knowledge, their expertise and/or their sales resources. In this respect depending on the specificity of a particular project the Group may need to hire reputable lobbyists, consultants or consulting firms, representatives, resellers or advisors (“Business Advisors”).
There are many industry reports and research projects that demonstrate that well-designed e-learning is a very effective method for developing knowledge and understanding, with increased retention levels compared to many other forms of traditional face-to-face training. However, e-learning should not be seen as an exclusive solution. Most companies who use it effectively, still deploy an element of face-to-face training.
A former Morgan Stanley executive, Garth R. Peterson, who served as managing director of the company’s real estate investment and fund advisory business in Shanghai, pleaded guilty to criminal and civil charges for secretly funneling millions of dollars in bribes to a Chinese official. This official then helped the company acquire business while enriching himself through similar means. However, the US Justice Department said in a release that it had declined to prosecute Morgan Stanley and detailed the numerous instances in which Peterson subverted the company’s internal controls or certified his compliance with the FCPA.
On April 21, 2012, The New York Times reported extensively on the scoping and staffing of Wal-Mart’s internal investigation in response to alleged improper payments to Mexican officials by its Walmex subsidiary in Mexico. Although the conduct has not been admitted by the company or proven by U.S. authorities, the reporting highlights several sensitive decisions to be made when embarking on internal investigations in response to reports of alleged misconduct.
It takes a great deal of courage for any employee to pass information or highlight their concerns about malpractice, mismanagement or misconduct occurring within their organization.
The ACFE is the world’s largest anti-fraud organization and premier provider of anti-fraud training and education. We have more than 60,000 members worldwide who are united by the common goal of preventing and detecting fraud. They represent a global community of individuals from the private and public sectors and organizations of all sizes. From entry-level fraud investigators to top-level executives, from accountants to IT professionals and those transitioning from one line of work to another — all find a professional home at the ACFE.
First-Ever Public World Bank Sanctions Board Decisions Confirm Necessity of Pre-Existing Effective Compliance Programs and Independent Internal Investigations
On May 30, 2012, the World Bank Sanctions Board issued its first seven publicly available decisions. Although the Bank has sanctioned more than 530 firms and individuals since 1999, until now the bases for the determination of the appropriate sanction in contested Bank proceedings had not been publicly disclosed.
Anti-corruption certification is clearly one of the recommendations issued by the UK Ministry of Justice detailed in the Bribery Act Guidance. The Guidance Principle n° 6 devoted to the monitoring and review of procedures designed to prevent corruption states in its last paragraph (6.4) “organisations might wish to consider seeking some form of external verification or assurance of the effectiveness of anti-bribery procedures. Some organisations may be able to apply for certified compliance”.
Yes. The FCPA prohibits offers, promises or payments of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to “foreign officials.” A “foreign official” is a term defined within the FCPA to include officers and employees of government departments or agencies. Where this statute becomes less precise is when it further defines “foreign officials” to include officers and employees of government “instrumentalities.”
The C5 organized its first anti-corruption conference in South Africa last September and will be holding a similar conference this June in Ghana.
C5’s interest in Anti-Corruption in Africa comes from the demand of the market. Each of our events is based on a solid foundation of research conducted with industry key players. This interest was heightened following recent FCPA cases against Panalpina, Halliburton, KBR and now Mabey & Johnson and Marubeni which have all arisen either directly or indirectly from their operations in Africa.
Thomson Reuters Governance Risk & Compliance conducts an annual cost of compliance survey focused on financial services firms around the world with the aim of highlighting not only the ongoing costs of regulatory compliance for firms but also to benchmark the greatest challenges for the year ahead.
The Anti-Corruption Strategy for the Legal Profession is an initiative launched in April 2010 by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the International Bar Association (IBA) and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). It began with a survey carried out by the IBA which was designed to assess the knowledge and understanding of the legal profession in terms of corruption.
Of all the business textbooks in circulation at the moment, the Frequently Asked Questions series, published by Wiley, is perhaps the most interesting. Each book in the series contains several chapters explaining the fundamentals of a topic, and then sets out answers to about 50 of the burning questions of the day. Perhaps, though, I am slightly biased, because I was recently honoured to have been asked to write Frequently Asked Questions in Anti-Bribery and Corruption!
The UKBA is unique in its scope and has frequently been described as the toughest anti-bribery legislation in the world. It makes a business responsible not only for the actions of its employees, but also for those of all ‘associated persons’.
Companies which conduct business overseas face growing legal and reputational risks. Those risks have become even more important because of increasingly complex business regulations worldwide, mounting pressure from regulators, enforcement agencies and civil society, and a dramatic increase in levels of business carried out in higher risk jurisdictions.
In recent years we have not only seen a steady increase in the acknowledgment of the important role businesses play in the global fight against corruption, but also an emerging debate on mechanisms that could motivate businesses to counter corruption and how different societal actors could use and target these motivations.
The giving and receiving of gifts and entertainment are commonly accepted business practices the world over. They help to form and to strengthen business relationships and can be used to mark important business achievements.
The risks will vary depending on the buyer, the target and the structure of the transaction. The main risks are: (i) acquiring a company that is tainted by corruption, and therefore assuming criminal and civil liability; (ii) paying too much for the acquired company or business, to the extent that part of the revenue and/or profit is based on corrupt behavior, and is therefore not sustainable; and (iii) risk to reputation of the buyer. In addition, there is the risk associated with the drain on management of resolving any issue along these lines that does show up.