COMPARE CORRUPTION WORLDWIDE

Primary Regulations

ARGENTINA

Criminal Code and Public Ethics Law (“Law 25.188”)

Argentine Penal Code (“APC”)

The Law on Corporate Criminal Liability and Compliance Programs for Certain Corruption Cases (“Law 27.401”).

AUSTRALIA

Criminal Code Act 1995 ("Australian Criminal Code")

Corporations Act 2001 ("Australian Corporations Act")

BRAZIL

Brazil Clean Company Act (“BCCA”)

CANADA

Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (“CFPOA”)

CHILE

The Chilean Criminal Code

The Legal Entities’ Criminal Liability Law ("Law 20.393")

COLOMBIA

Colombian Criminal Code

Law 1778 of 2 Feb. 2016 (“Law 1778”)

Law 1474 of 12 Jul. 2011 (“Law 1474”)

CHINA

Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China (“AUCL”)

Criminal Code of the People's Republic of China (“PRC Criminal Code”)

EGYPT

The Egyptian Anti-Bribery Law of the Criminal Code (“Egyptian Criminal Code”)

The Egyptian Companies Law

The Egyptian Anti-Money Laundering Law

FRANCE

Law on Transparency, the Fight against Corruption and Modernization of Economic Life (“Sapin II”)
Criminal Code of the French Republic (“French Criminal Code”)

GERMANY

Strafgesetzbuch (“German Criminal Code”)

Handelsgesetzbuch (“German Commercial Code”)

Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz (“German Administrative Offenses Act”)

INDIA

Prevention of Corruption Act (“PCA”)

The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act

Central Civil Services Rules

All India Services Rules

INDONESIA

Indonesian Criminal Code

Law 31 of 1999, as Amended by Law 20 of 2001 (“Anti-Corruption Law of Indonesia”)

ITALY

Italian Penal Code

Italian Civil Code

Legislative Decree 231 “Bodies’ Administrative Liability” of 8 June 2001 (“Decree 231”)

Presidential Decree 62 “Code of Conduct of Public Employees” of 16 April 2013 (“Decree 62”)

JAPAN

Japanese Criminal Code

Unfair Competition Prevention Act (“UCPA”)

Companies Act

Act on Punishment of Organized Crime

KAZAKHSTAN

Kazakhstani Criminal Code

Code of Administrative Offenses (Article 678)

Law on State Service

Law on the Fight Against Corruption

MEXICO

General Law of Administrative Responsibility (“GLAR”)

Mexican Federal Criminal Code (“Mexican Criminal Code”)

NIGERIA

Nigerian Criminal Code

The Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offenses Act (“Corrupt Practices Act”)

Penal Code (Northern States) Federal Provisions Act

PERU

Peruvian Criminal Code

Legislative Decree 1352, Increasing Administrative Responsibility of Legal Entities (“Decree 1352”).

Law 30424, Regulating Administrative Responsibility of Legal Entities for Transnational Bribery (“Law 30424”).

RUSSIA

Federal Law on Anti-Corruption Practices No. 273 (“Law No. 273”)

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Russian Criminal Code”)

SAUDI ARABIA

Combating Bribery Law (“CBL”)

Civil Service Law (“CSL”)

SOUTH AFRICA

Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (“PCCAA”).

SPAIN

Spanish Criminal Code

TURKEY

Turkish Criminal Code

UAE

UAE Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 (“UAE Federal Law”)

UNITED KINGDOM

U.K. Bribery Act (“UKBA”)

USA

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”)

VIETNAM

Vietnamese Penal Code No. 100/2015/QH13 (“Vietnamese New Penal Code”)

Anti-Bribery Provisions

ARGENTINA

Law No. 25.188 and the APC prohibit bribery of Argentinian public officials and foreign public officials. (See Articles 256-259 of Penal Code and Articles 2, 18, 30-37 of Law 25.188).

AUSTRALIA

The Australian Criminal Code prohibits bribery of officials of the Australian Commonwealth, as well as foreign officials. (See Divisions 70, 141-142).

While the Australian Criminal code does not address commercial bribery, some states criminalize commercial bribery.

BRAZIL

The BCCA prohibits bribery of both Brazilian public officials and foreign public officials. (See Chapter I Article 1).

CANADA

The CFPOA prohibits bribery of foreign officials. (See Section 3.(1)).

Bribery of Canadian public officials is prohibited under the Criminal Code of Canada.

CHILE

The Chilean Criminal Code prohibits bribery of Chilean and foreign officials, but it does not address commercial bribery. (See Articles 248-251).

COLOMBIA

The Colombian Criminal Code prohibits bribery of Colombian and foreign public officials. (See Articles 405-07, 433).

The Colombian Criminal Code and Law 1474 also prohibit commercial bribery. (See Article 250; Law 1474, Article 16).

CHINA

The PRC Criminal Code prohibits commercial bribery and the receipt of kickbacks, as well as bribery involving foreign government officials or officials of international public organizations. (See Chapter III, Section 3, Articles 163-164, and Section 4, Article 184).

The PRC Criminal Code also prohibits bribery of Chinese public officials. (See Chapter VIII, Articles 389–393 of the PRC Criminal Code).

The AUCL prohibits commercial bribery.

The AUCL also requires that public officials avoid favoritism or abuse of power when investigating suspected acts of unfair competition. (See Chapter IV, Articles 31-32).

EGYPT

The Egyptian Criminal Code prohibits bribery of Egyptian public officials as well as commercial bribery, but it does not address bribery of foreign public officials. (See Articles 103-106).

FRANCE

Sapin II prohibits bribery of both French and foreign public officials. (See Articles 20-21 of Sapin II and Articles 433-1, 435-3, and 435-9 of the French Criminal Code).

The French Criminal Code prohibits commercial bribery. (See Article 445-1).

GERMANY

The German Criminal Code prohibits all bribery of German and EU public officials, as well as bribery of foreign public officials that violate official duties. (See Sections 108, 331-336).

The German Criminal Code prohibits commercial bribery. (See Sections 299-300).

INDIA

The PCA indirectly prohibits bribery of Indian officials as one can be prosecuted where abetting an offence committed by an Indian public official. (See Chapter 3, Section 12).

INDONESIA

The Indonesian Criminal Code and Anti-Corruption Law of Indonesia prohibit bribery of Indonesian public officials, but do not address bribery of foreign officials or commercial bribery (See Criminal Code, Article 378; See Anti-Corruption Law, Articles 5, 12).

ITALY

The Italian Penal Code prohibits bribery of Italian, EU, and non-EU foreign public officials, as well as officials of international organizations. (See Articles 318, 319, 321, 322-bis).

The Italian Civil Code prohibits commercial bribery. (See Article 2635).

JAPAN

The Japanese Criminal Code prohibits bribery of Japanese public officials. (See Articles 197,198).

The UCPA prohibits bribery of foreign public officials and officials of international organizations. (See Article 18).

The Companies Act prohibits commercial bribery by company directors. (See Articles 960, 967).

KAZAKHSTAN

The Kazakhstani Criminal Code prohibits bribery of Kazakhstani and foreign public officials, as well as officials of international organizations. (See Articles 366-368).

The Kazakhstani Criminal Code also prohibits commercial bribery. (See Article 253).

MEXICO

The GLAR prohibits bribery of public officials. (See Chapter II, Article 52 of GLAR).

The Mexican Criminal Code prohibits bribery of domestic and foreign public officials. (See Chapter X, Article 222 and Chapter XI, Article 222 of the Mexican Criminal Code).

NIGERIA

The Nigerian Criminal Code and Corrupt Practices Act prohibit bribery of Nigerian public officials, but do not address bribery of foreign officials. (See Criminal Code, Articles 98-99; Corrupt Practices Act, Sections 8-11, 17-18).

The Corrupt Practices Act also prohibits commercial bribery. (See Section 8, 17).

PERU

The Peruvian Criminal Code prohibits bribery of both Peruvian and foreign public officials, inclusive of officers of state-owned entities, but it does not address commercial bribery. (See Articles 393.A, 394, 397.A).

RUSSIA

The Russian Criminal Code prohibits bribery of both Russian and foreign public officials. (See Articles 285-293).

The Russian Criminal Code prohibits commercial bribery. (See Article 204).

Though not proscriptive in nature, Law No. 273 recognizes the wrongful nature of the payment of bribes to Russian and foreign public officials. (See Article 7_1).

SAUDI ARABIA

The CBL prohibits bribery of both Saudi and foreign public officials as it makes no distinction between the two. (See Article 8).

SOUTH AFRICA

The PCCAA prohibits bribery of both South African and foreign public officials. (See Chapter 2, Part 2, Sections 4 and 5).

SPAIN

The Spanish Criminal Code prohibits bribery of Spanish and foreign public officials, as well as officials of international organizations. (See Article 427).

The Spanish Criminal Code also prohibits commercial bribery. (See Article 286-bis).

TURKEY

The Turkish Criminal Code prohibits bribery of Turkish and foreign public officials, as well as officials of international organizations, but does not prohibit commercial bribery. (See Article 252).

UAE

The UAE Federal Law prohibits bribery of domestic public officials and commercial bribery. (See Chapter I, Articles 234-239).

UNITED KINGDOM

The UKBA prohibits bribery of both U.K. and foreign political officials and commercial (i.e., private to private) bribery.(See Sections 1, 2, and 6).

Additionally, under the UKBA, a commercial organization can be held liable for “failure to prevent bribery” by a person associated with that organization. (See Section 7).

USA

The FCPA prohibits bribery of foreign officials. (See 15 [United States Code] (U.S.C.) §§78dd-1(a) and (f)(1))

VIETNAM

The Vietnamese New Penal Code prohibits bribery of Vietnamese and foreign public officials, as well as officials of international organizations.  (See Articles 40, 354, 364).

The Vietnamese New Penal Code also prohibits commercial bribery. (See Articles 354, 364).

Note that the monetary threshold to meet the definition of a bribe is VND 2 million (approx. USD 95).

Bribe Recipients

ARGENTINA

Law No. 25.188 and the APC prohibit Argentinian public officials from receiving gifts, benefits, gratuities, or donations. (See Articles 256-257 and 259 of the APC, and Articles 2, 18, 30-37 of Law 25.188).

AUSTRALIA

The Australian Criminal Code prohibits receipt of bribes by Commonwealth officials. (See Division 141).

BRAZIL

The BCCA does not apply to bribe recipients.

CANADA

The CFPOA does not apply to bribe recipients.

CHILE

The Chilean Criminal Code prohibits receipt of bribes by Chilean public officials. (See Article 248).

COLOMBIA

The Colombian Criminal Code prohibits receipt of bribes by Colombian officials. (See Articles 405-06)

The Colombian Criminal Code prohibits receipt of commercial bribes. (See Article 250; Law 1474, Article 17).

CHINA

The AUCL and PRC Criminal Code prohibit the receipt of bribes. (See AUCL Chapter II, Article 8, Chapter VIII, and Articles 385, 386, and 388A of the PRC Criminal Code).

EGYPT

The Egyptian Criminal Code prohibits receipt of bribes by Egyptian public officials and receipt of commercial bribes by any corporate employee. (See Articles 103-106).

FRANCE

Sapin II and the French Criminal Code prohibit the receipt of bribes by French and foreign public officials. (See Articles 20-21 of Sapin II, and Articles 432-11, 435-1, and 435-7 of the French Criminal Code).

The French Criminal Code prohibits the receipt of commercial bribes. (See Article 445-2).

GERMANY

The German Criminal Code prohibits all receipt of bribes by German and EU public officials, as well as receipt of bribes by foreign public officials that violate official duties. (See Sections 108, 331-336).

The German Criminal Code prohibits the receipt of commercial bribes. (See Sections 299-301).

INDIA

The PCA prohibits the receipt of bribes by Indian public officials. (See Chapter 3, Sections 7-11, 13).

INDONESIA

The Indonesian Criminal Code and Anti-Corruption Law of Indonesia prohibit receipt of bribes by Indonesian public officials, but do not address receipt of bribes by foreign officials or commercial bribes. (See Criminal Code, Article 2; See Anti-Corruption Law, Articles 5, 12).

ITALY

The Italian Penal Code prohibits receipt of bribes by Italian and EU public officials. (See Articles 318, 319, 322-bis).

The Italian Civil Code prohibits receipt of commercial bribes. (See Article 2635).

JAPAN

The Japanese Criminal Code prohibits receipt of bribes by Japanese public officials. (See Articles 197, 198).

The Companies Act prohibits receipt of commercial bribes by company directors. (Article 967).

KAZAKHSTAN

The Kazakhstani Criminal Code prohibits receipt of bribes by Kazakhstani and foreign public officials. (See Article 366).

The Kazakhstani Criminal Code also prohibits receipt of commercial bribes. (See Article 253).

MEXICO

The Mexican Criminal Code and GLAR prohibit the receipt of bribes. (See Chapter II, Article 52 of GLAR and Chapter X, Article 222 of Mexican Criminal Code). Mexican Federal Criminal Code (“Mexican Criminal Code”)

NIGERIA

The Nigerian Criminal Code and Corrupt Practices Act prohibit receipt of bribes by Nigerian public officials, but do not address the receipt of bribes by foreign officials. (See Criminal Code, Sections 98-99; Corrupt Practices Act, Sections 8,10, 18).

The Corrupt Practices Act also prohibits receipt of commercial bribes. (See Sections 8, 17).

PERU

The Peruvian Criminal Code prohibits receipt of bribes by Peruvian and foreign public officials, inclusive of officers of state-owned entities and public international organizations. (Articles 393, 393.A).

RUSSIA

The Russian Criminal Code prohibits receipt of bribes by Russian public officials. (See Article 290).

Though not proscriptive in nature, Law No. 273 recognizes the wrongful nature of the receipt of bribes by Russian public officials. (See Article 7_1).

SAUDI ARABIA

The CBL prohibits the receipt of bribes by both Saudi and foreign public officials as it makes no distinction between the two. (See Articles 1-6).

SOUTH AFRICA

The PCCAA prohibits the receipt of bribes both in the public and private sector. (See Chapter 2, Part 1, Section 3).

SPAIN

The Spanish Criminal Code prohibits receipt of bribes by Spanish and foreign officials, as well as by officials of international organizations. (See Article 427).

The Spanish Criminal Code also prohibits receipt of commercial bribes. (See Article 286-bis).

TURKEY

The Turkish Criminal Code prohibits receipt of bribes by Turkish and foreign officials, as well as by officials of international organizations, but does not prohibit commercial bribery. (See Article 252).

UAE

The UAE Federal Law prohibits the receipt of a bribe in both the public and private sector. (See Penal Code (Federal Law No. 3 of 1987).

UNITED KINGDOM

Only bribe recipients in the commercial bribery setting can be prosecuted under the UKBA. (See Sections 1 and 2).

USA

Bribe recipients cannot be prosecuted under the FCPA.

Bribe recipients can, however, be prosecuted under other federal and state laws, including the Travel Act (See 18 U.S.C. 1952). and anti-money laundering regulations. (See 18 U.S.C. 1956, 1957).

Additionally, the government can seek to recover the proceeds of bribery and corruption through its Kleptocracy Initiative and Asset Forfeiture.

VIETNAM

The Vietnamese New Penal Code prohibits receipt or “brokering” of bribes by Vietnamese and foreign public officials, as well as officials of international organizations. (See Articles 5, 6, 354).

The Vietnamese New Penal Code also prohibits receipt of commercial bribes. (See Articles 354, 364).

Note that the monetary threshold to meet the definition of a bribe is VND 2 million (approx. USD 95).

Accounting Provisions

ARGENTINA

Law 25.188, the APC and Law 27.401 do not contain accounting provisions.

Law 27.401 requires all entities contracting over USD 6 million with the Government of Argentina to have an established Integrity Program. The proposed components, which are dependent on an entity's risk assessment and size, should include internal controls or due diligence, and at a minimum must include the following:

  1. A code of conduct
  2. Bidding process rules
  3. Periodic training

(See Articles 22-23).

AUSTRALIA

The Australian Criminal Code includes accounting provisions that establish criminal liability for both persons and corporations that either intentionally or recklessly conceal bribery in accounting documents. (See Division 490).

BRAZIL

The BCCA does not contain accounting provisions.

CANADA

The CFPOA makes it illegal for Canadian companies and companies conducting business in Canada to:

  1. Hide a bribe to a foreign official by establishing or maintaining accounts which do not appear in any of the books and records that are required to be kept in accordance with applicable accounting standards.
  2. Make transactions that are not recorded in those books.
  3. Record nonexistent expenditures in those books.
  4. Knowingly use false documents.
  5. Intentionally destroy books and records. (See Section 4.(1)[3]).

CHILE

The Chilean Criminal Code and Law 20.393 do not contain accounting provisions.

COLOMBIA

The Colombian Criminal Code does not contain any bribery-related accounting provisions, thought it does contain anti-money laundering provisions. (See Article 323).

CHINA

The AUCL requires that discounts and middleman commissions must be accurately reflected in both the company’s and recipient’s books and records. (See Chapter II, Article 8).

EGYPT

The Egyptian Criminal Code does not contain accounting provisions, but the Egyptian Companies Law criminalizes practices such as tampering with accounting statements, misappropriation of funds, and disregard for books and records. (See Article 162).

The Egyptian Anti-Money Laundering Law prohibits knowingly concealing and/or managing funds that are proceeds of a criminal offense. (See Article 2).

FRANCE

Sapin II requires all companies, presidents, directors, and managers with 500 employees and EUR 100 million in revenues to implement an anti-corruption compliance program and internal accounting controls. that include:

  1. A code of conduct.
  2. Whistleblowing procedures.
  3. Risk assessment mechanisms.
  4. A system of accounting controls to ensure books and records do not hide corruption.
  5. Third-party due diligence processes.
  6. Employee corruption training.
  7. Internal reporting procedures for suspected illicit activity
  8. A disciplinary action policy.
  9. Reporting chains and a mechanism for evaluating the program’s effectiveness. (See Article 17 of Sapin II, and Articles L123-12 and L123-13 of the Commercial Code).

GERMANY

The German Commercial Code includes accounting provisions that require accurate books and records and effective internal controls. (See Section 238).

The German Commercial Code attaches criminal liability to the publication of false statements. (See Section 331).

German law does not require the disclosure of potential violations of anti-corruption provisions.

INDIA

The PCA does not contain accounting provisions.

INDONESIA

The Indonesian Criminal Code and Anti-Corruption Law of Indonesia do not contain bribery-related accounting provisions, though Nigerian law does contain anti-fraud and anti-money laundering provisions. (See Criminal Code, Article 378; See Law on Money Laundering, Articles 2-3).

ITALY

The Italian Penal Code does not contain any bribery-related accounting provisions, though it does contain anti-money laundering provisions. (See Article 648, 648-bis).

The Italian Civil Code contains anti-fraud provisions that prohibit tampering with books and records. (See Article 2621).

JAPAN

The Japanese Criminal Code does not contain any bribery-related accounting provisions, though it does contain anti-fraud and anti-breach of fiduciary duty provisions. (See Articles 246, 247).

The Act on Punishment of Organized Crime prohibits concealing or knowingly receiving the proceeds of certain crimes, including bribery. (See Articles 10, 11).

KAZAKHSTAN

The Kazakhstani Criminal Code does not contain any bribery-related accounting provisions, thought it does contain anti-fraud and anti-money laundering provisions. (See Articles 190, 218).

MEXICO

The GLAR does not contain accounting provisions.

NIGERIA

The Nigerian Criminal Code does not contain any bribery-related accounting provisions, though it does contain anti-fraud, embezzlement, and corporate account tampering provisions.

(See Criminal Code, Sections 418-419, 427, 434-35; See Corrupt Practices Act, Section 12-13, 16).

PERU

The Peruvian Criminal Code contains anti-fraud provisions which prohibit tampering with the books and records of a company. (See Articles 196, 198).

RUSSIA

The Russian Criminal Code and Law No. 273 do not contain accounting provisions.

SAUDI ARABIA

The CBL does not contain accounting provisions.

SOUTH AFRICA

The PCCAA does not contain accounting provisions.

SPAIN

The Spanish Criminal Code does not contain any bribery-related accounting provisions, thought it does contain anti-money laundering provisions. (See Article 298).

TURKEY

The Turkish Criminal Code does not contain any bribery-related accounting provisions, though it does contain anti-fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, and related provisions. (See Articles 157, 247, 282).

UAE

The UAE Federal Law does not contain accounting provisions.

Ministerial Resolution No. (7/RM), which applies to all companies with securities listed in the UAE, requires internal control systems, the formation of an audit committee, and the appointment of external auditors.

UNITED KINGDOM

The UKBA does not contain accounting provisions.

USA

The FCPA requires public companies (i.e., companies whose securities are listed on a U.S. exchange (including foreign companies who list American Depositary Receipts) or who are subject to the periodic reporting provisions of the Securities Exchange Act) to:

  1. make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation.
  2. devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. (See 15 U.S.C. §78m).

VIETNAM

The Vietnamese New Penal Code does not contain any bribery-related accounting provisions, though it does contain anti-fraud and anti-money laundering provisions. (See Articles 174; 324; 359).

Jurisdiction

ARGENTINA

The APC applies to any Argentinian public official or any individual in Argentinian Territory. (See Articles 23, 256-259).

Law 27.401 establishes criminal liability for private legal persons as defined by the Argentine Civil Code, including for domestic or foreign entities incorporated under any legal form, with an exception made for labor unions, political parties, and professional associations. (See Article 1).

AUSTRALIA

The Australian Criminal Code domestic anti-bribery provisions apply regardless of whether a bribe takes place in Australia, so long as they involve a public official of the Commonwealth. (See Divisions 15.4, 141-142).

The Australian Criminal Code foreign anti-bribery provisions apply when an element of a bribe occurs partly in Australia, on an Australian aircraft/ship, or when the alleged offender is incorporated in Australia, or an Australian citizen or resident. (See Division 70.5).

BRAZIL

The BCCA applies to:

  1. Brazilian business organizations and sole proprietorships, whether incorporated or not, regardless of the type of organization or corporate model adopted, as well as any foundations, associations, or entities or persons.
  2. Foreign companies having an office, branch, or representation in the Brazilian territory that is organized in fact or by law, even if temporarily. (See Chapter I, Article 1).

CANADA

The CFPOA applies to activities committed outside of Canada if the person or entity is:

  1. A Canadian citizen.
  2. A permanent resident of Canada.
  3. A public body, corporation, society, firm, or partnership that is incorporated or otherwise formed under Canadian law. (See Section 5.(1)[2]).

CHILE

The Chilean Criminal Code applies to any party that is involved in the bribery of Chilean public officials, and provides jurisdiction over the bribery of any foreign officials by either Chilean nationals or foreign citizens who reside habitually in Chile, including permanent and temporary residents. (See Article 5).

Law 20.393 also imposes criminal liability on Chilean legal entities where owners, representatives, executives, managers, or administrative staff directly or indirectly engage in bribery of Chilean or foreign public officials. (See Articles 3-5).

COLOMBIA

The Colombian Criminal Code applies to all crimes committed on Colombian territory, as well as to the bribery of Colombian public officials abroad. (See Article 14, 16.1)

Law 1474 and Law 1778 apply administrative and civil liability for bribery of Colombian and foreign officials, respectively, when committed by Colombian entities or their foreign subsidiaries, or by subsidiaries of foreign entities that are registered in Colombia. (See Law 1474, Article 34 and Law 1778, Article 2).

CHINA

The AUCL applies to “legal persons or other economic organizations or individuals engaged in commodities marketing or profit-making services.” (See Chapter I, Article 2).

The PRC Criminal Code is “applicable to all who commit crimes within the territory of the PRC…[and] all who commit crimes aboard a ship or aircraft of the PRC.” (See Part One, Chapter I, Article 6).

The PRC Criminal Code is also applicable to PRC citizens, including PRC military and government officials, who commit crimes while outside PRC territory. (See Part One, Chapter I, Article 7).

Article 8 of the PRC Criminal Code indicates the law is applicable to foreigners who commit crimes against the PRC or its citizens while outside PRC territory. (Part One, Chapter I, Article 8).

EGYPT

The Egyptian Criminal Code applies to offences that take place wholly or partly in Egypt, but it does not apply to the bribery of foreign officials and does not provide for criminal liability of legal entities. (See Article 2).

FRANCE

Sapin II applies to any:

  1. Corruption outside France implicating French citizens.
  2. Corruption outside France by non-citizens that reside in France.
  3. Corruption outside France by a French company or any foreign entity that conducts all or some of its business in France. (See Article 21 of Sapin II).

GERMANY

The German Criminal Code applies when either person involved in a bribe is a German citizen, or if either the bribery or an act connected to a bribe took place in Germany. Agents and facilitating parties can also be held liable. (See Sections 5, 25-26).

While foreign companies are not subject to the German Criminal Code, the German Administrative Offences Act can hold companies civilly responsible for corruption committed by its employees, whether intentional or negligent, via the inclusion of administrative fines of up to EUR 10 million, as well as the forfeiture of illegal profits. (See Section 30).

INDIA

The PCA applies to “the whole of India” and to all Indian citizens inside or outside of India. (See Chapter 1, Sections 1-2c).

Note, the “whole of India” applies to all companies/persons doing business in Indian territories. In Iridium India Telecom v. Motorola Incorporated (2011) 1 SCC 74, India’s Supreme Court held that companies and corporate entities could no longer claim immunity from criminal bribery/corruption prosecution.

INDONESIA

The Indonesian Criminal Code applies to all offenses committed on Indonesian territory. (See Articles 2-4).

The Anti-Corruption Law of Indonesia also applies to persons outside Indonesia who assist in committing certain offenses, including bribery, and further imposes administrative liability and potentially criminal liability on entities or their corporate offices for certain offenses, including bribery. (See Articles 16-20).

ITALY

The Italian Penal Code applies to all crimes committed on Italian territory, regardless of citizenship or jurisdiction of incorporation, as well as to crimes committed by Italian public officials abroad and to any bribes paid abroad where it can be established that the decision to pay the bribe took place in Italy.

The Italian Penal Code also applies to legal entities whose main seat is in Italy and to non-Italian citizens where the bribery offence is not prosecuted by the state where it is committed and all other extra-territorial jurisdiction requirements are fulfilled (e.g. suspect’s presence in Italy, request of proceedings by the Minister of Justice, etc.). (See Articles 4, 6-7, 9-10)).

Decree 321 also imposes administrative liability on legal entities for acts that are prohibited by the Italian Penal Code and Italian Civil Code, including bribery, and are committed on behalf of, or for the benefit of, the legal entity by persons with operational or representative authority. (See Articles 5, 25).

JAPAN

The Japanese Criminal Code applies to all crimes committed on Japanese territory, as well as to Japanese public officials who receive bribes abroad. (See Articles 1, 4).

The Act on Punishment of Organized Crime’s anti-money laundering provisions apply to proceeds of certain crimes committed abroad, including bribery. (See Article 2).

KAZAKHSTAN

The Kazakhstani Criminal Code applies to all crimes committed by persons on Kazakhstani territory. It also applies to bribery of foreign officials where committed outside of Kazakhstan by:

  1. A Kazakhstani citizen not prosecuted in the state in which it was committed.
  2. A non-Kazakhstani citizen not prosecuted in the state in which it was committed, but directly against the interest of Kazakhstan.
  3. A non-Kazakhstani citizen not prosecuted in the state in which it was committed, but where bribery is subject to international treaty to which both the pertinent state and Kazakhstan are a party.

(See Articles 366-367).

Kazakhstan’s Code of Administrative Offenses applies administrative (not criminal) liability to legal entities engaged in bribery. (Article 678)

MEXICO

The GLAR applies to acts committed in Mexican territory by:

  1. Mexican public officials,
  2. Individuals, and
  3. Companies and legal entities. (See Chapters II and III).

NIGERIA

The Nigerian Criminal Code applies to all offenses committed in Nigeria, and to persons who commit an act outside Nigeria that would constitute a crime locally, once they enter the country. (See Article 12).

The Nigerian Criminal Code and Corrupt Practices Act establish that legal entities may be considered persons for the purposes of Nigerian law, with penalties including asset forfeiture and criminal prosecution of its officers. (See Criminal Code, Article 1(f); See Corrupt Practices Act, Article 1(g)).

It should be noted, Nigerian federal criminal law has a limited application in States of Northern Nigeria, where Sharia law is used. (See Penal Code (Northern States) Federal Provisions Act, Section 6).

PERU

The Peruvian Criminal Code applies to all crimes committed on Peruvian territory. (See Article 1).

Law 30424 and Decree 1352 apply the Peruvian Criminal Code’s anti-bribery provisions to both domestic and foreign companies. (See Law 30424, Article 3; Decree 1352, Articles 1-3).

RUSSIA

The Russian Criminal Code applies to a public official, a foreign public official, or an official representing a public international organization involved in bribe-taking; natural persons involved in bribe-giving to a public official, a foreign public official, or an official of a public international organization; as well as individuals involved in bribery mediation. (See Articles 290, 291, and 291.1).

Law No. 273 applies to all organizations operating in Russian territory. (See Articles 4.2 and 14.3).

SAUDI ARABIA

The CBL applies to all individuals and entities in Saudi Arabia, including foreign companies doing business in the country but without a formal presence. (See Article 8).

Note, where the activities take place entirely outside of Saudi Arabia, a local court does not generally accept jurisdiction over a foreign company.

SOUTH AFRICA

The PCCAA applies to acts committed outside of South Africa if the person or entity to be charged is:

  1. A citizen of South Africa.
  2. A resident of South Africa.
  3. Arrested in South African territory.
  4. Incorporated or registered under the laws of South Africa.

(See Chapter 7, Section 35 (1,2)).

Note, the PCCAA was intended to cover any activities that affect a person, company, or public body in South Africa.

SPAIN

The Spanish Criminal Code applies to all crimes committed on Spanish territory and by Spanish citizens abroad. (See Articles 23.1, 23.3).

The Spanish Criminal Code provides that entities may be held criminally and administratively liable for offenses committed by their representatives. (See Articles 31-bis, 33.7, and 427-bis).

Note, Spanish law provides for a principle of universal jurisdiction, which applies the Spanish Criminal Code to all Spanish and foreign citizens abroad under various conditions (e.g. criminal proceedings were brought against a Spanish citizen or foreign citizen residing in Spain, or a crime was committed by the manager of an entity registered or based in Spain); however, several recent amendments and conditioning factors have limited the law’s scope and implementation (See Articles 23.4-23.5).

TURKEY

The Turkish Criminal Code applies to all crimes committed on Turkish territory, and may apply to offenses committed by Turkish citizens abroad as well as by foreign citizens abroad if that person is a Turkish resident.  (See Articles 8, 11-12, 252).

The Turkish Criminal Code also imposes administrative liability on legal entities and their legal representatives for offenses such as bribery, bid-rigging, embezzlement, money laundering, and the financing of terrorism, though it should be noted that Turkish majority state-owned entities are exempt and the law appears to link the prosecution of a legal entity to the requirement of a simultaneous prosecution of a person. (See Article 43/A).

UAE

The UAE Federal Law applies to all crimes committed in the UAE, including the free zone whether, committed by a domestic or foreign entity. (See Penal Code (Federal Law No. 3 of 1987).

UNITED KINGDOM

The UKBA applies to:

  1. Acts that take place in the U.K. (See Section 12(1)).
  2. U.K. individuals and companies conducting business abroad. (See Chapter 23).
  3. Foreign companies and individuals with a U.K. presence. (See Chapter 23).
  4. Individuals or entities that commit acts outside the U.K. if they have a “close connection to the U.K." (See Sections 12(2) and 12(4)).

The “failure to prevent bribery” provision in Section 7 applies to:

  1. U.K. entities that conduct business in the U.K. or elsewhere.
  2. Any corporation, wherever formed, which carries on business or part of a business in the U.K. regardless of where the conduct occurs. (See Section 7(5)).

USA

The bribery provisions of the FCPA apply to:

  1. SEC issuers (U.S. and foreign companies). (See 15 U.S.C. §78dd-1(a)).
  2. Domestic concerns. (See 15 U.S.C. §78dd-2(hg(1))
  3. U.S. persons acting outside U.S. in furtherance of a prohibited payment. (See 15 U.S.C. §78dd-1(g)(1))
  4. Foreign nationals and entities that commit an act in the U.S. in furtherance of a prohibited payment. (See 15 U.S.C. §78dd-1(a)
  5. U.S. or foreign agents of any of the foregoing. (See 15 U.S.C. §78dd-1(g)(1)).

VIETNAM

The Vietnamese New Penal Code applies to all crimes committed by persons on Vietnamese territory and to crimes committed by Vietnamese citizens at home or abroad. (See Articles 5-6).

The Vietnamese New Penal Code does not apply criminal liability to legal entities for corruption-related offences such as bribery, but does apply it for crimes including tax evasion, fraud, money laundering, and terrorist financing. (See Article 217).

Affirmative Defense and Mitigation – Corporate Compliance Program

ARGENTINA

Law 27.401 does not provide an affirmative defense from liability based on a company’s compliance program, but allows for cooperation in “effective collaboration agreements” similar to a DPA or NPA, and allows for leniency by providing guidance to courts via a list of factors that should be considered when assessing a compliance program and determining any related sentencing. (See Article 8).

Law 27.401 also exempts entities from punishment where they have shown they implemented an effective Integrity Program, detected and self-reported a crime to authorities, and returned undue profits. (See Article 9).

AUSTRALIA

While not specifically included in the Australian Criminal Code, presence of a compliance program may be considered as a mitigating factor at the time of sentencing.

BRAZIL

The BCCA includes a leniency program to mitigate sanctions and penalties for companies that disclose wrongdoing and cease involvement in the unlawful practice. (see Chapter V, Article 16).

In addition, the effectiveness of an organization’s compliance program will be considered when applying sanctions. (see Chapter III, Article 7).

CANADA

While not specifically included in the CFPOA, case law indicates that prosecutors may consider the effectiveness of an organization’s compliance program and its remedial efforts, including voluntary disclosure of potentially violative conduct. (See Griffiths Energy International, Jan. 14, 2013).

CHILE

Law 20.393 contains anti-money laundering, anti-terrorism financing, and anti-corruption compliance program requirements (termed a "Crime Prevention Model"). The programs can be certified, and Law 20.393’s minimum legal standards include:

  1. Risk Assessments
  2. Policies/Procedures
  3. Auditing/Oversight
  4. Internal Prosecution of Related Crimes

The prior establishment of a compliance program may be used to mitigate liability in a criminal proceeding. (See Articles 4 and 6.3).

COLOMBIA

Law 1778 provides that a company may avoid corporate liability and/or mitigate fines where it self-reported violations and has adopted these anti-corruption controls:

  1. Executives’ Duties
  2. Risk Assessment
  3. Compliance Program (list of risks, mitigation plan, employees’ duties, and internal auditing policies)
  4. Management (CCO)
  5. Due Diligence
  6. Ongoing Monitoring
  7. Training Program
  8. Reporting

(See Article 6, 19).

Law 222 obliges entities in specific sectors and beyond certain size thresholds to implement the above-detailed compliance program or be subject to administrative penalties for non-compliance. (See Article 86).

CHINA

Neither the AUCL nor the PRC Criminal Code provide an affirmative defense to liability based on a company’s compliance program.

EGYPT

Egyptian law does not require entities to adopt a compliance program, does not include any affirmative defense or leniency, and does not offer protection to whistleblowers.

FRANCE

Sapin II does not include an affirmative defense or leniency program for companies based on their compliance program. Notwithstanding the foregoing, one (1) year after a settlement agreement is reached, a Public Prosecutor can petition an enforcement judge for early commutation of a monitorship, which can last up to three (3) years. (See Article 18 of Sapin II)

Additionally, the French Criminal Code reduces an individual's prison sentence by half if he/she has engaged in active or passive corruption or influence peddling, but presents himself/herself to French authorities and enables those authorities to identify accomplices or prevent a crime.

GERMANY

Neither the German Criminal Code nor the German Administrative Offences Act provide an affirmative defense to liability based on entities’ compliance programs. Sentencing mitigation provisions and witness protection applies only to individuals under the German Criminal Code. (See Section 46B).

Nonetheless, prosecutors and courts often consider existence of a compliance program while sentencing. Cooperation will often help minimize potential financial penalties levied against the company per Section 30 of the German Administrative Offences Act.

INDIA

The PCA does not provide an affirmative defense to liability based on a company’s compliance program.

INDONESIA

Indonesian law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability based on the existence of a compliance program.

Note, a recent ordinance of the Indonesian Supreme Court instructed judges to examine an entity’s efforts to comply with the law as a factor in determining liability.

ITALY

Decree 231 provides a legal entity may limit or avoid administrative liability for crimes committed by its representatives where it can demonstrate it had established an appropriate compliance program (termed a “Model of Organisation, Management and Control”) before an offense such as bribery occurred, and that its Model was circumvented by the representative. Note, the absence of a compliance program is not an offense under Italian law. The Model must include:

  1. Risk Assessments
  2. Resources Allocation
  3. Policies / Procedures
  4. Oversight / Monitoring
  5. Reporting to Authorities
  6. Distribution of Model

(See Articles 6, 25).

JAPAN

Japanese law does not provide an affirmative defense to liability based on the existence of a compliance program.

KAZAKHSTAN

Kazakhstani law does not provide an affirmative defense to liability based on the existence of a compliance program, as legal entities are not subject to criminal liability.

MEXICO

The GLAR includes a provision to lessen the penalties imposed to companies when they have a compliance program in place, and when, during an investigation, their representatives disclose information and collaborate with authorities. (See Chapter II, Article 25 and III, Article 81 of GLAR).

NIGERIA

Nigerian law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability based on the existence of a compliance program.

PERU

Law 30424 and Decree 1352 waive liability for violations of anti-bribery provisions where entities voluntarily implemented an appropriate compliance program prior to the offense. The required elements of a compliance program to be considered for exoneration of corporate liability include:

  1. Appointing Individual that is Responsible for Internal Prevention Audit
  2. Risk Assessments
  3. Complaint Proceedings
  4. Materials Dissemination
  5. Training Program
  6. Continuous Monitoring

 (See Law 30424, Article 17.1; Legislative Decree 1352, Article 17.1).

RUSSIA

Law No. 273 includes an affirmative obligation that requires companies to develop and implement corporate compliance programs to prevent bribery, and companies can assert a defense that they have taken steps (including the implementation of a compliance program), to prevent bribery. (See Article 13.3 of Law No. 273).

SAUDI ARABIA

The CBL exempts a briber or intermediary from penalties if they voluntarily inform the authorities with respect to a crime before discovery by authorities. (See Article 16).

A whistleblower who is not a briber, participant, or intermediary, and provides incriminating evidence will receive a reward of at least 5,000 Saudi riyals and up to half of funds confiscated (See Article 17).

SOUTH AFRICA

The PCCAA does not provide an affirmative defense to liability based on a company’s compliance program.

The Companies Act, 2008, however, requires that publicly listed companies, state-owned enterprises, and privately owned companies over a certain size must appoint a Social and Ethics Committee to oversee the companies’ compliance with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and the Recommendation on Further Combating Foreign Bribery. (See Companies Act, 2008, Chapter 3, Section 43).

SPAIN

The Spanish Criminal Code provides a company may be exempt from criminal liability if it demonstrates a suitable compliance program was in place before the offense occurred, and that a person committed the offense by fraudulently circumventing the compliance program. The program should include:

  1. Risk Assessment
  2. Policies / Procedures
  3. Financial Management Models
  4. Reporting
  5. Disciplinary Measures
  6. Verification / Monitoring

(See Article 31-bis).

The Spanish Criminal Code also provides a company may mitigate criminal liability by assisting the investigation of offenses committed by its employees/representatives. (See Article 31-quater).

TURKEY

Turkish law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability based on the existence of a compliance program.

Nonetheless, the Turkish Criminal Code allows that natural persons involved in bribery may avoid liability by self-reporting their own violations to authorities. (See Article 254).

UAE

UAE law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability or mitigation of sanctions based on a company’s compliance program.

UNITED KINGDOM

The UKBA permits companies that have allegedly failed to prevent bribery to assert an affirmative defense that they had adequate procedures in place to prevent the bribe. (See Section 7(2)).

USA

The FCPA does not provide an affirmative defense that a corporation has implemented an effective compliance program.

However, Chapter 9-28.000 of The Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations, Chapter 8 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, as well as the SEC’s Enforcement Cooperation Program and the Department of Justice’s Fraud Section's FCPA Enforcement Plan and Guidance contain the framework for mitigating charges and sanctions based on the effectiveness of an organization’s compliance program, the voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing, and cooperation with government investigations.

VIETNAM

Vietnamese law does not provide an affirmative defense to liability based on the existence of a compliance program, as legal entities are not subject to criminal liability.

Note, individuals who self-disclose payment or receipt of a bribe prior to its discovery may be exempted from criminal liability. (See Article 364).em>

Affirmative Defense and Mitigation – Local Law

ARGENTINA

Argentine law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability payments made pursuant to local law.

AUSTRALIA

The Australian Criminal Code provides an affirmative defense from liability when the provided benefit is required or permitted by local law. (See Division 70.2).

BRAZIL

The BCCA does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payments made pursuant to local law.

CANADA

The CFPOA states that no person shall be deemed to have committed an offense if a payment is permitted or required under a foreign law or the law relating to the organization for which the foreign official works. (See Section 3(3)(a)).

CHILE

Chilean law does not provide an affirmative defense for liability for payments made pursuant to local law.

COLOMBIA

Colombian law does not provide an affirmative defense for payments made pursuant to local law.

CHINA

Chinese law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payments made pursuant to local law.

EGYPT

Egyptian law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payments made pursuant to local law; however, Egyptian law does not criminalize acts that are committed wholly abroad.

FRANCE

Sapin II does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payments made pursuant to local law.

GERMANY

German law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payments made pursuant to local law for German or EU public officials.

However, where these payments do not violate a foreign public official’s official duties, they are not punishable under the German Criminal Code. (See Sections 331-335).

INDIA

The PCA does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payments made pursuant to local law.

INDONESIA

Indonesian law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payments made pursuant to local law.

ITALY

Italian law does not provide and affirmative defense from liability for payments made pursuant to local law.

JAPAN

Japanese law does not provide an affirmative defense for payments made pursuant to local law.

However, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry has indicated such payments are not intended to be prohibited under the UCPA.

KAZAKHSTAN

Kazakhstani law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payments made pursuant to local law.

MEXICO

Mexican law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payments made pursuant to local law.

NIGERIA

Nigerian law does not provide an affirmative defense for payments made pursuant to local law.

PERU

Peruvian law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payments made pursuant to local law.

RUSSIA

Russian law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payments made pursuant to local law.

SAUDI ARABIA

The CBL does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payments made pursuant to local law.

SOUTH AFRICA

The PCCAA does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payments made pursuant to local law.

SPAIN

Spanish law does not provide an affirmative defense for payments made pursuant to local law.

TURKEY

Turkish law does not provide an affirmative defense for payments made pursuant to local law.

UAE

UAE law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payments made pursuant to local law.

UNITED KINGDOM

The UKBA provides an affirmative defense for payments made to foreign political officials that are permissible under local law. (See Sections 6(3) and 6(7)).

With respect to “commercial bribery,” written local law is considered only as a mitigating factor in determining what a reasonable payer or payee in the U.K. would expect in return for the payment. (See Section 5(2)).

USA

The FCPA provides an affirmative defense for payments that are permissible under written local law. (See 15 U.S.C. §78dd-1(c)(1)).

VIETNAM

Vietnamese law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payments made pursuant to local law.

Affirmative Defense and Mitigation – Promotional Expenditures

ARGENTINA

Argentine law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payment of promotional expenses.

AUSTRALIA

Australian law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payment of promotional expenses, though they may be allowed where such payments are permitted by local law. (See Australian Criminal Code, Division 70.2).

BRAZIL

The BCCA does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payment of promotional expenses.

CANADA

The CFPOA provides an affirmative defense for the payment of reasonable expenses that are directly related to the promotion, demonstration, or explanation of products or services, or the execution or performance of a contract with a foreign government or agency. (See Section 3.(3)(b)).

CHILE

Chilean law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payment of promotional expenses, though certain very limited nominal official and courtesy gifts are not deemed violations of any administrative probity. (See Law 18.575, Article 62-64).

COLOMBIA

Colombian law does not provide an affirmative defense for payment of promotional expenditures.

CHINA

Chinese law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payment of promotional expenses.

EGYPT

Egyptian law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payment of promotional expenses, but in practice, nominal promotional gifts are not regarded as falling under the anti-bribery provisions of the Egyptian Criminal Code.

FRANCE

Sapin II does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payment of promotional expenses.

GERMANY

German law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payment of promotional expenses.

INDIA

The PCA does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payment of promotional expenses.

The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act 2010 has prohibited acceptance of hospitality or contributions from “foreign sources” by Indian public officials.

Further, the government has outlined guidelines and monetary thresholds for public servants related to the acceptance of gifts, business courtesies, and expenses (See Central Civil Services Rules, 1964 and All India Services Rules (1968).

INDONESIA

The Anti-Corruption Law of Indonesia provides that gifts to public officials self- disclosed and valued at less than IDR 10 million (USD 710) are not bribes. (See Articles 12B-C).

ITALY

Italian law does not provide an affirmative defense for payment of promotional expenditures, though case law establishes that anti-bribery laws do not prohibit gifts of small value, a total value for which has not been expressed.

Decree 62 regulates the conduct of Italian public employees, states that gifts of small value are those worth €150 or less, and notes public employees are not prohibited from accepting such gifts in cases not connected to the employee’s official duties. (See Article 4.2, 4.5).

JAPAN

Japanese law does not provide an affirmative defense for promotional payments.

However, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry has indicated promotional giveaways or gifts may not necessarily be prohibited under the UCPA.

KAZAKHSTAN

Kazakhstani law does not provide an affirmative defense for payment of promotional expenditures, though limited symbolic gifts are not deemed a violation of administrative probity if they play no role in a public official’s actions. (See Article 366).

The Law on State Service exempts foreign officials from certain prohibitions on gifts and payments to Kazakhstani public officials. (See Article 50.16- 50.17). 

MEXICO

Mexican law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payment of promotional expenses.

NIGERIA

Nigerian law does not provide an affirmative defense for payment of promotional expenditures.

PERU

Peruvian law does not provide an affirmative defense for payment of promotional expenditures.

RUSSIA

Russian law does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payment of promotional expenses.

SAUDI ARABIA

The CSL prohibits Saudi public officials from the accepting of any gifts, in keeping with the Islamic teaching (hadith) (See Article 12 (C-D).

Note, in practice gifts are prohibited where there is an intent to bribe (including travel expenses, meals, or entertainment).

SOUTH AFRICA

The PCCAA does not provide an affirmative defense from liability for payment of promotional expenses.

SPAIN

Spanish law does not provide an affirmative defense for payment of promotional expenditures.

TURKEY

Turkish law does not provide an affirmative defense for payment of promotional expenditures.

UAE

The Federal Human Resources Law prohibits employees from accepting any gifts from third parties unless they are symbolic advertising or promotional gifts bearing the name and emblem of the third party. (See Federal UAE Law No. 11 of 2008).

UNITED KINGDOM

The UKBA does not provide an affirmative defense for payment of promotional expenses.

USA

The FCPA provides an affirmative defense for payments that are reasonable and bona fide business expenses that are directly related to the promotion, demonstration, or explanation of products or services, or the execution or performance of a contract with a foreign government or agency. (See 15 U.S.C. §78dd-1(c)(2)).

VIETNAM

Vietnamese law does not provide an affirmative defense for payment of promotional expenditures, though limited symbolic gifts are allowed if they play no role in a public official’s actions.

Facilitation Payments

ARGENTINA

Argentine law does not provide an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

AUSTRALIA

The Australian Criminal Code permits facilitation payments of low-value benefits, in exchange for performing certain minor routine government actions when a transaction record is made immediately and preserved. (See Division 70.4).

BRAZIL

Facilitation payments are prohibited under Brazilian law. See Brazilian Penal Code (Articles 337-B and 337-C).

CANADA

The CFPOA states that the facilitation payment exception will be phased out at a date to be determined by the Federal Cabinet. (See Section 5).

CHILE

Chilean law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

COLOMBIA

Colombian law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

CHINA

Chinese law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

EGYPT

Egyptian law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments, but in practice nominal hospitality expenses are not regarded as falling under the anti-bribery provisions of the Egyptian Criminal Code.

FRANCE

Facilitation payments are prohibited under French law. (See Articles 432-11, 433-1, 435-1, 435-3, 435-7, 435-9, 445-1, and 445-2 of the French Criminal Code).

GERMANY

German law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments for German or EU public officials.

However, where facilitation payments do not violate a foreign public official’s official duties, they are not punishable under the German Criminal Code. (See Sections 331-335).

INDIA

Indian law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

INDONESIA

Indonesian law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

ITALY

Italian law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

JAPAN

Japanese law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

KAZAKHSTAN

Kazakhstani law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

MEXICO

Mexican law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

NIGERIA

Nigerian law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

PERU

Peruvian law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

RUSSIA

Russian law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

SAUDI ARABIA

Saudi law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

SOUTH AFRICA

South African law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

SPAIN

Spanish law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

TURKEY

Turkish law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

UAE

UAE law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

UNITED KINGDOM

The UKBA does not permit an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

USA

The FCPA permits facilitation payments for low-level payments for certain routine government actions. (See 15 U.S.C. §78dd-1(b) and §78dd-1(f)(3)).

VIETNAM

Vietnamese law does not include an exception from liability for facilitation payments.

Navigant has provided the information in this tool for informational purposes only and it is not intended to provide legal advice. The information is a summary of the more salient provisions of the regulations and is not a full recitation of any law or regulation. The information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable; however, Navigant does not make any express or implied warranty or representation concerning such information. Navigant, and its subsidiaries and affiliates hereby disclaim liability for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions in this tool.