The US Court of Appeals held that a non-resident foreign national cannot be guilty of violating the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as an accomplice or a co-conspirator if that person was incapable of committing it as a principal.
Companies in Russia may avoid liability in domestic bribery cases if they assist in identifying the offence (e.g. by disclosing information), assist in investigation of the bribe, or if the bribe has been extorted,
On 22 July 2018, the Act Supplementing the Constitution Relating to the Prevention and Suppression of Corruption came into effect, replacing the previous anti-corruption law from 1999. Among other things, the reason for implementing the new law is to enhance measures and mechanisms to prevent and suppress corruption and willful misconduct.
Following the success of the Global Corporate Liability and Global Overview of Anti-Bribery Laws handbooks and websites, Baker McKenzie's Compliance & Investigations group announced the launch of the corresponding mobile applications.
The long-awaited Criminal Justice Bill 2017 is on its way. The new “failure to supervise” offence has survived intact despite several significant changes.
The Malaysian Government has proposed a bill that will make corporations liable for the corrupt practices of its associated persons.
Spanish Supreme Court admits employee e-mails obtained in the course of an internal investigation...
A judicial decision has confirmed the admissibility as evidence, to justify a dismissal, of the emails of the dismissed employee obtained in the course of an internal investigation.
On 20 March 2018, China's National People's Congress passed the Supervision Law detailing the powers and responsibilities of the National Supervision Commission.
The Irish Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Bill 2017 is on its way and will introduce a range of new offences which modernise the Irish anti-corruption code.
A UK refurbishment contractor has been found guilty under Section 7 of the UK Bribery Act 2010 for failure to prevent bribery. The case represents the first time that a jury has considered an "adequate procedures" defence under the UKBA.