• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Can payments made directly to a government be a bribe?

Recently the US Department of Justice (DOJ) published an Opinion Release concerning the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This release, numbered 20-01, was the first such release since 2014.

Recently the US Department of Justice (DOJ) published an Opinion Release concerning the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This release, numbered 20-01, was the first such release since 2014.

Recently the US Department of Justice (DOJ) published an Opinion Release concerning the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This release, numbered 20-01, was the first such release since 2014.

Recently the US Department of Justice (DOJ) published an Opinion Release concerning the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This release, numbered 20-01, was the first such release since 2014.

The entity requesting the release (Requestor) wanted to buy some assets held by a foreign investment bank which was indirectly owned by a foreign government. It asked a different foreign subsidiary of the same investment bank to help. That separate subsidiary did indeed help and asked for compensation for the work that they did. The payment was to be made directly to that subsidiary and not to any individual.

On first blush this seems straightforward under the FCPA and almost any other national anti-bribery law. First, the payment was being made directly to a government instrumentality and not to an individual. Secondly, it was a payment for services that were legitimately rendered and commercially reasonable.

However, the Opinion Release goes further. It refers, amongst other things, to the certification provided by the Chief Compliance Officer of the subsidiary that the payment made will be deposited into the subsidiary's bank account and will only be used for the benefit of that company and will not be forwarded to any other entity.

The Opinion Release noted in this regard that "there is no indication that Requestor intends or believes the money will be diverted to any individual, and there is no indication that the money will, in fact, be diverted to any individual". Why has the DOJ referred to the absence of such indicia when the received wisdom is that such a payment would not fall foul of the FCPA.

What it may mean is that the DOJ will start to look at the knowledge of a party as to how payments made directly to a government will be used. Perhaps this is the first sign of a growing willingness across the Atlantic to look beyond the veneer of transactions to see whether individuals behind the government stand to benefit personally. Is the DOJ communicating its position on this in advance of taking actions? If so, will this policy change start to seep across the world and usher in further work for companies doing business directly with foreign government and government agencies? Do companies need to start seeking certification from governments that payments made to them or to others on their behalf will not be used to pay individuals?

Our thinking

  • Anti-Bribery & Corruption United Arab Emirates

    Sara Sheffield

    Insights

  • Corporate liability and penalties under The Bribery Act 2010

    Rhys Novak

    Insights

  • Swiss Anti-Corruption Laws: A Guide to Bribery Offences, Compliance, and Penalties

    Daniela Iselin

    Insights

  • AML in decentralized finance and traditional finance

    Caroline Greenwell

    Insights

  • Understanding Contempt of Court in Swiss Law: Key Provisions and Penalties

    Remo Wagner

    Insights

  • Understanding Civil and Criminal Remedies in France for Financial Crimes

    Frédéric Jeannin

    Insights

  • A company can claim privilege against its own shareholder

    Emilie Brammer

    Insights

  • The United Arab Emirates – Seeking Remedies for Financial Crime

    James Colautti

    Insights

  • Obtaining civil remedies in criminal cases: the UAE, Switzerland and France

    James Colautti

    Insights

  • The Swiss Criminal Code on Corruption: Evolution & Developments

    Daniela Iselin

    Insights

  • Caroline Greenwell and Bella Henry write for FT Adviser on the SFO’s annual report

    Caroline Greenwell

    In the Press

  • Peter Smith and Hannah McDonald write for Expert Witness Journal on the use of experts in international arbitration

    Peter Smith

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys Win - UK Court Acquittal for John Mason in High-Profile Bribery Case

    Caroline Greenwell

    News

  • Rhys Novak and Abigail Rushton write for PLC Magazine on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023

    Rhys Novak

    In the Press

  • Financial Reporter quotes Rhys Novak on a new FCA review into the treatment of PEPs

    Rhys Novak

    In the Press

  • Enforcement of Judgments

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    Insights

  • The Law Society Gazette quotes Duncan Lamont on the Leveson Inquiry

    In the Press

  • Karl Masi writes for The Oath on the Financial Action Task Force

    In the Press

  • Lexology │Getting The Deal Through: Anti-Bribery & Corruption 2023 - United Arab Emirates

    Sara Sheffield

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys succeed in Greggs v Zurich Covid-19 insurance trial

    Manoj Vaghela

    News

Back to top