May be the US Really Alone within the Battle Against Bribery?
As business crime-related claims go, the one made by the chair of the US Filing was a reasonably large one.
SEC Chairman Jay Clayton chose a speech towards the New York Economic Club to reason that the US was pretty much going it alone with regards to punishing bribery and corruption. He cited figures to back his stance and accompanied by calling on other nations to follow along with the US's lead in tackling what is a global problem.
But does his viewpoint stand up to serious scrutiny? Simply to a really limited degree.
His view that the US has spent a lot more than two decades enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is a legitimate enough indicate make. In the past 5 years approximately, the SEC has taken a lot more than 70 FCPA-related cases – and these cases have involved misconduct in almost as many countries. Mr Clayton's argument that the US is “doing its bit'' does, therefore, seem to stack up. The FCPA is a strong piece of legislation and the US is far from shy with regards to utilising it.
But the SEC chair could be come to task when he claims the US is acting largely alone; especially as he argues that other countries are taking benefit of the efforts that the US is putting in to tackle bribery and corruption. The united states has, for many years, been certainly one of a relatively small group of nations prepared to investigate bribery however the view that somehow other people are freeloading is unfair.
The view has additionally been expressed within the US that because other countries don't have strong anti-bribery legislation US companies bidding for work abroad face foreign rivals who are not bound by legislation as far-reaching as the FCPA; meaning the united states information mill in a disadvantage when trying to clinch deals. But should that does not be a reason for the united states to become working closer with other nations to eradicate bribery instead of condemning them for what the SEC chair sees as a lack of effort?
Mr Clayton appears to have recognised that as markets evolve, so must the SEC. He should also recognise the US is not the only place where efforts are being designed to tackle bribery.
If we go ahead and take UK as only one example, the intense Fraud Office takes a multi-disciplinary approach to investigating bribery and corruption. The kind of forensic investigators, lawyers and computer specialists cooperate together for maximum effectiveness. The SFO also works with other UK agencies – as well as national and international enforcement agencies – to tackle bribery and corruption. It is looking to encourage a culture of co-operation and self-reporting among corporates. Avoiding prosecution using a deferred prosecution agreement – as was the situation with Rolls-Royce – has become a possibility. Unexplained wealth orders are just one out of a number of measures available to the UK authorities when it comes to targeting the assets of those suspected of being corrupt. And, in the Bribery Act, the UK has a more far-reaching piece of legislation compared to US's FCPA.
These are all reasons why Mr Clayton could be wrong to lump the SFO – and by extension, the united kingdom – in with those he sees as falling short when it comes to tackling bribery and corruption.
But it might be also wrong to think the united kingdom may be the only nation going for a more aggressive approach to tackling bribery. Anti-corruption laws can vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction however, many countries are now working harder to combat bribery. Corruption has been made the subject of agreements from bodies as sizeable and varied because the Council of Europe, the Un and also the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The claim in the SEC chair the US is going it alone does seem, at best, a little short-sighted.
