Canada Steps up the Fight Against Foreign Corruption

Canada Steps up the Fight Against Foreign Corruption

By Susan Hutton and Paul Beaudry
Stikeman Elliott LLP

In August 2013, a Canadian court convicted Nazir Karigar for conspiring to bribe Indian government officials with US$450,000, following a failed attempt to secure an airline security contract for Cryptometrics Canada, an Ottawa-based technology company.1 The Karigar decision is significant, as it marks the first contested trial of a charge under Canada's Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act2 (“CFPOA”), and the first conviction against an individual. Such is the natural result, however, of Canada's recent determination to step up the fight against foreign corruption.

Since it was criticized in 2011 by both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Working Group on Bribery and by Transparency International3 for a perceived failure to adequately prosecute complex white-collar criminal cases, Canada has markedly enhanced the scale and capability of its enforcement activities. Notably, two recent convictions against companies in the oil and gas sector have resulted in fines of C$9.5 million and C$10.35 million.4 Moreover, the number of foreign bribery investigations in Canada increased from 23 in 2010 to 35 in 2013.5

The CFPOA prohibits giving or offering to give a benefit of any kind to a foreign public official, or any other person for the benefit of the foreign public official, in the context of a business transaction. It is applicable both to individuals and corporations, whether acting directly or through an agent or third party. An individual need not be Canadian to be charged; permanent residents can also be liable under the CFPOA. The CFPOA provides an exemption for payments that are legal under local law, for the good faith reimbursement of legitimate business expenses and for facilitation payments (i.e., payments made to public officials to secure or expedite the performance of routine, non‐discretionary government action). Since the passage of Bill S-14, the Fighting Foreign Corruption Act6 (“FFCA”) in June 2013, the CFPOA also contains a books-and-records offense that, among other things, prohibits the establishment of off-the-books accounts, failing to record or adequately identify transactions, and recording non-existent expenditures, for the purpose of bribery or hiding that bribery.

The recently passed FFCA strengthens the CFPOA and addresses a number of recommendations made by the OECD's Working Group.7 At the same time, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) launched a new National Division to focus on sensitive and international investigations, including those related to corruption of public officials.8 The RCMP also recently entered into a multilateral agreement to establish the International Foreign Bribery Taskforce, which will combat foreign bribery and support the OECD and United Nations' anti-bribery conventions.9 These steps are helping to change Canada's reputation from being a jurisdiction that is a laggard in anti-bribery legislation enforcement, to one that is serious about fighting corruption, both at home and abroad.

Canada's stepped-up enforcement of the CFPOA is part of a growing global trend to combat corruption. The United States has been at the forefront, with more than 270 civil or criminal enforcement proceedings initiated since 2007 under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act10 (“FCPA”), resulting in more than US$4 billion in fines.11 The United Kingdom, which prosecuted its first foreign corruption case in 2008,12 passed the Bribery Act 201013 (“Bribery Act”) to address both domestic and foreign corruption in a clear and comprehensive manner, marking a departure from its previous patchwork of statutory and common law offenses.

In addition to exposure under the CFPOA, the FCPA, the Bribery Act 2010 and other national statutes, companies that bribe foreign officials also risk penalties under the host country's own laws.14 Accordingly, it is critical for companies doing business abroad to understand behaviors that give rise to risk of violations, to understand their legal exposure, and to institute measures to ensure compliance. While corruption at home is of course also a risk, the much higher incidence of bribery outside Canada can put these doing business there at risk both of allegations of and requests for bribes.

Although the United States pioneered foreign anti-bribery legislation in the 1970s, the first significant step towards fighting international corruption was taken by the United Nations (“UN”) during the mid-1990s, albeit initially only in the form of a “political commitment.” In 1996, however, the UN General assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration against Corruption and Bribery in International Commercial Transactions, which, among other things, called on member states to enact and enforce laws prohibiting corruption in international transactions, criminalizing the bribery of foreign officials, and ensuring that bribes were not tax deductible. Over a decade later, in October of 2008, the UN General Assembly adopted the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, which came into force in December of the following year, and has now been ratified by 167 member states.15 Article 16 of the Convention requires Parties to criminalize the “promise, offering or giving” of an undue advantage to a foreign public official or an official of a public international organization in order to obtain or retain business or some other advantage in relation to the conduct of international business. It also requires that states consider adopting legislation that would make it illegal for a foreign public official to solicit or accept such bribes.

The mid-1990s also witnessed the adoption by the World Bank of new regulations to address corruption in the projects it funds. Such regulations include rules temporarily or indefinitely barring firms from participating in Bank-funded contracts if they are found to have engaged in any corrupt or fraudulent practices in competing for or executing a Bank-funded project.16

Efforts to achieve international standards for foreign corruption laws also led to the OECD's 1997 Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (“OECD Convention”). The Convention, which came into force in 1999, has been ratified by the 34 OECD-member states, as well as six other states (Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Columbia, Russia and South Africa).17 Among its requirements, the Convention mandates that parties implement laws prohibiting the bribing of foreign officials, and impose “effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties” for violations of those laws (or non-criminal sanctions if a state's criminal legal system does not apply to non-natural persons). Parties are also required to exercise jurisdiction over their nationals who commit bribery offenses abroad. The Convention implements a peer monitoring system, through which the Working Group on Bribery (composed of members from all state Parties) publishes regular reports detailing each Party's legislative compliance with all aspects of the Convention.

Canada took an active role in the negotiation of the OECD Convention, which was completed in November of 1997 and signed by Canada the following month. In fulfillment of its obligations under the OECD Convention, Canada passed the CFPOA in December of 1998.

In order to understand how Canada's approach to anti-corruption laws measures up internationally, it is instructive first to briefly consider the approaches taken in the United States, a pioneer in the area of foreign anti-corruption legislation, and in the United Kingdom, a country that, like Canada, began to enforce foreign anti-corruption laws relatively recently.

a) United States
The FCPA was passed in 1977, in the wake of the so-called Lockheed scandal, in which executives of the US aircraft manufacturer were found to have bribed high-ranking government officials in various countries, including Japan, the Netherlands and Italy, even as Lockheed sought financial support from the US government. A report from the House of Representatives explained that the legislation was necessary because of widespread admitted bribery by corporations.18 Anti-corruption legislation, it was believed, would make it easier for American corporations to resist demands for foreign bribes, as American law could be pointed to as an excuse or justification for the refusal to give bribes.

Under the FCPA, it is illegal to give anything to a foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. The Act provides an exception for “facilitating payments,” meant to expedite or secure routine governmental action. A defense is also provided for payments that are legal under the relevant foreign law, or that would qualify as “reasonable and bona fide” payments related directly to “the promotion, demonstration, or explanation of products or services,” or “the execution of performance of a contract with a foreign government or agency thereof.” The FCPA also contains provisions requiring companies traded on an American stock exchange to maintain appropriate accounting standards.

The FCPA provides for both criminal enforcement by the Department of Justice, and (when a company is publicly traded in the United States) civil enforcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Over the past several years there has been a sharp increase in the size and number of fines levied pursuant to the FCPA, and in the number of investigations initiated by both the Department of Justice and the SEC. For example, combined enforcement of the FCPA resulted in 40, 74 and 48 enforcement proceedings in 2009, 2010, and 2011, respectively, compared to only 5, 12 and 15 such proceedings in 2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively.19 Notably, while the number of proceedings fell from 48 in 2011 to 23 in 2012, this decrease is an anomaly in light of the upward trend over the past decade. In fact, 17 proceedings were initiated during the first half of 2013 alone, which is an indication that the low 2012 figure will likely be surpassed by the end of the year.20 There has also been a push to charge individuals, as “part of a deliberate enforcement strategy to deter and prevent corrupt practices in the future.”21

Even more notable than the sharp increase in enforcement activity is the sheer size of some of the fines recently handed out. To date, the largest fine imposed by American authorities was against Siemens AG, which agreed to pay a total of US$800 million in civil and criminal fines after pleading guilty to FCPA violations in December 2008. Other significant fines have been levied on companies found to be in violation of the FCPA since the Siemens case, including KBR/Halliburton (US$579 million, February 2009), BAE (US$400 million, March 2010), Technip (US$338 million, June 2010), ENI (US$365 million, July 2010), and Total S.A. (US$398 million, May 2013).22

Contrary to a perception once held by many in the US business community, the FCPA is not only applied to large corporations doing business in emerging markets. Enforcement activity in the last several years has been broader in terms of the size of the corporations targeted, the nature of their businesses, and the regions in which they have or are alleged to have committed bribery.23

b) United Kingdom
The United Kingdom's Bribery Act 2010 came into force on July 1, 2011. Previously, the United Kingdom's bribery law emanated from a number of different statutory and common law sources, many of which were inconsistent and not comprehensive. Like Canada, the United Kingdom ratified the OECD Convention in 1998. At that time, the United Kingdom maintained that its existing law already met the requirements of the OECD Convention.24 However, in reaction to its poor Phase 1 OECD assessment in 1999,25 the United Kingdom passed the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.26 Section 108 of the Act clarified that, for the purposes of any common law offense of bribery, it would be immaterial “if the functions of the person who receives or is offered a reward have no connection with the United Kingdom and are carried out in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.” It also provided small amendments to three corruption-related statutes, which had the effect of extending their application to bribery or corruption occurring in foreign countries.27

The Bribery Act 2010 provides a more comprehensive scheme for addressing corruption. It creates six criminal offenses related to bribery, including an offense for bribing a foreign public official in order to retain or obtain an advantage in the conduct of business (but there is no offense where the official is permitted or required by the applicable written law to be influenced by the advantage). An organization may also be liable for a separate offense if a person associated with it commits bribery. However, the organization will have a defense if it has adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery. The Act contains a maximum penalty of 7–10 years in prison, and/or fines in the discretion of the court.

The first United Kingdom prosecution for foreign bribery occurred in 2008 against Neils Jorgen Tobiasen, the Danish managing director of The CBRN Team, a UK-based company specializing in countering chemical threats, who pleaded guilty to bribing Ugandan government officials. As of March 2012, there were 10 concluded criminal and civil foreign bribery enforcement actions that resulted in sanctions. The largest combined monetary penalty has been against BAE Systems, which was ordered to pay £29.5 million to the people of Tanzania, costs of £225,000, and a £500,000 fine in December 2010 (BAE was also fined US$400 million in the US for the same infraction).28

In 2012, the OECD's Working Group on Bribery commended the United Kingdom for its efforts to raise awareness of the Bribery Act 2010 and the foreign bribery offense.29 Notwithstanding this positive assessment, a recent report of the House of Lords' Select Committee on Small and Medium Sized Enterprises stated that “application of the Bribery Act 2010 has been met with confusion and uncertainty”, and recommended urgent scrutiny of the statute by a parliamentary select committee.30 Accordingly, in June 2013, the British government announced that its Star Chamber would carry out a review of the Bribery Act 2010, with a focus on facilitation payments.31 Presently, the Act does not distinguish between facilitation payments or other payments, meaning that any type of payment can be construed as a bribe. While the business sector sees the review as an opportunity to provide greater clarity and level the playing field, Transparency International has expressed concerns that the review will water down the Act, sending the wrong message about the United Kingdom's commitment to fight foreign corruption.32


a) The Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act
The CFPOA came into force in 1999 and brought Canada into compliance with the OECD Convention. The CFPOA prohibits giving or offering to give a benefit of any kind to a foreign public official, or any other person for the benefit of the foreign public official, in the context of a business transaction. It is applicable both to individuals and corporations, whether acting directly or through an agent or third party. An individual need not be Canadian to be charged, permanent residents can also be liable under the CFPOA.

Violation of the CFPOA is an extraditable offense and is punishable, in the case of an individual, by imprisonment for up to 14 years and/or fines. This penalty means that neither a discharge, nor a conditional sentence, is available for the offense of bribing a foreign public official. A company can receive an unlimited fine for failing to prevent bribery. There is no limitation period for indictable offenses. Because sanctions under the CFPOA are solely criminal, proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” is required.

b) Recent cases
The Karigar case, briefly discussed above, involved a former executive of Cryptometrics Canada, an Ottawa-based technology company, conspiring to bribe several government officials in India. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice convicted Nazir Karigar under the CFPOA for offering bribes of US$250,000 to India's former Minister of Civil Aviation, and US$200,000 to the co-Chair of the selection committee for an Air India security project, in an attempt to secure a C$100 million dollar contract for the supply of a security system by Cryptometrics. While the Crown was not able to prove that Karigar had in fact made illicit payments to the Indian officials, the Court found sufficient evidence of a paper trail to demonstrate that he had intended to do so.33 A sentencing date has not yet been set, but Mr. Karigar could face up to five years in prison.

On January 22, 2013, Griffiths Energy International Inc. (“Griffiths”, recently renamed Caracal Energy Inc.), an oil exploration and development company based in Calgary, pleaded guilty to foreign bribery in relation to securing an oil and gas contract in Chad. Griffiths made a voluntary disclosure to the RCMP's International Anti-Corruption Unit, and was fined C$10.35 million.34

In 2011, Niko Resources Ltd. (“Niko”), another Calgary-based oil and gas exploration and production company with operations in a number of countries around the world, pleaded guilty to bribery under the CFPOA and was sentenced to a fine of C$9.5 million.35 Niko had provided the Energy Minister of Bangladesh with a C$190,000 vehicle for personal use, as well as with trips to Calgary and New York following an explosion at one of Niko's natural gas fields in that country. At the time, the Minister was assessing how much compensation was owed to Bangladeshi villagers for water contamination and other environmental concerns caused by the explosion. Niko's sentence for the bribery includes a three-year probation order, which requires Niko to implement a detailed compliance program subject to review by an independent auditor.

Although small in comparison to some fines levied in the United States for similar offenses, the fines imposed on Griffiths and Niko contrast in magnitude with the fine levied pursuant to the only previous conviction under the CFPOA. In January 2005, the Hydro Kleen Group Inc, an Alberta-based pipeline maintenance company, admitted to bribing a US immigration officer working at the Calgary International Airport and was ordered to pay a fine of C$25,000 — less than the C$30,000 bribe involved. Two other charges, against a director and an officer of the company, were stayed as part of a plea agreement.36

The RCMP continues to work on two ongoing, high-profile investigations: Blackfire Exploration Ltd. (“Blackfire”) and SNC-Lavalin. In July 2011, the RCMP raided the offices of Blackfire, a Calgary mining company with operations in the Mexican state of Chiapas. Blackfire's activities in Chiapas have faced vocal opposition from the local population and the company is being investigated for allegedly bribing the mayor of the town in which it operates a barite mine.37 The company has explained that it thought the money was being used for the benefit of the citizens of the town and that it stopped the payments as soon as it became aware that the funds were possibly being used for other purposes.38 It recently stated that it is cooperating fully with the ongoing RCMP investigation.39

In September 2011, the RCMP raided offices of Montréal-based SNC-Lavalin, one of the 10 largest engineering firms in the world, in connection with its bid to supervise the contractor responsible for the construction of a bridge in Bangladesh. The RCMP reportedly initiated its investigation at the request of the World Bank, which had lent C$1.2 billion to the government of Bangladesh for the construction of the bridge. In 2012, former engineer Mohammad Ismail and former Executive Vice-President Ramesh Shah were charged with bribing officials in Bangladesh. They are currently awaiting their trial in Toronto.40 The former head of construction at SNC-Lavalin was also recently arrested on charges of corruption, fraud, and money laundering in connection with dealings in North Africa.41 As a response to these enforcement actions, SNC-Lavalin set up a company-wide whistleblower program between June and August 2013, offering immunity to any employees who came forward to report other instances of corruption.42

In light of these foreign corruption enforcement actions, Transparency International recently moved Canada from the “little enforcement” category, which includes countries that have only brought minor cases or only have investigations, up to the “moderate enforcement” category, which includes countries that have at least one major case and one active investigation. However, Transparency International considers only those countries with “active enforcement” as being capable of providing effective deterrents to foreign bribery. Notably, the United States and United Kingdom both fall under this category. In order for Canada to be classified as having “active enforcement”, it would need at least 10 major cases on a cumulative basis, and at least three of them concluded with substantial sanctions.43

In its Phase 3 Report on Canada, issued in March 2011,44 the OECD's Working Group on Bribery criticized several aspects of Canada's legislative and institutional framework to combat foreign corruption. Canada responded through legislative amendments to strengthen its anti-corruption regime under the FFCA.45 In May 2013, Canada provided the Working Group with a Follow-up to Phase 3 Report,46 which outlines recent changes to the CFPOA that will help Canada fulfill its obligations under the OECD Convention:

a) Definition of “business”
In 2011, the OECD Working Group had noted that the foreign bribery offense under the CFPOA only applied to bribes for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an advantage in the course of “business”, which was defined in the CFPOA as “any business, profession, trade, calling, manufacture or undertaking of any kind carried on in Canada or elsewhere for profit,” and that Canada was the only party to the OECD Convention to have included such a requirement in its foreign bribery offense.47 (The Convention does not differentiate between business for profit and not for profit.) Recognizing that the interpretation of the “business for profit” requirement in the CFPOA was unclear and that it might limit the scope of corporate liability, the Working Group recommended that Canada amend the offense of bribing a foreign public official in the CFPOA so that it would apply to bribery in the conduct of all international business, not just business “for profit”. Accordingly, the recently adopted FFCA modified the definition of “business” under the CFPOA to mean “any business, profession, trade, calling, manufacture or undertaking of any kind carried on in Canada or elsewhere.”

b) Jurisdiction
Unlike parallel enactments in most other OECD countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, where jurisdiction is based on the nationality of the accused, the CFPOA only applied when the bribery had a “real and substantial” connection to Canada (i.e., presence, action or effect in Canada). The OECD Working Group favored the implementation of the nationality jurisdiction, claiming that the “real and substantial requirement” could doom certain foreign bribery prosecutions “for lack of sufficient jurisdictional link over the act(s) in question.”48 In response to this recommendation, the FFCA added a new section to the CFPOA that, in cases of foreign bribery, allows Canada to exercise jurisdiction over all individuals or companies that have Canadian nationality, without having to provide evidence of a link between Canada and the offense.49

c) New books-and-records offense
Canada's nationality jurisdiction extends to the newly enacted Section 4 of the CFPOA, which makes it an offense to establish off-the-books accounts, make transactions that are not recorded in books and records, record non-existent expenditures, incorrectly enter liabilities, knowingly use false documents, or intentionally destroy books and records, for the purpose of bribing a foreign public official or hiding that bribe. Notably, this new provision has allowed Canada to implement Article 8 of the OECD Convention, which requires each state to “provide effective, proportional and dissuasive administrative or criminal penalties” for falsification of books and records in the context of bribing a foreign public official.

d) RCMP's exclusive ability to lay charges
The FFCA also added a new section to the CFPOA that provides the RCMP with exclusive authority to lay charges under the Act.50

e) Remove possibility of double jeopardy
Previously, the CFPOA's extraterritorial reach meant that a Canadian business could be liable both in Canada and elsewhere for the same actions. The FFCA removes this possibility by preventing Canadian authorities from initiating further criminal proceedings against Canadian companies and individuals tried in another jurisdiction for acts or omissions committed outside Canada.51

f) Facilitation payments exception to be repealed
Currently the CFPOA contains an exception in the bribery prohibition for facilitation payments.52 Facilitation payments are payments made to public officials to secure or expedite the performance of acts of a routine nature other than the award of new business that are within the scope of the public official's duties. This exception will be repealed when the amendment comes into force on a day to be fixed by the Government. Once the exception is eliminated, Canada will distinguish itself from the United States where facilitation payments are permitted, and follow in the footsteps of the United Kingdom where they are prohibited — although any such payment would still have to be shown to be for the purpose of influencing a public official, presumably in respect of the exercise of discretion which is typically not involved in the case of true “facilitation payments”.

The recent Karigar, Griffiths, and Niko cases, as well as the ongoing Blackfire and SNC-Lavalin investigations, indicate that Canada is taking a stronger stance against foreign corruption. The limited number of convictions under the CFPOA contrasts with the American experience, where enforcement efforts have expanded in recent years. However, the growing number of foreign bribery investigations shows that Canada is improving its focus and investing more resources in the fight against foreign corruption.

Canada's increased enforcement of the CFPOA is attributable, in large measure, to the RCMP's dedication of significant means to fight foreign corruption. In 2008, the RCMP established two International Anti-Corruption Units, in Ottawa, Canada's capital, and Calgary, a hub for Canada's resource industry.53 These units increased their combined foreign bribery investigations from 23 in 2010 to 35 in 2013.54

On June 3, 2013, the RCMP launched a new National Division in Ottawa that will focus on sensitive and international investigations.55 The division has a dual mandate of providing protective services to dignitaries, and conducting high-risk investigations of threats to Canada's political, economic and social integrity. Notably, the division will focus on investigations involving corruption of Canadian and foreign officials, corruption of contracting and procurement processes, distortion of Canada's electoral processes, and unlawful disclosure of sensitive information. It will also target organizations and individuals involved in offenses against the economic integrity of government institutions in Canada.56 The National Division will operate using an integrated approach that encourages specialized investigators to cooperate as they work to investigate cases where issues such as organized crime and money laundering may overlap.57

Canada and the United States recently joined forces with the United Kingdom and Australia to sign a memorandum of understanding that establishes the International Foreign Bribery Taskforce (“IFBT”).58 The mandate of the IFBT will focus on strengthening foreign bribery investigations and supporting the anti-bribery conventions of the OECD and the United Nations. 59

The fines imposed in the Griffiths and Niko cases are relatively on par with most of the fines levied in the United Kingdom to date. Although much publicity has been given to the handful of extremely high fines given out in the United States, the reality is that most fines fall well below the US$100-million threshold, and many fines have been smaller than those imposed in the Griffiths and Niko cases. Fines are necessarily fact-specific, and there is no reason why, in the right case, Canada might not also levy a significant fine.

Canada's heightened involvement in the fight against foreign bribery should not go unnoticed by Canadian companies conducting business abroad (especially in countries with high levels of corruption60). It is important for such companies to review their accounting processes and ensure tight control over foreign expenditures. Corporate compliance programs and policies should also be assessed with a view to focusing resources on the areas of greatest risk, and ensuring more than just lip‑service is paid to the need to stamp out corruption — abroad as well as at home. Together, these actions can help companies fulfill their obligation to prevent bribery and other unlawful payments in their overseas and domestic operations.

  1. R. v. Karigar, 2013 ONSC 5199, [2013] O.J. No 3661.
  2. S.C. 1998, c. 34 [CFPOA].
  3. See OECD Working Group on Bribery, Phase 3 Report on Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in Canada (March 2011), online: and Transparency International, Progress Report 2011, Enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (2011), online:
  4. Transparency International, Exporting Corruption? Country Enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (2012), online: and Government of Canada, Canada: Follow up to the Phase 3 Report & Recommendations (May 2013), online:
  5. Ibid.
  6. 1st Sess, 41st Parl, 2013 (assented to 19 June 2013), RSC 2013, c. 26, s. 4.
  7. See OECD Working Group on Bribery, supra note 4.
  8. See Royal Canadian Mounted Police, “RCMP's New National Division to Focus on Sensitive and International Investigations” (3 June 2013), online:
  9. See Royal Canadian Mounted Police, “New international taskforce combats foreign bribery” (11 June 2013), online:
  10. 15 U.S.C. § 78 dd-1.
  11. Gibson Dunn, “2013 Mid-Year FCPA Update” (8 July 2013), online: and Shearman & Sterling, “FCPA Digest: Recent Trends and Patterns in the Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” (January 2013), online:
  12. See City of London Police, “Guilty plea to bribery sets legal landmark” online:
  13. 2010 c. 23.
  14. For instance, in 2002, Acres International Limited, a Canadian construction firm, was convicted by the Lesotho High Court of paying bribes to the head of a water transfer and hydropower infrastructure project between Lesotho and South Africa, and was ordered to pay a fine of C$3.8 million, reduced to C$2.6 million on appeal. Also, investigations are currently underway in Switzerland and Italy with respect to bribery allegations involving SNC-Lavalin in Algeria.
  15. This number is accurate as of May 29, 2013. See United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “United Nations Convention against Corruption”, online:
  16. For a summary of the anti-corruption measures implemented by the World Bank during this period see: Ko-Yung Tung (Vice President and General Counsel, The World Bank), “The World Bank's Institutional Framework for Combating Fraud and Corruption” (Speech delivered at the International Monetary Fund's Seminar on Monetary and Financial Law, 8 May 2002), online:
  17. OECD, “OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions”, online:>
  18. US, House of Representatives, Unlawful Corporate Payments Act of 1977 (HR Doc No 95-640) (1977).
  19. Gibson Dunn, “2012 Year-End FCPA Update” (2 January 2013), online:
  20. Gibson Dunn, “2013 Mid-Year FCPA Update” (8 July 2013), online:
  21. Lanny Breur (Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice), “International Criminal Law Enforcement: Rule of Law, Anti-Corruption, and Beyond” (Speech delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations, 4 May 2010), online:
  22. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “SEC Enforcement Actions: FCPA Cases” (29 May 2013), online:
  23. Mike Koehler, “The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the Ultimate Year of its Decade of Resurgence,” (2010) 43(2) Indiana Law Review 389 at 396-398.
  24. See OECD, United Kingdom: Review of the Implementation of the Convention and 1997 Recommendation – Phase 1 Bis Report (3 March 2003), online:
  25. See OECD Working Group on Bribery, United Kingdom: Review of the Implementation of the Convention and 1997 Recommendation - Phase 1 Report (December 1999), online:
  26. 2001, c. 24.
  27. The relevant statutes are the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, 1906 c. 34 (Regnal.6_Edw_7); the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, 1889 c. 69 (Regnal.52_and_53_Vict); and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, 1916 c. 64 (Regnal. 6_and_7_Geo_5).
  28. OECD Working Group on Bribery, Phase 3 Report on Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in the United Kingdom (March 2012), online:
  29. OECD Working Group on Bribery, Annual Report on Activities Undertaken in 2012 (2013), online:
  30. Select Committee on Small and Medium Sized Enterprises, Roads to Success: SME Exports (February 2013), online:
  31. See Dan Hyde, “Bribery Act: ‘facilitation payments'”, The Law Society Gazette (17 June 2013), online:
  32. See Robert Barrington (Transparency International UK) “The Bribery Act should not be watered down” (29 May 2013), online:> and Transparency International, “Stop watering down anti-corruption legislation” (29 May 2013), online:
  33. Greg McArthur, “Canadian executive convicted in Indian bribery conspiracy”, The Globe and Mail (15 August 2013), online:
  34. Government of Canada, supra note 5.
  35. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, “Corruption Charged Laid Against Niko Resources” (24 June 2011), online:
  36. OECD Working Group on Bribery, supra note 4.
  37. Stephanie Massinon, “RCMP launch probe into bribery allegations against Calgary's Blackfire Exploration”, Calgary Herald (August 29, 2011), online: [email protected]
  38. Greg McArthur, “RCMP raid Calgary miner over bribery allegations” (August 29, 2011) The Globe and Mail, online:
  39. Julian Sher, “Canadian mining company got embassy help amid controversy in Mexico: Advocacy group”, The Toronto Star (5 May 2013), online:
  40. Dave Seglins, “RCMP probe more SNC officials over alleged bribes”, CBC News (16 May 2013), online:
  41. Dave Seglins and John Nicol, “Former SNC-Lavalin exec arrested in Switzerland”, CBC News (29 April 2012), online:
  42. Sophie Cousineau and Jeff Gray, “SNC-Lavalin offers immunity to ‘get to the bottom of' scandal”, The Globe and Mail (27 May 2013), online:
  43. Transparency International, supra note 5.
  44. OECD Working Group on Bribery, supra note 4.
  45. Supra note 7.
  46. Government of Canada, supra note 5.
  47. OECD Working Group on Bribery, supra note 4 at para. 15.
  48. Ibid. at para. 116.
  49. CFPOA, supra note 2, s. 5.
  50. Ibid., s. 6.
  51. Ibid., s. 5(4).
  52. Ibid., s. 3(4)-3(5).
  53. The Ottawa unit was recently integrated into the Sensitive and International Investigations Unit, while the Calgary unit was recently merged with the Financial Integrity Unit.
  54. Transparency International and Government of Canada, supra note 5.
  55. Supra note 9. The National Division will replace the RCMP's “A” Division, which had jurisdiction over investigations in the National Capital Region.
  56. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, “About the RCMP National Division”(14 May 2013), online:
  57. Douglas Quan, “RCMP to unveil national anti-corruption unit”(2 June 2013), Montreal Gazette, online:
  58. The taskforce will be composed of subject matter experts from the RCMP, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the City of London Police's Overseas Anti-Corruption Unit, and the Australian Federal Police.
  59. Supra note 10.
  60. Transparency International publishes the Corruption Perceptions Index, which measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption in 178 countries around the world. The 2012 edition of the Index can be consulted online: