Norm Keith, LL.M., partner at Fasken Martineau, will address this timely and important topic of the accountability, criminal enforcement and the social responsibility of corporations in Canada. Topics to be covered will include:
1. The “new normal” of criminalizing corporate behavior;
2. How the Westray Mine disaster changed corporate criminal liability;
3. The problem of proof in white collar prosecutions (Dunn & Duffy);
4. Recent examples of white collar convictions (Karigar & Kazenelson);
5. Will criminal prosecutions make businesses “more ethical”;
6. Towards a rationale model of corporate accountability and compliance.
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Fasken Martineau, 333 Bay Street, 24th Floor, Bay Adelaide
>> Register Now – Space is limited <<
This week, White Collar Post features a guest post from Frédéric Ruppert(1) and Maria Lancri(2).
In December 2016, France passed into law the so called “Sapin 2” law to combat non-ethical behavior and promote transparency. Its new anti-corruption legislation is intended to improve its commitment to business ethics, the prevention of fraud and prohibiting the bribery of foreign public official. This new French law sets forth anti-corruption measures with a view to the more efficient pursuit and prosecution of corruption cases, both foreign and domestic. The impetus came from the frequent critics, most notably from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, that France had not been adequately enforcing its current anti-corruption laws.
Large companies now have mandatory anticorruption programs, pursuant to the new law, Companies or groups of companies over 500 employees and EUR100 million of turnover and public administrations must implement a detailed anti-corruption compliance program.
Some features of the new law include obligation to implement an anti-corruption compliance program and that the executive managers bear the actual responsibility of enforcing this obligation within their companies. This is in line with a current trend where the underlying rationale is that only when individuals understand that their personal liability is at stake, will they take care of the situation.
Anticorruption programs are quite common in various organizations now, in particular following the footsteps of US, UK and many Canadian companies. The enforcement of the parent companies’ local laws (most notably US based) against their French subsidiaries, has really helped the understanding and acceptance of such regulations. French subsidiaries of foreign companies have implemented these programs for years now.
The international aviation industry is highly competitive, international, and yes, known for allegations of corruption. Whether buying, selling, maintaining, servicing or supplying an aircraft, an airport, or the supply chain or related needs, corruption risks associated with the aviation industry is well documented. Companies and individuals involved in the industry face pressures and temptations to flout the law to gain business advantage. However, the legal and business consequences of airline corruption includes, but is not limited to, criminal investigations, prosecutions, convictions, penalties, reputations being destroyed, disgorgement of profits, shareholder losses from the drop of share price, careers ruined, civil law suits launched by investors, loss of confidence by the investment community, legal fees, fines, and jail terms for individuals involved. Several examples illustrate the serious risks and consequences of corruption in the global aviation industry.
In June 2012, Brazil-based Embraer S.A., the world’s third largest commercial aircraft manufacturer, indicated in its Form 6-K (Report of Foreign Private Issuer) filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), that the company had received a subpoena from the SEC inquiring into certain operations concerning sales of aircraft. In response to this SEC-issued subpoena and associated inquiries into the possibility of non-compliance with the U. S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), Embraer retained outside legal counsel to conduct an internal investigation on transactions carried out in three specific countries.
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 France passed its new anti-corruption legislation, to improve its commitment to business ethics, the prevention of fraud and prohibiting the bribery of foreign public official. The new anti-corruption law, which has taken over a year to revise and implement, is intended to reach the same standards and levels of enforcement as the United Kingdom’s Bribery Act (“BA”) and the American Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). The most interesting aspect of the new law is that it permits corporate defendants to enter into negotiated resolutions, in a form that is commonly known as Deferred Prosecution Agreements (“DPAs”).
France has long been criticized for its weak anti-corruption law and enforcement activities. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) working group on bribery said recently that about 24 new corruption cases were opened in the past two years by French authorities yet no French corporation had been convicted of any foreign bribery offence. In 2014, however, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) secured three of the ten biggest Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement actions against French companies by means of DPAs. French corporate giants Alston paid $772 million, Total SA, paid $398 million and Technip SA, paid $338 million. France is the only country whose corporations have appeared on the DOJ’s FCPA top ten list, three times.
The international landscape on the law with respect to whistleblowing is changing dramatically and quickly. The Supreme Court of Canada is the first national high court in the world to recognize and protect the role of whistleblowers, their identity, and immunity, from disclosure and criminal prosecution. In its decision involving the World Bank Group, it addressed the subject of whistleblower immunity in an international case.
The opening paragraph of the Supreme Court Judgment, delivered by Justices Moldaver and Cote, reads as follows:
“Corruption is a significant obstacle to international development. It undermines confidence in public institutions, diverts funds from those who are in great need of financial support, and violates business integrity. Corruption often transcends borders. In order to tackle this global problem, worldwide cooperation is needed. When international financial organizations, such as the appellant World Bank Group, share information gathered from informants across the world with the law enforcement agencies of member states, they help achieve what neither could do on their own”.