Bribery and Corruption: what now for 2019?

2018 was a year in which the fight against bribery and corruption became more high-profile than ever. Globally, prominent politicians, large multinationals, and powerful executives faced the brunt of corruption investigations. 

Many commentators have noted that, if anything, corruption scandals seem to be surfacing more frequently, with almost daily exposés hitting the headlines. And as globalisation increasingly renders corruption a borderless crime, governments have had to react with ever more sophisticated anti-corruption legislation.

2018 was also a year of increased cooperation, with enforcement agencies around the world working together to stop corrupt actors in their tracks — building relationships, discussing case work and sharing intelligence and strategies. The message is that there are no hiding places for participants in global economic crime. 

Yet a culture of complacency persists in many boardrooms when it comes to ABC compliance: in a 2018 survey,¹ only 71 per cent of respondents said their companies had ABC policies in place, meaning that a significant proportion of companies remain unnecessarily exposed to bribery and corruption risks.

Here we take a look back at 2018's developments and trends both in the UK and globally, as well as the practical steps and tools available to companies to ensure they are better protected.

Developments in the UK

UK Government reiterates global commitment to eradicating corruption

In its first annual report on the UK's anti-corruption strategy published in December 2018, the UK Government reaffirmed its commitment to eradicating corruption and improving the business environment globally. 

The key message is that the UK should demonstrate global leadership on anti-corruption, especially as the country prepares to leave the EU. As part of this strategy, the new National Economic Crime Centre (NECC), sitting as part of the National Crime Agency, began operations in autumn 2018. The Government has also emphasised a renewed focus on transparency, particularly in relation to company ownership, public procurement, and the operation of government itself. 

Steps have already been taken. In July 2018 the Government published draft legislation which provides for the establishment of a public register of beneficial ownership of overseas legal entities owning UK property. The bill is due to go before Parliament in 2019, with a view to launching the register in 2021.²  After extended political and constitutional wrangling, the UK's overseas territories will also have to make public the ultimate owners of all their registered companies by the end of 2020. The extent to which such a change will combat the laundering of illegal money through UK property remains to be seen.

UK Bribery Act 2010 (the Act): section 7 "adequate procedures" defence finally tested

The "adequate procedures" defence potentially allows corporates a complete defence against the section 7 corporate offence of failing to prevent bribery. What is "adequate" is not defined in the Act, but is covered by the principles-based guidance published by the UK Government. In February 2018, the "adequate procedures" defence was finally tested in the courts in R -v- Skansen Interiors Limited (unreported). Although fact-specific, the case provides an insight into what the enforcement authorities will look for in determining whether procedures were adequate. See our briefing for more detail. 

The facts

The case concerned a small local business (Skansen) of around 30 employees. Skansen's former managing director allegedly made improper payments to secure contracts for the company. The bribery was discovered by Skansen's incoming CEO in early 2014. 

Following an internal investigation, Skansen fired the wrongdoer, self-reported to the authorities and cooperated fully with their investigation. Skansen's CEO also put in place an anti-bribery policy at the company. Skansen later went into financial difficulties and became dormant.

The CPS nevertheless prosecuted Skansen for failing to prevent bribery and corruption. Skansen argued that its procedures were adequate for a company of its size and nature, but the jury disagreed and Skansen was found guilty. 

What constitutes "adequate procedures"?  

This was a jury trial, so there was no judgment or judicial comment on what might constitute "adequate procedures". There are also questions as to how the jury was directed to consider whether procedures might be adequate. That said, the points made by the prosecution are worth noting: 

• Skansen was criticised for not designating anyone with responsibility for compliance matters. So even small companies, with no compliance function, will be expected to assign that responsibility to a senior employee.
• Skansen did have policies in place which emphasised the need to deal with third parties in an ethical, open and honest manner (one of which was displayed prominently on a wall). Financial controls and payment approval procedures were also in place to minimise risk. However, Skansen had failed to document what steps had been taken to embed a culture of compliance and alert staff of the existence of these policies. It was therefore very difficult to show what compliance steps it had taken, let alone satisfy the jury that they were adequate.
• The prosecution also referred to Skansen's failure to monitor and review its policies, and relied on the fact that Skansen could not show what steps it had taken when the UK Bribery Act came into force in 2011, or that it had used that as an opportunity to remind staff of the company's ethical policy and expectations.
  

Even small companies with seemingly minimal bribery risk need to implement and oversee some form of anti-bribery policy.

Mixed messages on the benefits of self-reporting?

While the CPS may feel that the case has sent a clear message of the high standards expected of a corporate in order to benefit from the adequate procedures defence, it has arguably muddied the waters with regard to the merits of self-reporting. 

Many commentators have expressed surprise that Skansen was not offered a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) despite the fact it self-reported and fully cooperated. Giving evidence to the Bribery Act Committee (see below), the lawyer who represented Skansen remarked that the CPS "bizarrely" decided that a DPA would not be in the public interest.³  When compared with cases where DPAs have been successfully negotiated by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), this case would suggest that smaller companies are at a disadvantage; a fact that appears to have been picked up by the House of Lords in its review of the Act (see below).

House of Lords reviews the Act and its burden on SMEs

In May 2018, the House of Lords appointed an ad hoc select committee to review the Act. The Bribery Act Committee is particularly focused on addressing whether the legislation is too onerous for small businesses, leading to concern that this may result in a watering down of the legislation.

There is increasing sentiment that the force of the Bribery Act is weighted against those with the least resources to ensure compliance, as demonstrated by the Skansen prosecution (discussed above).⁴  Lord Saville, the committee's chairman, has noted the widespread impression apparent from the committee's witnesses that big companies with deep pockets can simply "buy off" prosecution,⁵ and there has been much consideration of the extent to which the DPA framework has been successful.

The use of the word "adequate" in the section 7 "adequate procedures defence" has also come under close scrutiny, with many witnesses and committee members pointing out that the occurrence of bribery might be taken automatically to demonstrate that a company's procedures are, by definition, inadequate.⁶

Although the Government's line is that it is categorically not how the legislation should be interpreted,⁷  the layperson juror will arguably incline towards an ordinary interpretation of the word "adequate". Interestingly, the offence of failing to prevent facilitation of tax evasion refers to the "reasonable prevention procedures" defence. The committee may therefore suggest that "adequate" be replaced with "reasonable" when it reports in March 2019. 

As Brexit looms, some anti-corruption campaigners fear there will be increasing sentiment that the Act imposes too much red tape on UK businesses compared with their global competitors, leading the Government to be tempted to dilute the Act's provisions.⁸ 

It will therefore be interesting to see how the UK Government reacts to the recommendations of the Bribery Act Committee when it reports in March 2019.

Enforcement landscape: new leadership, new tools and new priorities

In August 2018, Lisa Osofsky began a five-year term as Director of the SFO. In a recent speech,⁹  she outlined the priorities of her agency as being:

1. encouraging greater cooperation among global law enforcement agencies;
2. looking for greater cooperation from the private sector;
3. deploying technology more efficiently — she plans to improve the agency's intelligence function through smart use of technology; and
4. leaving stronger mechanisms in place in the wake of cases so that "corruption cannot grow back".

Ms Osofsky emphasised that the SFO will look towards best practice and tools used effectively elsewhere, citing the extensive use of co-operators by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) as a potentially useful way to crack white collar cases in the UK.

Launch of the National Economic Crime Centre (NECC)

The launch of the NECC in autumn 2018 has led some observers to wonder how the SFO's operations will be impacted. 

The NECC has been billed by the Government as a "command centre" coordinating the operations of the National Crime Agency (NCA), the SFO, HM Revenue & Customs, the Financial Conduct Authority, as well as various police forces around the UK. A new Director General to lead the NECC is expected to be appointed in the first quarter of 2019.¹⁰

The establishment of the NECC comes after a reversal of Prime Minister Theresa May's plans to incorporate the SFO into the NCA, and although Ms Osofsky said she has been assured of the agency's "independence and prominence", the NECC will be able to direct the SFO to carry out investigations.¹¹  The Government has also indicated its intention in 2019 to amend legislation such that the Director General of the NCA can directly task the SFO with investigating a case of economic crime.¹²

The extent to which these new relationships and power dynamics will impact the SFO's enforcement strategy will be something to watch for in 2019.

New enforcement tools 

There have been developments in 2018 that have enhanced the SFO's ability to carry out its enforcement role.

The SFO can obtain documents held overseas

In September 2018, the High Court confirmed that the SFO can compel companies to hand over documents held overseas so long as there is a "sufficient connection" between the company and the UK.¹³  The mechanism for this power is s.2(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987. The "sufficient connection" test is primarily a fact-specific test which involves, amongst other things, consideration of any factual connections between the foreign company and the UK.

In this case, the SFO suspected that a US parent company's compliance function had approved allegedly corrupt payments made by its UK subsidiaries. Additionally, a corporate officer of the US parent company was based in the group's UK office and appeared to carry out his functions from the UK. All of this supported the notion that there was a sufficient connection between the US parent company and the UK to allow the SFO to obtain documents held by the US parent company.

The SFO must also give notice to the company in the UK before ordering it to hand over documents. In this case, the SFO presented the notice to the US parent company's general counsel at a meeting in London. This was deemed effective notice under the Criminal Justice Act 1987, although the judge noted that the SFO's approach had "unappealing features […] which might impact on the willingness of others to attend such meetings in the future".

The result is that the SFO now has two legal mechanisms by which it might seek information from non-UK companies:

1. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties, where the SFO requests information or documents through non-UK authorities (e.g. the US Department of Justice); and
2. an information notice under section 2(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 served directly on the company under investigation.

The court's decision comes at a time when UK enforcement agencies have been gradually acquiring more extraterritorial clout, as further illustrated by the new power to obtain "unexplained wealth orders" against foreign nationals with assets in the jurisdiction (see below).

Unexplained Wealth Orders

Other civil law enforcement tools that became available to UK enforcement agencies in 2018 include Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs) and supporting Interim Freezing Orders. Introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, their purpose is to help authorities more easily investigate and act on highly suspicious wealth (see the government guidance for more detail).

In February 2018, the NCA obtained two UWOs against the wife of an Azeri banker in respect of £22 million worth of properties, including an £11.5 million house in Knightsbridge, London. Her challenge was rejected by the High Court in October 2018.¹⁴  Although unlikely to be utilised extensively by the SFO given certain limitations on the use of material received by virtue of the UWO in criminal proceedings, UWOs do provide further means of recovering the proceeds of corrupt activity where that is not possible through prosecution. We can expect to see greater use of them by the NCA in 2019.

Still no word on all encompassing "failure to prevent" offence

For several years the SFO has been pressing for a broader "failure to prevent" offence which would apply to economic crimes other than bribery, such as fraud or false accounting. Giving evidence last year to the Bribery Act Committee, Sir Brian Leveson, President of the Queen's Bench Division, and Lisa Osofsky repeated these calls, arguing that it would be in the public interest and would prevent prosecutors from being "hamstrung" when pursuing corporates for general economic crime. 

However, despite a public consultation in early 2017, progress has been slow. In its annual report on the UK's anti-corruption strategy, the Government said that work is continuing on analysing the response to the consultation and that findings would be published in 2019.¹⁵

Developments on the law of privilege

A variety of decisions last year will be of interest to both companies and enforcement agencies as the courts continue to struggle to define the boundaries of legal professional privilege in the context of investigations.

The SFO in particular suffered a blow in September 2018 when the Court of Appeal overruled the High Court's decision on litigation privilege and held that interview notes and forensic accountants' notes generated by an internal investigation were subject to litigation privilege (see our briefing for more detail).¹⁶  But that decision should not be read as extending the scope of litigation privilege; decisions on privilege are always fact-specific and, as recent cases highlight, the courts will take a robust approach to assessing claims for privilege (see our briefing for more detail).¹⁷ 

The SFO was also criticised in the High Court in March 2018 for failing to obtain first account interview notes from "XYZ", a company which entered into a DPA with the SFO in 2016.¹⁸  The company had claimed legal advice privilege over the notes, so the SFO had accepted "oral proffers" instead, whereby XYZ's lawyer read a summary of the interview notes to the SFO. Unsurprisingly, the SFO has since confirmed that it will now routinely expect companies to hand over the full written notes of internal investigation interviews.¹⁹

Another case in September 2018 involving the Financial Reporting Council confirmed that privilege is not a bar to the disclosure of a client's documents to its adviser's regulators in the context of a regulatory investigation into the adviser (see our briefing for more detail).

What remains clear is that privilege will remain a hot topic for investigations going into 2019. Speaking about privilege in December 2018, Matthew Wagstaff – joint head of bribery at the SFO – stated that companies that want to receive cooperation credit should strongly consider waiving privilege over factual accounts. Failure to do so "may well be incompatible with an assertion of a desire to cooperate", which, in turn, may mean that "a prosecutor is unlikely to conclude that it would be in the public interest for a company to be invited to DPA negotiations".²⁰

Global trends

Increase in fines and multi-jurisdictional enforcement

2018 has seen a continuation of increasing fines and penalties imposed by global enforcement agencies. 

The US continues to lead the field: in 2018, 16 companies paid a record US$2.89 billion to resolve FCPA cases (compared to 2017, when 11 companies paid just over US$1.92 billion).²¹ However, other jurisdictions are catching up, and a few examples of the big fines of 2018 illustrate how global enforcement agencies are increasingly working towards a coordinated resolution of cases:²² 

• US$1.78 billion worth of penalties and disgorgement were assessed by the DoJ and SEC against Brazil's state-owned energy company Petrobras, with 80 per cent of the criminal penalty to be paid to Brazilian regulators.
• US$585 million worth of penalties were assessed by the DoJ against Société Générale, with half of the penalties to be received by Parquet National Financier, the French enforcement agency.
• In the largest ever penalty imposed by Dutch prosecutors, a US$900 million resolution with ING Bank was reached after alleged compliance failures allowed some of the bank's clients to use accounts for money laundering and bribery purposes. The SEC announced in September 2018 that it would not recommend enforcement action given the resolution reached with the Dutch authorities.

As anti-bribery and corruption enforcement becomes increasingly globalised in 2019, we expect a greater proportion of the biggest fines to come from global enforcement agencies outside the United States. 

The rise of the DPA

During 2018 we saw a continuation of the global trend of countries adopting or actively using DPAs as a key prosecution tool for bribery offences. French authorities have been particularly active with the conclusion of two DPAs in early 2018, following their introduction into French law (through the so-called Sapin II Law) in December 2016.²³  The Singapore Parliament passed the Criminal Justice Reform Act in March 2018, which introduced DPAs that largely follow the UK-style DPA framework.²⁴  In the same month, new anti-corruption laws came into force in Argentina which added DPAs to the state prosecutor's armoury²⁵ and UK/USA-style DPAs came into force in Canada in September 2018. 

Other countries are lining up to join the movement. The Polish Government is due to publish draft legislation that will include provision for DPA-style settlements²⁶  and DPA legislation is currently before the Australian Parliament.²⁷  

In general, outside of the US, DPAs are only available to companies, not individuals, and many enforcement agencies insist that, as part of any "deal", companies should make information available on the complicit individuals. As such, where a company secures a DPA, there is generally a greater risk that an individual will be prosecuted. 

Cultural shift towards cooperation?

The recent popularity of DPAs suggests that US-style cooperative frameworks are increasingly in vogue in the battle against corruption. This cooperation typically manifests itself in two ways: 

1. cooperation between global enforcement agencies; and
2. cooperation from the company itself.

Greater cooperation between global enforcement agencies

The SFO has certainly emphasised its eagerness to promote cooperation between enforcement agencies.²⁸ According to its Director, Lisa Osofsky, the SFO has prioritised strengthening and deepening the relationships that make this happen, including working closely with authorities around the world. There certainly appears to have been some success for the SFO in this regard: after securing five convictions in the SFO's Alstom investigation in December 2018, Ms Osofsky revealed that the SFO's investigation involved cooperation with more than 30 countries, including France, Canada and India.

In our 2017 update, we noted that the US DoJ had emphasised their desire to improve coordination between foreign authorities so as to ensure firms do not simultaneously face prosecution from multiple enforcement agencies. This is known as the policy against "piling on". 

In a sign that this policy is being taken seriously, the DoJ declined to prosecute a UK engineering firm in August 2018 due to parallel investigations of the same conduct by the SFO.²⁹  Another significant milestone was the coordinated enforcement action by the DoJ and French authorities in relation to bribery conducted by Société Générale in Libya, where the DoJ limited the size of its penalty in light of the fine paid to the French authorities. The DoJ also declined to impose its own monitor because of the presence of the French authorities' monitor.³⁰

Going forward into 2019, we expect this focus on joined-up global enforcement to intensify as the working relationships between international agencies strengthen. Ms Osofsky has highlighted the need for greater intelligence-sharing to improve knowledge of emerging threats and proactive investigative lines of enquiry. Also of importance will be sharing best practice on technological issues facing law enforcement — in particular, how best to work with global technology companies in order to address the issue posed by encrypted devices in investigations. 

How is cooperation from the company itself viewed?

As to cooperation from the companies themselves, the global move towards DPAs also highlights that authorities in these countries are seeking to incentivise (if not force) companies to self-report and cooperate. In 2018 the DoJ announced an expansion of a policy that encourages corporate self-reporting and cooperation for violations of the FCPA. In doing so, the DoJ cited the success of its investigation into Barclays on allegations of foreign exchange front-running, where Barclays' "full cooperation" led to non-prosecution and fines totalling around US$13 million.³¹   

When compared with the DoJ's resolution with HSBC over similar allegations following HSBC's decision not to self-report — $100 million in fines and a DPA — it is easy to see why some international corporates find cooperation and self-reporting an increasingly tempting proposition. 

But what does cooperation look like? In a keynote speech in 2018, Ms Osofsky described full cooperation as meaning "tell me something I don't know. Help the prosecutor find the truth. Don't obstruct, or mislead, or delay. Don't hold things back… Cooperation is making the path to a case easier."³² Another SFO representative has suggested that it involves handing over privileged documents.³³

But other jurisdictions could take a different view. The slow emergence of jurisdictional differences may add confusion to a multinational's decision to cooperate and self-report where its conduct spans several jurisdictions. HSBC obtained a DPA from the DoJ despite a perceived lack of initial cooperation and failure to self-report. It seems unlikely that a DPA would be offered in the UK on the same facts. By comparison, in France, non-cooperation and a lack of self-reporting impacts upon the financial penalty but not necessarily upon the availability of a DPA.

As more countries adopt DPAs, and as global organisations become subject to more competing anti-corruption regimes, the jurisdictional differences in DPA frameworks will be another factor to consider before deciding on full cooperation. Until a clearer international framework is in place, businesses should be aware of these differences in approach.

Just another business decision?

While companies demand more clarity as to the benefits of self-reporting, anti-corruption campaigners are concerned that greater certainty and leniency may render the business decision to self-report a calculated gamble and that, without the correct calibration, DPAs will perversely encourage corrupt acts if companies see the fines as a calculable cost of doing business.³⁴

In the UK, it has been suggested that the playing of such games will escalate following the collapse in December 2018 of a fraud trial against two Tesco executives following the approval of a DPA with Tesco itself in April 2017. The trial judge ruled that "in certain crucial areas . . . the prosecution case was so weak it should not be left for a jury’s consideration". Such a damning appraisal of the SFO's efforts may embolden businesses (and their legal advisers) to resist DPAs in the future. 

Where does this leave individuals?

As global enforcement agencies appear increasingly inclined towards DPAs, questions have been raised regarding their appetite for prosecuting individuals, and whether the use of DPAs will reduce the likelihood of individual accountability.

Yet it seems that 2018 has seen a sharper focus than ever before on prosecuting individuals. High-profile politicians increasingly find themselves at the brunt of anti-corruption investigations: Jacob Zuma, Nicolas Sarkozy, and former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak are just a few of the names that hit the headlines.

Individuals in the business world have also faced greater scrutiny from global law enforcement. Senior bankers were imprisoned in the US and UK throughout 2018 for Euribor and Libor manipulation, while prominent executives – such as Huawei's CFO – have faced serious allegations of fraud.

More jurisdictions are taking a two-pronged approach to corruption cases: entering into a plea deal with the company, while simultaneously seeking the prosecution of individuals accused of wrongdoing. Since the 2015 "Yates Memorandum", the US DoJ has explicitly made individual accountability a cornerstone of its corporate plea bargaining strategy. 

Other jurisdictions are rapidly following suit. Japan is an example of global convergence with this approach, and for the first time in July 2018, prosecutors in Tokyo agreed a plea deal with a company accused of overseas bribery in Thailand in exchange for information on the employee involved. 

Meanwhile, in the UK, the SFO's public position is clear: it remains eager to prosecute those individuals responsible for bribery, even if DPAs are the "new normal" for resolving corporate economic crimes. The collapse of the Tesco trial — the SFO's first attempt to prosecute individuals after securing a DPA — has led some commentators to speculate that the SFO may become more cautious in prosecuting individuals given its poor track record. However, the recent convictions in December 2018 of individuals embroiled in the Alstom investigation is a reminder that the SFO is not toothless in this respect, and is still able to prosecute successfully individuals at trial. 

Looking forward to 2019

Weighing up the benefits and risks of self-reporting and cooperation on a global basis looks set to become increasingly difficult for multinational corporates. Adapting ABC policies to the most stringent legislation remains the best advice, and maintaining a close relationship with professional advisers possessing multi-jurisdictional reach is ever more vital.

Practical steps to address corruption risk

ABC risks are gradually being taken more seriously by corporates, but surveys conducted in 2018 indicate that some corporates still lack basic protection against bribery and corruption risks.³⁵  In our experience, simple practical steps can have a drastic effect on mitigating such risks.

Compliance Hotspot: ensuring that your procedures are "adequate"

In the Skansen case, comments made by the prosecution and the SFO provide some guidance on how to assess whether procedures are adequate. Key takeaways include the following: 

Compliance Hotspot: agents and intermediaries

In a 2018 survey, 40 per cent of respondents from legal/compliance functions reported that they have sometimes felt under pressure to approve third-party engagement despite ABC red flags.³⁶  This is an indicator that one of the biggest ABC risks that companies face — the engagement of agents and intermediaries — is still being neglected (or even ignored) by some corporates.

Practical steps that corporates should have in mind when engaging agents, intermediaries and other high-risk third parties include the following:

The continuing increase in multi-jurisdictional cooperation and intelligence-sharing means that companies and individuals that engage in unethical conduct are at greater risk of getting caught. The high-profile arrests, prosecutions and investigations in 2018 are testament to that. 

All organisations — large or small — should at the very least check that their ABC policies are still fit for purpose. More importantly, every effort should be made to ensure employees are actually complying with those policies.

Authors: Tom Cummins and Jordan Walsh

1. Source: 2018 Global White Collar Crime Survey conducted by White & Case in conjunction with the University of Manchester.
2. Source: Year 1 Update, UK Anti-Corruption Strategy 2017-2022.
3. Witness evidence given by Iskander Fernandez, partner at BLM, to the Bribery Act Committee on 11 December 2018.
4. See for example oral evidence given to the Bribery Act Committee on 27 November 2018.
5. See Lord Saville's comment during evidence given to the Bribery Act Committee on 13 November 2018.
6. Considered in many of the oral evidence sessions — see for example the 13 November 2018 session and the 4 December 2018 session.
7. Comment of Under Secretary for Justice, Edward Argar MP, during evidence given to the Bribery Act Committee on 4 December 2018.
8. See for example the written evidence of Transparency International submitted to the Bribery Act Committee on 11 July 2018.
9. See the keynote address of Lisa Osofsky at the FCPA Conference, Washington DC on 4 December 2018.
10. Source: Year 1 Update, UK Anti-Corruption Strategy 2017-2022.
11. Source: UK Home Office's December 2017 press release.
12. Source: Year 1 Update, UK Anti-Corruption Strategy 2017-2022.
13. KBR Inc, R (On the Application Of) -v- The Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2018] EWHC 2368 (Admin).
14. National Crime Agency -v- Mrs Zamira Hajiyeva [2018] EWHC 2534 (Admin).
15. Source: Year 1 Update, UK Anti-Corruption Strategy 2017-2022.
16. The Director of the Serious Fraud Office -v- Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2006.
17. Sotheby's -v- Mark Weiss Ltd [2018] EWHC 3179 (Comm) and WH Holding Ltd & Anor. -v- E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWCA Civ 2652.
18. R (on the application of AL) -v- Serious Fraud Office [2018] EWHC 856 (Admin).
19. Source: comment of Emma Luxton, SFO case controller, at GIR's Women in Investigations conference on 28 June 2018, as reported by Global Investigation Review.
20. Source: speech of Matthew Wagstaff, SFO Joint Head of Bribery, at GIR's Live London Winter conference on 6 December 2018, as reported by Global Investigation Review.
21. Source: FCPA Blog's 2018 FCPA Enforcement Index published January 2019.
22. Source: FCPA Blog's 2018 FCPA Enforcement Index published January 2019.
23. See our briefing for more detail.
24. For more details see: https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/lasting-legacy-of-the-keppel-offshore-marine-case/.
25. Source: FCPA Blog, "Argentina introduces deferred prosecution agreements, standards for compliance programs", January 2018.
26. Source: GIR, 'IBA Krakow: Poland may introduce DPAs', May 2018.
27. See our legal update for more detail.
28. See speeches by Lisa Osofsky, Director of the SFO, on 3 September 2018 and on 16 October 2018.
29. Source: FCPA Blog, "DOJ declination for UK engineering firm", August 2018.
30. Source: GIR, "Monitorship decision in Société Générale Libya settlement 'milestone' for US/France cooperation", June 2018.
31. Source: FCPA Blog, "DOJ enforcement policy announcements provide promising guidance", May 2018.
32. See the keynote address of Lisa Osofsky at the FCPA Conference, Washington DC on 4 December 2018.
33. See the speech of Matthew Wagstaff, SFO Joint Head of Bribery, at GIR's Live London Winter conference on 6 December 2018, as reported by Global Investigation Review.
34. See the letter from Transparency International UK to David Green, former Director of SFO, dated 9 March 2018.
35. Source: 2018 Global White Collar Crime Survey conducted by White & Case in conjunction with the University of Manchester.
36. Source: 2018 Global White Collar Crime Survey conducted by White & Case in conjunction with the University of Manchester.