Seoul encouraged to adopt Britain's anti-bribery law

The following is an interview with Roderick Macauley, International & Corporate Crime Advisor of the Ministry of Justice. He was one of the speakers at the Korea-U.K. Anti-Corruption Seminar in Seoul, Tuesday. He discussed issues on prevention of bribery.

Q: How would you evaluate the Bribery Act 2010 in the U.K.’s effort to root out corruption?

A:

The Bribery Act 2010 replaced the previous anachronistic and fragmented muddle of statutory and common law with a consolidated and comprehensive framework of offences that provides the U.K. police, prosecuting authorities and the courts with the tools they need to tackle bribery in the 21st century; in the public sector and private sector at home and abroad.

As regards commercial bribery it combines robust sanctions with incentives that promote the inclusion of bribery prevention as a key component of corporate good governance. In response to the Act many companies large and small, in the U.K. and elsewhere, have put in place bribery prevention measures that are proportionate to the bribery risks they face and the key characteristics of the business.

Such measures employed by businesses exporting and operating in overseas markets positively impacts on any local integrity, transparency and anti-corruption initiatives and help to break down barriers to open competition. The Bribery Act therefore, is considered internationally, along with the U.S. FCPA, as the leading legislative criminal law standard in the global fight against bribery, the promotion of the rule of law and support for a level playing field in international markets.

Q: What are the elements that Korea should consider in applying such an act to our country?

The principle features of the Bribery Act that are readily transferable to other jurisdictions are its all embracing comprehensive coverage, it’s clear definition of bribery that is applicable to all forms of the problem and its relatively simple mechanism for providing incentives to harness the expertise and experience of the private sector to tackle corruption coupled with its wide jurisdictional scope.

Q: Powerful political and business figures in Korea tend to get away during legal action even if they are found to be guilty of bribery. How can Korea improve such situation?

It’s for each state to decide what is best in addressing the particular corruption problems it faces. Korea has currently quite a good reputation internationally for tackling foreign bribery. The recent OECD analysis of foreign bribery cases concluded between Feb. 15, 1999 and June 1, 2014 positions Korea in third place among OECD states with 11 bribery schemes sanctioned.

Effective investigating and prosecution of bribery is notoriously resource intensive but without the political will to inject sufficient resources into enforcement no legal sanctions scheme, be it criminal or otherwise, will be successful. In addition we in the U.K. believe that it is important to encourage the business community to fulfil a role in the fight against bribery through making bribery prevention an integral part of corporate good governance.

Q: How would you assess Korea’s efforts to root out corruption?

I know that on Oct. 15, 2014, another piece of Korean legislation, the Act on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions was amended to delete the article that provided an exemption for facilitating payments. The U.K. considers this to be a very positive step. The Bribery Act does not provide such an exemption and we believe that such exemptions are a hindrance in the promotion of ethical business practices.