International Law

Bribery In China. Does Your Home Country Even Care?

By Dan

Transparency International just came out with its most recent report on country enforcement levels against foreign bribery (h/t China Bystander). In other words, this is a report on how actively various countries enforce their laws against engaging in bribery overseas. Examples of these laws would be the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in the United States and the United Kingdom Bribery Act. 

The report groups the 36 largest countries in terms of foreign trade into three categories: Active Enforcement, Moderate Enforcement, and Little or No Enforcement. Denmark, Germany, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States engage in active enforcement.  Argentina, Belgium, Finland, France, Japan, Korea (South), Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden engage in moderate enforcement. Australia, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, and Turkey engage in "little to no enforcement."

I had no idea there was such a disparity between countries like the United States (active enforcement) and Canada (little to no enforcement).  I am also surprised to see Italy in the active enforcement category and new Zealand and Austria and Australia in the little to no enforcement category. 

How advantaged in China business are those who come from little to no enforcement countries as compared to those who come from active enforcement countries?

Full post as published by China Law Blog on July 30, 2010 (boomark / email).