The document analyzes anti-corruption laws in North America, including the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), Canada's Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA), and Mexico's Federal Law Against Corruption in Public Procurement, comparing them to Italy's anti-corruption framework. It highlights the effectiveness, enforcement mechanisms, and international implications of these laws, indicating that while North American laws focus on public officials, Italy encompasses both domestic and foreign bribery. The report concludes by emphasizing the need for effective implementation of such laws to combat corruption and enhance trade and business integrity globally.

1. North America anti corruption laws
Their impact worldwide and
a comparison with the Italian perspective
Final report
International legal environment of business
Michelangelo Matteoda
Student ID number: 10165178

2. QUESTION
North American countries have implemented anti-corruption laws. Should other
areas adopt such practices? What impact would such laws have on business in a
region? Are there such laws in your home country? If so, are they effective? If
not, should they be implemented? What impact would they have on trade?
Provide specific examples whenever possible.

3. SUMMARY
1. Introduction. North America anti corruption laws
2. US anti corruption laws
a. Strength of the law
3. Canada anti corruption laws
a. Strength of the law
4. Mexico anti corruption laws
a. Strength of the law
5. Italy: anti corruption laws
a. Strength of the law
b. Differences with North America
c. Consequences for companies
d. Law effectiveness and possibilities of implementation
6. Conclusion
7. References

4. 1 Introduction
The Anticorruption laws in North America
North America has been leading the world when it comes to implement effective and
international reach law against corruption. However their classification of corruption
is very narrow and extremely defined.
In North America in fact there is a common focus attempting to end the corruption of
public officials. Canada has its CFPOA, Mexico has its Law Against Corruption in
Public Procurement (Ley Federal Anticorrupción en Contrataciones Públicas) and US
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). ( Dentons Global Mobility Guide, 2015)
After the implementation of the FCPA in 1977 in US, in 1988 the OECD enacted
Anti-Bribery Convention, which requires the many countries signing the agreement,
to enact their own national laws (IMF, 2001). All the nations we analyze in this paper has
signed the convention in different years but the implementation of effective laws
varies consistently among them.
2 US anti corruption laws
The United States has been one of the first country to implement effective laws
against corruption and it was also among the first to sign the OECD anti bribery
convention in the February of 1999 (Ferreira, 2013). It was 1977 when US established
its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Modified then 1988 and in 1989 this Act is
considered the most well known anticorruption legislation that has been reproduced
and applied in many countries around the world ( Dentons Global Mobility Guide,
2015).
The FCPA has two main effects. Firstly prohibits the bribery of non-American public
officials, with the solely purpose to influence the official to assist the company in
obtaining business. (IMF, 2001) The specific conduct of “assist” prohibited under the

5. FCPA is defined as giving or promising “something of value” to a “government
official” in exchange for “corruptly” inducing that official to use his or her official
position to “obtain or retain business. . .” or to obtain any “improper advantage”in the
market (Block, 2014). In this case the definition of “government official” is
extraordinarily broad. The Security and Exchange commission (SEC) states that this
covers all levels of foreign or international government personnel (and officials of
foreign political parties), and any person who works for any foreign government
owned business, such as a public hospital or a telecommunications company (Block,
2014).
The second provision of the FCPA imposes a requirement for accurate books and
records on publicly traded corporations and to adopt internal financial control (IMF,
2001).
In other words, this provision increase the liability for corruption for publicly traded
corporations. In fact the FCPA “books and records” provision requires publicly traded
corporations to have adequate internal controls to provide “reasonable assurances”
that transactions are only executed with management’s authorization, that those
transactions are accurately recorded, that access to company assets is limited to those
with management’s authorization. Moreover it also implies that the system is
regularly audited ( Dentons Global Mobility Guide, 2015).
These controls must be able to detect and deter violations of the FCPA. In order to
avoid problem with the US laws, both US and non-US companies operating in the
country must be able to show that they have been proactively trying to prevent and
deter corruption and bribery in their organizations (IMF, 2001).

6. 2.a Strength of the law
The FCPA is enforced in a criminal, civil way through the US Department of Justice
(DOJ) and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Both parties have
highly centralized, well-funded, and dedicated units that focus exclusively on FCPA
enforcement ( Dentons Global Mobility Guide, 2015).
As a result of their efforts, the US has literally collected billions of dollars in fines,
disgorgements, forfeitures, and other sanctions.
One of the most stunning case concerns Alcatel, a telecommunications company,
which in 2010 SEC charged for using consultants who performed little or no
legitimate work to funnel bribes to government officials and win contracts in Latin
America and Asia. Alcatel agreed to pay $137 million to settle SEC and Department
of Justice charges (US Security and Exchange Commission, 2015).
The US government has successfully prosecuted cases in which the thing “of value”
was as direct as a cash payment but as well something vague as “an opportunity.” For
instance SEC charged the beauty products company, Avon for violating the FCPA.
Avon did not detect and prevent payments and gifts to Chinese government officials
from a subsidiary. The company agreed to pay $135 million to resolve the SEC
charges and a parallel criminal case (US Security and Exchange Commission, 2015).
The anticorruption laws and their growth worldwide has often imitated the US focus
on so-called public corruption, but sometimes it has produced far more inclusive
prohibitions against corruption.
3 Canada anti corruption law
As a member of the OECD, Canada signed the Convention on Combating Bribery of
Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions on December 1997.
(CONVENTION ON COMBATING BRIBERY OF FOREIGN PUBLIC

7. OFFICIALS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS, 2011). Two
years later to meet the OECD’s requirements, the Government of Canada also
implemented the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (“CFPOA”), which came
into force on February 1999 (Foreign Affairs, trade and development Canada, 2013).
The CFPOA follows the FCPA under many aspects; however the are some clear
differences. While both have anti-bribery provisions, only the FCPA has accounting
and record-keeping provisions. Both Acts give authorities jurisdiction to charge
individuals as well as corporations; however, the FCPA has a longer jurisdictional
reach than the CFPOA, applying to issuers in the United States, domestic concerns
and any person pursuing a bribery arrangement with a foreign official while within
the territory of the U.S (Watkins, 2006).
The Canadian test for jurisdiction is different and states that it will only try cases with
a “real and substantial” link to Canada. This requirement can make prosecutions
under the CFPOA difficult (Chang, 2012).
The CFPOA as the FCPA does not require that the conveyance be direct; bribes given
through an agent or received by a party other than an official are still prohibited if the
ultimate goal is to influence an official by conferring a benefit (ACC, 2011). Both
Acts require that the purpose of the bribery is to obtain or retain a business advantage
but neither requires that the business arrangement in question includes the recipient of
the bribe or that the bribe be successful (ACC, 2011).
Unlike the FCPA which can be enforced through civil or criminal sanctions, the
CFPOA can only be enforced through criminal prosecution under the criminal code.
Conviction for a CFPOA violation can result in imprisonment for up to 14 years.

8. However there must be only sanctions and like the FCPA there is no legal limit to
fines that can be imposed; the quantum is left to the discretion of the court (Osborne,
2002).
The person definition of the CFPOA (that refer to the Criminal Code’s one) includes
the Canadian Government, corporations, citizens, agencies and individuals in Canada
(both Canadians and non-Canadians) (Chang, 2012). It may be possible to establish a
real and substantial link in the case of Canadian citizens in Canada, foreign nationals
in Canada, Canadian incorporated companies, or foreign-based subsidiaries of
Canadian companies. However, the definition does not cover the Canadian citizens
residing abroad or foreign nationals working abroad on behalf of Canadian companies.
In this sense the FCPA has more international reach.
3.a Strength of law
On June 18, 2013, the Government of Canada enacted Bill S-14, an Act to amend the
Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA). Several major changes to the
CFPOA came into force that day. The authorities now have jurisdiction to pursue acts
of bribery committed by any Canadian citizen, permanent resident or entity
incorporated or formed under the laws of Canada or any province; the act has validity
worldwide and regardless of whether it has any other connection to Canada (Businger,
2013).
Although not identical to the books and records provisions of the American FCPA, by
creating a new accounting offence Canada significantly expands the scope of the
CFPOA. Under the amended CFPOA now the accounting offence would require
evidence that books and records were not properly maintained for the purpose of
disclosure of a bribe, once it had occurred. This suggests that negligence alone would

9. be insufficient, but that there must be an unlawful purpose to the creation of improper
books and records (see also Identification Theory applied by the Supreme Court of
Canada in the case of Canadian Dredge and Dock Co) (Businger, 2013).
These amendments to the CFPOA will significantly expand the scope of Canada’s
international enforcement efforts against bribery and corruption.
Generally speaking Canada’s track record of enforcing the CFPOA was not usual and
up to 2013 there had been only three convictions. However, recent enforcement
efforts by the RCMP International Anti-Corruption Unit, which was established in
2008, have demonstrated that Canadian commitment in fighting the bribery of foreign
public officials more seriously (41st PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION, 2013).
One of the most important application of the CFPOA law was in June 24, 2011,
Calgary-based Niko Resources Ltd. (“Niko”) found guilty of a single charge of
bribery. In fact the company’s Bangladesh subsidiary had given a $190,984 CAD
vehicle to the Bangladesh Energy Minister, paid his travel costs for attending an
Energy Expo in Calgary, and paid for his trips to New York and Chicago. The fine
and victim surcharge that Niko was required to pay totaled $9,499,000 CAD; the
terms of its probation order also subjected Niko to court supervision and regular
independent control of its compliance with the CFPOA (Chang, 2012).
4 Mexico: anti corruption law
Mexico is a very corrupted country. It ranks 103rd
in the list of Transparency
Internationals (Corruption perception index, 2014). However Mexico show its
commitment in fighting corruption signing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in
May 1999.

10. The companies in Mexico are now subjected to a law system, which integrates
national laws, international laws, and foreign laws of national width (such as the US
FCPA). The most important effort against corruption in the country can be considered
the “Federal law against corruption in Public procurement” or “Ley Federal
Anticorruption (LFACP)”. This looks like the Mexican version of the FCPA, and was
only approved in June 2012 (Laris, 2014).
Mexico has also created national organizations aimed at fighting corruption, such as
the National system against corruption, which determine the penalties to certain
companies involved in cases of corruption and big administrative errors (Laris, 2014).
The laws also involve the Federal tribunal of Administrative Justice, which together
with the Federal tribunal of Fiscal and Administrative law, can decide the suspension
of activities up to 8 years, or dismissing of the company, in cases of administrative
mistakes that provoke that affect public finances or other public, federal, local or
municipal entities. The federal tribunal can also decide to set a sanction for the
company guilty in case of corruption; this sanction cannot exceed $50’000 (roughly
750’000 pesos) (Laris, 2014). This latter aspect is a peculiarity in comparison with the
American and Canadian law against corruption.
Another peculiarity is that the law also implies compensations in term of economic
benefits, from the Secretary in favor of the people who give certain, sufficient and
relevant information for the identification, accreditation of behaviors contrary to their
obligations (Day, 2013). This law came after the Walmart scandal in Mexico. In fact
the government of Mexico began an investigation of permits taken by the Walmart
chain, after that the New York Times discovered that the firm resorted to bribes to
expand in Mexico. In fact the US newspaper reported that Walmart have given more
than $ 24 million in bribes, founding that Mexican and American laws had been

11. broken and that Walmart executives in the US "hushed up" the allegations. (Laris,
2014).
5 Italy: anti corruption laws
Italy is one of the most corrupted countries in the European Union. The UE report of
corruption of 2014 underline how this in Italy reach the stunning value of 60 billions,
which amounts for 4% of the PIL, and it is half of the European Union’s value lost
due to corruption. In general due to its corruption the cost of the mayor public plans
used increase up to 40% (PHASE 3 Oecd report on Italy, 2011). Public perception on
the level of corruption in Italy has significantly deteriorated over the past five years,
and now the country is only 69th in the list of Transparency internationals
(CONVENTIONS, 2012).
However Italy has always been tried to create and apply laws against corruption.
The southern Mediterranean country indeed signed the United Nations
Convention Against Corruption relatively late in 2003 (IMF, 2001). It also ratified
the Council of Europe Criminal Law and Civil Law Conventions on Corruption in
June 2013.
Before that the country implemented a law against corruption similar to the FCPA, in
its Decreto legislative number 231 in 2001. This law provided that companies acting
in Italy may be held liable, fined, subject to restraining orders that prohibit the
exercise of business, and/or subject to confiscation orders if certain offences
(including corruption, bribery, fraud, money laundering offences) are committed, or
even attempted, in the interest of the company, by the company’s officers, managers
or their subordinates, or by third parties acting on behalf of the company, such as
agents, suppliers or other partners (Compliance & Ethics Professional, 2014).
The company’s administrative liability is in addition to the criminal liability of the

12. person who committed the offences. The Law 231/2001 applies to all types of Italian
companies and associations and, according to consolidated case law and legal
doctrine, also to foreign companies with headquarter abroad, but operating in Italy
through a branch (Compliance & Ethics Professional, 2014).
For instance one of the most typical examples are the case of Telecom. Some
employees of the companies Telecom were investigated for corruption, privacy
violations, espionage and IT crimes. The companies were charged with domestic and
foreign bribery pursuant to Law 231. In May 2010 the companies agreed to pay EUR
400,000 for the charges of both national and international bribery, while the
employees involved were condemned to imprisonment from two up to four
years.(CONVENTIONS, 2012).
5.a Differences with the North American laws
While the FCPA punishes only the bribery of foreign officials, Italian Law punish the
bribery of domestic and foreign officials as well as private bribery,
In contrast with the FCPA Italy establish that offenses (such as corrupt payments) for
individuals and entities do not require knowledge, to make them liable
(CONVENTIONS, 2012).
While on one side the FCPA applies only to US companies and citizens, foreign
companies listed on the US stock exchange or any person acting in the country.
The Italian law applies to crimes which are considered to have been committed in
Italy, therefore also to foreign companies when the damages resulting from the
criminal action were suffered in this country as well (Kennedy, 2011).
For instance there was the case of Siemens, where the company allegedly paid bribes
to officers of Enipower to obtain public contracts. In April 2004, a Milan court

13. applied the provisions on corporate criminal responsibility for the first time to a
foreign corporation and prohibited Siemens AG from entering into contracts with the
Italian public administration for a period of one year (CONVENTIONS, 2012).
Finally, there are relevant differences with regard to potential fines. For example, Law
231 permits under certain conditions the seizure of the amount paid or profit resulting
from the offence as well as disqualifying sanctions; the FCPA can provides ex post
conditional, deferred, or non-prosecution agreements and corporate monitors
(CONVENTIONS, 2012).
5.b Strength of the law
Italy in November 2012 adopted a new Anti-Corruption Law: Law no. 190.
The anti-corruption law requires each Public Administration to put in place specific
measures to prevent the occurrence of acts of corruption or bribery such as an
adoption of an anti-corruption plan, the appointment of a law compliance officer, and
the adoption of a code of conduct for employees (Juvara, 2012).
Furthermore a new national anti-corruption authority was established. This is
the Commissione Nazionale per la Valutazione, la Trasparenza e l’Integrità delle
Amministrazioni Pubbliche(=Commission for the Valuation of transparency and
integrity of the public amministration) , or CIVIT in short. One of the main
responsibilities of CIVIT is to approve a National Anti-Corruption Plan, which will be
drafted by the Ministry of Public Administration, or the Dipartimento della Funzione
Pubblica (Juvara, 2012).
Each Public Administration must implement its own anti-corruption plan on the basis
of this National Anti-Corruption Plan and use their own plan to check their level of
exposure to bribery risks. In addition, each Public Administration is required to adopt

14. a tailored code of conduct for employees, whose best practices might be decided and
established by CIVIT (Legal regulation of combating corruption, 2013).
Moreover each Public Administration will adopt an internal mechanism to protect any
whistleblowers and will keep their identity secret, unless their prior consent to
disclosure has been given (Juvara, 2012). In addition, each Prefecture (local
Government office), shall be have a “white list” of suppliers and service providers,
which can be used by Public Administrations in order to assign public bids (Juvara,
2012).
5.c Consequences for companies
First both Italian and foreign companies must adopt an organizational model that will
suit the Anti-Corruption Law’s requirements. Therefore a company in Italy must
integrate its existing protocols with specific anti-corruption measures, update its code
of conduct for employees, conduct a risk assessment aimed at identifying the
existence of any business areas at risk of corruption, implement adequate solutions
and to streamline and integrate the information channels within the company. In fact
companies can be exonerated ex ante, if they prove that they have established and
implemented effective internal control systems for the purposes of preventing
offences, before the offence was committed (Decreto Legislativo 8 giugno 2001, n.
231, 2001). Secondly, companies can adopt and implement an effective compliance
program, as remedial action in order to prevent similar offences in the future. This
will reduce the company’s exposure to monetary fines and disqualifying sanctions
(Cova, 2012).

15. 5.d Law effectiveness and possibilities of implementation
The Decreto legilastivo 201 of 2001 left unresolved many problems also according to
EU Commission, because it does not modify the legislation prescription, law on the
fake financial statement, money laundering, and it does not introduce new penalties
against the exchange of votes (L'UNIONE EUROPEA AMMONISCE L'ITALIA,
2014).
Moreover no sanction is provided for the companies that are bribed, the latter ones
have no legal incentive to implement any procedure to combat receiving bribes.
According to the EU commission another major problems in the Italian fight against
corruption is the prescription of the process; in fact terms, rules, and complicated
bureaucracy determine the conclusion of a great number of trials. For instance good
examples of prescription are the ones which saw the involvement of the ex Italian
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (see Berluconi-Mills case). This is not a rare case
when the average time of a trial is about 7.5 and the prescription is applied at the tenth
year (L'UNIONE EUROPEA AMMONISCE L'ITALIA, 2014).
On the other side Italy is recognized for its enforcement of its foreign bribery
laws. The OECD’s Phase 3 report on Italy found that Italy has devoted “significant
efforts” to investigate and prosecute foreign bribery (PHASE 3 Oecd report on Italy,
2011). However it also mention that “despite considerable efforts by the Court of
Audit, law enforcement bodies, prosecution services and the judiciary, corruption
remains a serious challenge in Italy”. The OECD report suggested Italy to reinforce
the powers and capacity of the national anti-corruption agency (CIVIT) to perform a
strong and independent coordination, inspective and supervisory role, including the
regional and local levels (PHASE 3 Oecd report on Italy, 2011).

16. It also suggested that the focus of the fight against corruption must be implemented
towards the public spending and the public contract. For instance, also sales and
supplies to private companies and the management of procedures for the agreements
with them should be now assessed and scrutinized carefully, in order to prevent the
risk of criminal charges and heavy sanctions. (PHASE 3 Oecd report on Italy, 2011).
The European commission also recommended Italy to stop the practices of the so
called law “ad personam” implemented by its deputies. An outstanding number of
those in fact, are involved in a trial, and to escape the sentence or decision of the court
they implement law “ad personam” that affect the corrective implementation of the
Italian laws (L'UNIONE EUROPEA AMMONISCE L'ITALIA, 2014).
On the other hand the EU suggested Italy to increase its transparency in its public
procurements. This could be achieved through publication online of all administrative
structures of annual accounts and balance sheets, to let every citizen to be aware if
they are in line with the anti-corruption legislation (CONVENTIONS, 2012).
The sanctioning regime applicable to legal persons appears to be insufficiently
dissuasive. Sometimes the current provisions on bribery in the private sector are
therefore too narrow. In addition, there are many case in sectors at risks in which
controls is not prosecuted ex officio, but only upon complaint (CONVENTIONS,
2012).
6 Conclusion
Even most of the laws have international reach; these have failed many times from
stopping these individuals from conducting illicitly business with national and local
governments (IMF, 2001). Most of the countries are adopting measures against
corruption that mirror the FCPA. However this is not always sufficient when the

17. problems the problem of corruption is endemic inside the business and institutional
system; a more aggressive actions in this case are often needed.
The efficacy and fluency of legislative system in country like Italy or Mexico are one
of the first big obstacles to the anti corruption law’s efficacy.
Moreover for Italy implement its corruption law is a core problem, if the state wants
to increase its FDI, which is only 0,6% of the GDP, in comparison with 1,8% of UK,
and 1,4% of Germany (IMF, 2001). On the other side the lack of speed and
punishment in the bureaucracy and legislative system helps the development and
spread of corruption within these countries. In conclusion a strong parallel action to
improve this system must be considered when it comes to anti corruption law.

18. 7 References
https://www.imf.org/external/np/gov/2001/eng/091801.pdf
file:///Users/macbook/Desktop/35615-147309-1-PB.pdf
http://www.omm.com/files/upload/OMelvenyMyers_Sixth_Edition_FCPA_Hand
book.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/competition/cartels/46235884.pdf
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/
http://www.nexia.com/USanti-corruptionlawsnotjustaUScompanyconcern
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=07058da0-4f34-407d-a1f8-
24d8a72f9e06
http://www.blaney.com/articles/overview-foreign-anti-corruption-laws-canada
http://www.kasowitz.com/files/Uploads/Documents/FINAL_Kasowitz%20FCPA
%20Critical%20Insights%20on%20Prevention%20and%20Compliance.New.p
df
http://www.cnnexpansion.com/economia/2015/02/26/12-claves-del-sistema-
nacional-anticorrupcion
http://www.cnnexpansion.com/economia/2015/02/26/12-claves-del-sistema-
nacional-anticorrupcion
http://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/nacional/abc-del-sistema-nacional-
anticorrupcion.html
http://www.corporatecompliance.org/Portals/1/PDF/Resources/Compliance_Ethi
cs_Professional/0314/scce-cep-2014-03-Lane.pdf
http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/deleghe/01231dl.htm
http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/73424/italy-adopts-
new-anti-corruption-law

19. http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5320918ae4b0db5158a60fb5/t/53beda35e4b
06f5306f6153e/1405016629541/CORRUPTION+GROUP+-
+Final+report.+Combating+corruption.pdf