“For Burma/Myanmar, the Council has decided to lift all economic sanctions, while keeping the existing arms embargo in place for one more year. For Syria, the Council has eased certain EU sanctions measures, including the oil embargo, by allowing Member State authorisation (following consultation of the Syrian opposition) of certain types of transactions with the aim of helping civilians and supporting the opposition.

For North Korea, the EU has introduced amendments to reflect newly adopted UN sanctions measures, including the addition of parties to the UN list of designated persons and entities subject to an asset freeze. Finally, with respect to Libya, the EU Council has decided to delist one person whose assets have been frozen and to allow assistance to the Libyan government for security/disarmament reasons.”

“Large non-listed companies incorporated in the European Economic Area which operate in the oil, gas and mining sectors will need to annually disclose any payments made to the national, regional or local authority of a host country on a country and project basis where the payment is above a threshold of EUR 100,000 (c. GBP 85,000 / USD 131,000). Sanctions for failure to comply are likely to be punitive.

The payments to be disclosed will include taxes on profits, royalties, dividends, bonuses, licence fees and other direct benefits to the government concerned, amongst others. There will be no exemption to the disclosure requirements, even if the disclosure is not permitted by the host country’s criminal law.”

“Regulation 1263/2012 defines the scope of the broadened restrictions on EU banks’ participation in transactions with Iranian financial institutions. It confirms that as a general rule, fund transfers between banks under EU jurisdiction and Iranian or Iran-related credit and financial institutions and currency exchange offices will be prohibited. Certain exceptions will, however, be provided for, inter alia, transfers relating to foodstuffs, healthcare, medical equipment and agricultural or humanitarian purposes, non-commercial transfers and specific trade contracts, provided that they do not contribute to prohibited activities and have undergone Member State notification or authorization procedures, as required (depending on the amount involved in the transfer)…

The clause allowing the making available of certain funds to the Central Bank of Iran has now been deleted altogether, allowing only the release of its frozen funds (in certain circumstances).”

“The Anti-Corruption Law introduces new categories of corruption-related offences and strengthens those already contained in the Italian Criminal Code (‘Codice Penale’). It also calls for the establishment of a new National Anti-Corruption Authority with investigative and remedial powers…

Among the main features of the Anti-Corruption Law is the introduction of two new articles in the Criminal Code, covering new types of offences: … ‘Improper induction to give or promise utility’, and … titled ‘Illicit trafficking of influence’… Further, the Italian Civil Code also has been modified with the amendment of art. 2635 now entitled ‘Corruption between private individuals’.”

“What emerges is that, whilst both the long reach of the US rules and pressure from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has meant that foreign corrupt practices are now to a greater extent unlawful in many jurisdictions worldwide, significant differences remain as to enforcement regimes. For example, facilitation payments are exempt in Germany in certain circumstances, but are not exempt under any circumstances in either the United Kingdom or the People’s Republic of China. In many other countries, both public and private bribery (whether domestic or foreign) are expressly outlawed, but the tests vary widely. Notably, In the United States under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the FCPA), a territorial nexus that is seemingly only tangential—such as a phone call or email from the United States or use of a US bank to clear funds relating to the foreign transaction—may be sufficient for the Department of Justice to exert US jurisdiction.

The clear trend is that the enforcement of anti-corruption laws has become a major focus of law enforcement and regulatory authorities not just in the United States but globally.”

“DPAs are viewed by the government as a necessary new tool for prosecutors such as the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the courts to bring serious and complex economic cases quickly, cost effectively and fairly to a conclusion. The government envisages that DPAs will be used primarily for corporations that cooperate with government investigations, and the government intends that DPAs will be made available for corporations in overseas corruption cases as well as other economic crimes.

The government’s response to the public consultation sets forth a model for DPAs that has some similarities to U.S. law and practice but involves earlier and greater judicial oversight than U.S. DPAs.”

“On 15 October 2012, the Council of the European Union (EU) decided to prolong the existing sanctions imposed against Belarus until 31 October 2013.1 The Council’s Decision follows the Parliamentary elections in Belarus on 23 September 2012, which were said to take place against ‘an overall background of repression’. 

The EU Belarus sanctions regime … applies within the EU territory, to nationals of EU Member States (regardless of whether they are located inside or outside the EU territory) and on board vessels and aircraft under Member State jurisdiction. It also applies to companies incorporated or registered under the law of an EU Member State and to other non-EU companies in respect of business done in whole or in part within the EU. This means that even non-EU companies can be covered by EU sanctions, depending on the circumstances under which they perform business activities in the EU and how they are connected to any activities restricted by the EU Belarus sanctions regime.”

“Previously, companies had been reassured in published guidance that the SFO would not pursue them for certain technical infringements of the Bribery Act and that if certain procedures were followed, it would not prosecute facilitation payments—small payments to ensure that public officials more expeditiously carry out functions they should ordinarily do without such ‘bribes’. In addition, corporate hospitality if considered ‘reasonable and proportionate’ would also not be considered to run afoul of the law. But such guidance has now been withdrawn without further comment or explanation.”