Falling in Line With China's Updated Anti-Corruption Regulations
After leaving its anti-bribery laws untouched for more than two decades, the People's Republic of China has recently begun to crack down on corporate…
April 30, 2019 at 11:59 PM
5 minute read
After leaving its anti-bribery laws untouched for more than two decades, the People's Republic of China has recently begun to crack down on corporate corruption and fraud with sweeping revisions to its Anti-Unfair Competition Law (AUCL), which took effect on Jan. 1, 2018. In addition, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) was created in March 2018, which combines the regulatory oversight responsibilities of five separate enforcement agencies into one organization.
Since its formation, the SAMR has brought more than 20 enforcement actions, signaling its commitment to curtail bribery, fraud and unfair competition across the country. Given the trade war and the resulting strain between U.S. and China relations currently, U.S. companies operating in China will likely experience more scrutiny and enforcement actions by SAMR. Below are key changes under the amended AUCL, as well as tips for bolstering compliance programs in order to help multinational companies of all sizes navigate and comply with these new regulations.
Understanding the Revisions to AUCL
The new AUCL regulations help to clarify the definition of commercial bribery, impose liability on companies and increase administrative penalties for commercial bribery acts. The following three key elements are essential for multinationals to know and understand:
Clarifies corporate liability for commercial bribery: The amended AUCL clarifies that if an employee engages in commercial bribery, that activity should be viewed as the conduct of the company and not solely the individual. A company is not liable if it can prove no advantages were obtained by the employee's commercial bribery and that the employee's activity does not relate to the company's obtaining business opportunities or other competitive advantages. The burden of proof remains with the company and it must prove that it has adopted proper compliance policies, implemented effective measures to supervise and control its employees' activities, and did not participate in its employees' bribery activities.
Increases administrative penalties: Fines and penalties have been enhanced under the amended AUCL regulations, allowing agencies to confiscate gains, impose fines ranging from RMB 100,000 to RMB 3 million (or $16,000 to $474,000), revoke a company's business license and record a penalty in the company's public credit record. Additionally, penalties are now imposed regardless if an act constitutes a crime with the removal of the phrase “not constituting a criminal offense,” which was originally included in AUCL 1993 as a precondition of administrative penalties for commercial bribery.
Includes safe harbor provision: Companies are now allowed to pay discounts to counterparty or commission to an intermediary, however, the transaction must be transparent and clearly recorded by both parties.
Recent enforcement actions shed some light on how the SAMR will likely apply these amended regulations. One example is the Lepu Medical Technology investigation, which began in January 2018 and is still ongoing because the decision is being challenged. In this case, Lepu paid doctors to speak at an April 2017 academic conference to promote its implantable cardiac pulse generator to attendees and recorded the speaking fees as sales expenses. The Shanghai Qingpu District Market Regulation Bureau used the AUCL provision that outlaws payments to “third parties influential to a transaction” and fined Lepu $22,000 (or RMB 150,000) for commercial bribery, alleging that Lepu affected the judgement of the doctors in the audience thereby gaining competitive advantage, even though no actual transactions were cited. Physicians in China are often employed by public hospitals and hence qualify as “foreign officials” under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Thus, for example, multinational life science companies operating in China and subject to the FCPA need to closely watch their conference speaking arrangements with local physicians and health care providers as it relates to both FCPA and AUCL risks. In particular, as a primary defense, companies should ensure that the speaking fees are recorded accurately with appropriate descriptions to be able to utilize the safe harbor provision.
Steps to Take to Mitigate Risk
It seems likely that commercial bribery through third parties will be the focus of future investigations and enforcement actions in China, which follows a similar pattern under U.S., U.K. and Brazilian anti-corruption laws. Additionally, the SAMR will undoubtedly want to use a significant enforcement matter to show its intent and power under the amended law and new reorganization. Multinational companies with operations in China should take these four steps now:
Carefully review existing policies and procedures in order to mitigate risk and ensure there are no gaps or exposure under the new rules.
Conduct a focused review of existing business arrangements involving transaction counterparties and third parties, including agents, distributors, or other intermediaries to identify processes or relationships that need to be mitigated.
Policies should be established that require due diligence prior to engaging third-party vendors who are intended to facilitate a transaction with a counterparty, as well as include terms and conditions for requiring compliance by the third-party in audit rights, periodic audits and training of third parties.
Internal controls and policies regarding giving or receiving gifts, payments, property, hospitality and other incentives by an employee need to be reviewed and revised where necessary, with a focus on the risk of vicarious liability.
Senior management and employees in China need to be trained to ensure they are aware of these important changes and that sufficient controls are in place to ensure compliance with these new regulations across the organization.
Cindy Yu is a managing director based in the San Francisco office of StoneTurn, a global advisory firm that assists companies, their counsel and government agencies on regulatory, risk and compliance and issues, investigations and business disputes.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
Democratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
7 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Companies' Dirty Little Secret: Those Privacy Opt-Out Requests Usually Aren't Honored
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250