This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 09 PARIS 005176 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USOECD 
 
STATE FOR EB/IFD/OIA, INL/C, EUR 
DOJ FOR CRIMINAL DIVISION/FRAUD SECTION/MENDELSOHN 
USDOC FOR ITA/MAC/MTA/BARLOW 
USDOC FOR OGC/NICKERSON 
SEC FOR ENFORCEMENT/RGRIME 
SEC FOR INTL AFFAIRS/TBEATTY 
 
E.O. 12958:N/A 
TAGS: KCOR ECON ETRD EINV PREL UK OECD
SUBJECT:  OECD REPORT: WORKING GROUP ON BRIBERY, HELD ON 
JUNE 14-16, 2005 
 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1.  On the June 14-16 meeting of the OECD Working Group 
on Bribery (WGB), the Tour de Table of recent 
enforcement developments (see Paras. 18-26) reconfirmed 
that the U.S. remains far and away the most aggressive 
enforcer of the foreign bribery offense.  France was 
particularly disappointing, showing little interest in 
following up media reports about foreign bribery by 
French firms, or even a recent World Bank debarment 
action against a Thales subsidiary; the UK also 
provided little new information on various 
investigations underway.  As part of its written follow- 
up report in response to Phase 2 review 
recommendations, Germany provided a list of foreign 
bribery cases, many of which have been closed (see 
Paras. 13-16).  Norway also delivered a Phase 2 follow- 
up report (see Para. 17). 
 
¶2.  The WGB plenary considered the Phase 2 peer review 
examinations of Belgium and Sweden, giving both 
countries favorable assessments (see Paras. 8-12).  The 
WGB recommended that Belgium amend its law to include 
an explicit prohibition of tax deductibility of "secret 
commissions" and do more to ensure that the business 
community understands that bribery of foreign public 
officials is a crime.  While praising Sweden's efforts, 
the WGB made a number of recommendations for further 
improvements, including ensuring that the notion of a 
foreign public official under Swedish law includes all 
elected officials and agents of public international 
organizations, even those of which Sweden is not a 
member, and completing the reform of the system of 
liability of legal persons so that there are no 
obstacles to imposing corporate fines. 
 
¶3.  An informal meeting June 13 considered the 
Secretariat's initial draft outline of the Mid-term 
 
SIPDIS 
Study of the Phase 2 reviews.    The U.S. welcomed the 
outline, but objected to inclusion of a focus on areas 
for further development, stating that the review should 
stick to identifying horizontal issues and common 
challenges drawn from a comparison of Phase 2 reviews 
conducted to date.  The WGB Chairman agreed; France and 
the UK also supported the U.S. comments.   The outline 
will be refined and completed in time for discussion at 
the next WGB meeting, in October.   End summary. 
 
--------------- 
MID-TERM REVIEW 
--------------- 
 
¶4.  The WGB held an informal meeting to discuss the 
Secretariat's annotated outline of the first part of 
 
SIPDIS 
the Mid-term Study of the Phase 2 Reviews.  While 
discussions at the WGB meeting in March 2005 indicated 
the first part of the Study would analyze progress made 
in implementing the Convention, including positive 
developments and challenges, the Secretariat's draft 
outline also included a focus on "areas for potential 
development".  In written comments submitted before the 
meeting and in verbal comments in the informal meeting 
itself, USDel stressed that the principal focus of the 
Mid-Term Review Study should be to identify horizontal 
issues and challenges that have been identified by the 
Phase 2 examinations, both for further discussion and 
to sharpen the focus of continued peer review.  USDel 
stated that we do not believe there should be a focus 
on areas for further development, and noted that we did 
not get the impression from the documentation prepared 
for the March WGB meeting and from plenary discussion 
at the meeting that there would be an intent to focus 
on such areas. 
 
¶5.  USDel indicated that the WGB could certainly 
attempt to draw conclusions on the basis of plenary 
discussion of the completed study, perhaps assisted by 
an ad-hoc drafting group, open to all parties.  France 
and the UK supported the U.S. comments.  In response, 
Chairman Mark Pieth said the clear view is that the 
Study should be largely retrospective and concentrate 
on the "positives and problems," i.e., focusing on what 
is working well and what is not working well.  We don't 
need to solve horizontal issues now, he stated, but a 
list of such issues could be developed for the WGB to 
consider, and to lead into the next step of the planned 
review of the 1997 Revised Recommendation. 
 
¶6.  Verbal and written comments by Norway, Sweden, the 
UK and Australia were largely focused on process. 
USDel, while noting these comments, stressed that the 
procedures were in general working well.  France 
supported the U.S., saying it is important the 
examination process be level.  A number of delegations 
asked that the proposed recommendations included in the 
final Phase 2 report be circulated to the examined 
country and the WGB in advance of the plenary.  For 
example, Denmark said the practice in some other OECD 
fora (like the Development Assistance Committee) is to 
make recommendations in advance, so that the examined 
country gets a first chance to respond. 
 
¶7.  Summarizing comments, Pieth said changes might be 
made to procedures if they did not affect the standards 
of the review process.  In this regard, Pieth sees two 
areas for possible focus in the Study:  technical-level 
changes, such as improving the questionnaire, and 
timing-issues, such as providing the text of the 
recommendations in advance.   Pieth and OECD Anti- 
corruption Division Head Patrick Moulette urged 
delegates to send in further comments in writing. 
 
------------------------------------- 
PHASE 2 REVIEWS OF BELGIUM AND SWEDEN 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶8.  Belgium:  Lead examiners Switzerland and Argentina 
gave Belgium a generally favorable review, although the 
WGB strongly criticized Belgium for continuing to allow 
tax deductions for "secret commissions" in 
international business transactions and urged Belgium 
to impose a ban on such tax deductibility within one 
year. Chairman Mark Pieth firmly rejected a Belgian 
official's attempt to justify such tax deductibility in 
certain circumstances, stating that it was simply "not 
acceptable" and that in allowing such deductions 
Belgium was "endangering its entire message on 
corruption." On a more positive note, there are 
apparently four cases potentially involving foreign 
bribery under preliminary inquiry or investigation in 
Belgium. Belgium is also conducting a major review of 
the existing law on criminal liability of legal 
persons. Nonetheless, the examiners and several WGB 
delegates concerns raised concerns about how Belgian 
law defines foreign public officials.  This prompted 
the WGB to recommend that Belgium consider adopting an 
autonomous definition instead of relying on the 
interpretation of the foreign country's law in order to 
bring its law into compliance with the OECD Antibribery 
Convention. 
 
¶9.  In its recommendations to Belgium, the WGB said 
Belgium also must work on publicizing the Convention, 
both within the Government and to the private sector, 
and advised Belgium to consider providing more 
resources for prosecutions.  In addition, the WGB 
recommended that Belgium adopt improved whistleblower 
protection measures, and that Belgium take the 
necessary legislative measures to ensure that its 
extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction for bribery 
offenses committed outside of Belgium is adequate.  The 
WGB committed to following up on several issues in the 
future, including whether the definition of bribery 
under the Belgian law encompasses "giving" an advantage 
and whether adequate resources are allocated for 
effective prosecutions of complex international bribery 
cases. 
 
¶10.  Sweden:  The WGB praised Sweden for its 
implementation of the Convention, being one of the few 
countries, other than the U.S., that has actually 
obtained a conviction for bribery of a foreign public 
official.  The case, involving kickbacks to World Bank 
officials, was actually prosecuted under Sweden's pre- 
Convention anti-bribery law and is currently under 
appeal. Apparently Swedish law prohibited bribery of 
foreign public officials, although not expressly, 
before the Convention entered into force for Sweden. 
Other cases are currently under investigation.  The WGB 
also commended Sweden for having adequate resources for 
prosecuting foreign bribery cases and a well- 
functioning system of cooperation and information 
sharing between law enforcement officials.  Poland did 
an admirable job of as the apparent lead examiner; 
Iceland was the other examiner. 
 
¶11.  While praising Sweden's efforts, the WGB made a 
number of recommendations for further improvements, 
including further raising awareness in both the public 
and private sectors about the offense of bribery of 
foreign public officials; requiring auditors to report 
indications of possible illegal bribery acts to the 
board of directors and considering requiring such 
reporting to relevant law enforcement authorities; 
ensuring that the notion 
of a foreign public official under Swedish law includes 
all elected officials and agents of public 
international organizations, even those of which Sweden 
is not a member; completing the reform of the system of 
liability of legal persons so that there are no 
obstacles to imposing corporate fines and the maximum 
fines for bribery are appropriate (i.e., effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive) given the global 
importance of Swedish companies; and, ensuring that law 
enforcement and judicial authorities are aware of the 
penalty of confiscation of the proceeds of bribery. The 
WGB also committed to following up on several issues 
once Sweden has brought more cases, including the 
criteria for determining when bribery is aggravated or 
simple, prosecutions of legal persons where a natural 
person is not being prosecuted, and the application of 
nationality jurisdiction. 
 
¶12.  The complete reports for both Sweden and Belgium 
will be accessible on the OECD website within several 
months, at www.oecd.org. 
 
------------------------------------------- 
PHASE 2 WRITTEN FOLLOW-UP REPORT BY GERMANY 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶13.  Germany presented its written follow-up report to 
its Phase 2 Report. The original Phase 2 Report and 
accompanying Recommendations may be found at: 
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/9/2958732.pdf ; EB/OIA 
emailed the follow-up report to Embassy/Econ.  Although 
Germany is revising its current laws and has made 
several improvements, the WGB noted several remaining 
concerns that it will need to monitor as the case law 
develops, including Germany's application of its 
antibribery laws to corporate entities (Germany does 
not provide for corporate criminal liability but only 
administrative fines under its legal system).  The 
German follow-up report states that Germany is 
currently revising its antibribery legal framework 
under a new Draft Act on Combating Bribery, which will 
incorporate Council of Europe as well as new EU 
requirements and obligations of the UN Convention. The 
Draft Act will repeal Germany's current legislation 
implementing the OECD Convention and transfer such 
offenses to the Criminal Code. According to the German 
report, the legislative procedure is expected to be 
complete by end 2006. 
 
¶14.  The report elaborates on steps the Government and 
(separately) several business associations have taken 
to raise awareness about the Convention and the German 
implementing legislation among both the business 
community and judges and prosecutors. In addition, 
Germany reportedly sent information to missions abroad, 
including written training programs to increase 
awareness of bribery offenses. 
 
¶15.  German enforcement of the foreign bribery offense 
has been complicated by the fact that in general 
investigations and prosecutions are done by the Lander; 
for example, Germany claims it can only report the 
number of investigations and prosecutions once a year 
because it only receives such information from the 
Lander annually.  The follow-up report notes that the 
federal authorities have developed a Central Public 
Prosecution Register, and the report provides a 
detailed annex outlining a long list of cases.  Germany 
said the Justice Ministry has drafted amendments to the 
guidelines on criminal and administrative proceedings 
to provide more guidance to prosecutors in applying the 
laws relating to the responsibility of legal persons. 
The lead examiners, Austria and Japan, nonetheless 
raised several remaining concerns, including whether 
the Lander really had sufficient resources, the time 
lag in conducting tax audits and the relatively low 
penalties for legal persons of up to Euro 1 million, 
given the size of German companies and exports in the 
global market.  (Note:  USDel queried the German 
representatives on the margins and confirmed that 
German law also afforded the possibility of fining the 
company up to twice the amount of the bribe proceeds, 
although if the bribe was promised but not actually 
paid this penalty obviously would not appear to apply. 
End note) 
 
¶16.  USDel commended the GOG on the impressive number 
of cases currently under investigation as well as for 
establishing a central register, but asked whether the 
German delegates to the WGB would be able to consult it 
more regularly.  The German delegate responded that 
because the registry information is secret and the 
Federal Government is not a prosecuting but a law 
making body, it does not have access to the registry. 
They reiterated that the Federal authorities receive 
such information only once a year for the purpose of 
reporting to the OECD WGB. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
PHASE 2 ORAL FOLLOW-UP REPORT BY NORWAY 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶17.  Norway provided a comprehensive Phase 2 oral 
follow-up report and the lead examiners generally 
expressed satisfaction with Norway's implementation and 
enforcement of the convention.  Norway is issuing a 
booklet on the corruption provisions of the penal code, 
which will be distributed to all foreign missions and 
Norwegian small and medium enterprises operating in 
foreign markets. Norway is considering a new act on 
whistleblowers, which is at the drafting stage and is 
being hotly debated (this is viewed as important by the 
examiners pursuant to the Phase 2 recommendations). 
The Norwegian delegate explained that Norway has 
established a tax unit to investigate tax crimes and 
related issues and has issued instructions to all tax 
authorities on how to communicate bribery matters.  One 
of the WGB's recommendations in Norway's Phase 2 report 
was that the authorities needed to communicate to its 
business sector that facilitation payments are not 
allowed under Norwegian law; the Norwegian delegate 
expressed surprise at the existence of this 
recommendation (as did USDel, since facilitation 
payments are permitted under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act) but said that Norway will comply by 
mentioning this in its new booklet (see above). 
 
-------------- 
Tour de Table: 
-------------- 
 
¶18.  As agreed by the WGB at the March meeting, the 
Tour de Table review of country implementation and 
enforcement efforts focused on a summary matrix of 
cases compiled from public sources by the OECD 
Secretariat. Posts can request copies of the Tour de 
 
SIPDIS 
Table summary of foreign bribery cases derived from 
press reports by contacting EB/IFD/OIA, email: 
brownpa@state.gov.  (Note:  Not all of the information 
in the matrix is accurate or authoritative, but it is a 
useful tool to track allegations of bribery of foreign 
public officials.  End Note.) 
 
¶19.  Most countries gave only brief reports and many 
asked that the listed cases from press reports be 
removed as they were lacking evidence and therefore not 
being pursued. Several countries reported either having 
signed or ratified the United Nations Convention 
Against Corruption, and most EU countries informed the 
group about their implementation of COE and EU 
anticorruption instruments. After going around the 
table for updates, Chairman Mark Pieth suggested that 
the WGB take a closer look at multi-jurisdictional 
cases, such as the TSKJ / Nigeria case, which touches 
quite a few OECD countries (although only the U.S., 
France, the U.K. and Switzerland are conducting 
investigations), as well as the Alcatel / Costa Rica 
case.  He commented that perhaps multi-jurisdictional 
cases would make a good topic for a special 
"prosecutors' meeting" in addition to normal WGB 
meetings. 
 
¶20.  USDel addressed several recent enforcement actions 
pursuant to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), 
including the Diagnostic Products Corporation 
(DPC)/(China) case. The case involved DPC and its 
wholly owned subsidiary, DPC (Tianjin) Ltd., a Chinese 
company, which sell medical devices and testing 
equipment. DPC (Tianjin) Ltd. pleaded guilty to 
violating the FCPA by paying $1.6 million in bribes 
over a ten-year period to doctors and procurement 
officials of state-owned hospitals in China. DPC 
(Tianjin) Ltd. was sentenced to pay a $2 million 
criminal fine, and parent company DPC will pay $2.8 
million, of which approximately $2 million is 
disgorgement representing the company's net profit in 
China from its misconduct, under a previously agreed 
cease and desist order from the U.S. Securities and 
Exchange Commission. USDel also confirmed the existence 
of numerous Department of Justice and SEC 
investigations reported in the press and listed in the 
Secretariat's matrix. 
 
SIPDIS 
 
¶21.  USDel again reminded the representative from the 
Netherlands that the U.S. is still seeking extradition 
of a Dutch national for FCPA violations; while the 
Dutch Supreme Court approved his extradition, the 
Ministry of Justice appears to be blocking the 
extradition.  As usual, the Dutch representative had no 
response other than that she would relay the message to 
capital. USDel further reported that the Justice 
Department had given presentations at various 
anticorruption conferences, including one in Paris and 
one on the FCPA in New York. The Justice Department has 
also participated in several web casts on the topic for 
continuing legal education purposes and five more are 
scheduled.  USDel also noted that the Justice 
Department has completed a pilot program for compiling 
international cases, which it hopes to have up and 
running by this summer. 
 
¶22.  France provided a disappointing, minimalist 
update, saying that three cases remain under 
investigation; the French delegate said many of the 
cases listed in the Secretariat-prepared matrix either 
do not fall within the ambit of France's law 
implementing the Convention or simply that France is 
not aware of the case.  USdel took issue with France's 
lack of a response, specifically asking for more 
details of French actions with respect to the Alcatel / 
Costa Rica case.  France stated that it is watching 
developments concerning the case but had no news to 
report beyond its last update on the subject. 
Concerning the Thales Engineering and Consulting / 
Cambodia case, which involves blacklisting of the 
company by the World Bank: the U.S. pointed out that 
France should at least ask the World Bank for further 
information about the case, instead of doing nothing 
and assuming that the World Bank sanctions are enough. 
When asked about other cases by the Chair, France 
responded that if other countries are already 
investigating, there is no need for France to do 
anything. 
 
¶23.  Similarly, the U.K. reported that the Serious 
Fraud Office was either unaware of several of the cases 
listed in the Secretariat's report or there was no 
evidence to support them concerning UK involvement. 
When asked by the U.S. for an update on the TSKJ / 
Nigeria case the U.K. responded that it had no updated 
information. The ongoing investigation into the BAE 
case involves several countries. The U.K. further 
reported that it is participating in various outreach 
activities to several countries, including in events in 
East Asia on awareness raising for the private sector 
and for U.K. missions. It held a conference for its 
Overseas Territories on the Convention, and a meeting 
on a Memorandum of Understanding of how to handle cases 
with the Serious Fraud Office. 
 
¶24.  Japan reported that it was seeking information on 
the (TSKJ / Nigeria) case, but provided no further 
information on it or any other cases. Japan further 
reported that the Bill for raising penalties for 
national persons is under consideration in the Diet and 
it is hoped that it will be passed in a few weeks. 
Korea, on the other hand, reported that it is 
monitoring several cases (although most involve bribery 
of U.S. military procurement personnel in Korea), has 
requested mutual legal assistance in others, and has 
prosecutions under way. Korea noted that it is hosting 
two upcoming events this year: an APEC Anticorruption 
Task Force Meeting and an Anticorruption and 
Transparency Symposium in September. 
 
¶25.  Australia stated that there are two potential 
foreign bribery matters under consideration and another 
is being looked at, but all are confidential at this 
point. Austria reported that on June 7 it adopted the 
bill on criminal liability, which should enter into 
force in January 2006.  Brazil reported that the 
National Congress and the Parliament had ratified the 
United Nations Convention Against Corruption in May. It 
is also considering three bills to implement WGB 
recommendations, concerning international mutual legal 
assistance, the duration of the statute of limitations 
(which may be increased up to 12 years) and legal 
liability. Turkey reported that it has a new Criminal 
Code, which entered into force on June 1. The new text 
now contains provisions on the coverage of 
international officials. The Slovak Republic reported 
that its on-site visit was conducted in May. It also 
has new criminal and procedural codes, awaiting the 
President's signature and expected to enter into force 
in 2006; however a provision concerning legal persons 
had been deleted.  Italy reported that Transparency 
International will be hosting a seminar in Rome in 
November on the OECD Convention. Norway reported on a 
recent a seminar for Nordic prosecutors in corruption 
cases in a Nordic context. 
 
¶26.  Countries absent from the Tour de Table at this 
meeting included: Bulgaria, Ireland, and Luxembourg, 
which claimed it was too busy due to its EU Presidency 
and could not present its mandatory follow-up report to 
its Phase 2 Review. As a result, the Chair suggested, 
per prior agreement by the WGB Management Group, that 
the WGB write a letter to Luxembourg expressing its 
disappointment and concern. 
 
-------- 
OUTREACH 
-------- 
 
¶27.  There was an animated discussion of a Secretariat 
paper on a possible strategy regarding outreach to non- 
members.  The paper took an expansive approach, 
covering outreach to possible candidates for accession 
to the OECD Antibribery Convention as well as those who 
are not on an accession path but may be interested in 
the Convention, and also addressing the OECD Anti- 
corruption Division's various regional initiatives. 
The UK commented that any outreach needs to be 
carefully targeted, first on accession candidates. For 
those countries that are not accession candidates, 
outreach might best be done on a regional basis. 
Australia and Argentina endorsed the UK views, noting 
resource constraints. 
 
¶28.  France said an important consideration is the size 
of the WGB -- effective monitoring and follow-up could 
be difficult if the WGB were to grow too large and 
there probably is a size limit for the group.  France 
added that, within that limit, the WGB could identify 
what countries might be accession candidates, with 
outreach focused on those countries, although the Group 
should consider ways to engage other countries with no 
real prospect for accession.  Finally, France stressed 
the need for a level-playing field for business from 
Parties to the OECD Antibribery Convention; the WGB 
needs to look at what to do with major players that are 
not Parties to the Convention, given increasing 
competition from businesses from non-Parties, and this 
need should also drive the outreach approach. 
 
¶29.  USDel noted that the U.S. shares many of the views 
expressed by the UK and France.  USDel stressed that 
outreach should be based largely on those countries 
that are likely to meet the criteria endorsed by the 
OECD Council in 2004 (i.e., "willing and able" and 
"mutual benefit").   Summing up, Chairman Pieth said 
there is a clear need to really target the outreach, 
with the starting point being the criteria in the 
Council decision.  He suggested the Secretariat try to 
develop a list of target countries, for initial review 
by the management group.  USDel reminded delegates that 
the WGB had tried in the past to develop a list of 
priority outreach candidates, without arriving at any 
consensus.  While the Group could proceed down this 
road, we could see any list as being quite short and 
focused.  Turkey subsequently objected to any 
preliminary review by the management group, saying any 
list should be reviewed by all members at the same 
time.  (Comment:  While a "list developing" exercise is 
problematic, USDel believes it can be managed.  End 
comment.) 
 
 
 
 
 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
COMMENTS ON RUSSIA'S DRAFT LAW AGAINST FOREIGN BRIBERY 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
 
¶30.  The WGB considered draft comments on Russia's 
proposed law criminalizing the bribery of foreign 
public officials, drawn from written comments by 
several delegations and discussion at the informal side 
session with Russian experts at the October 2004 WGB 
meeting.  While the draft represented an improvement 
over the previous version circulated in March, it still 
contained a number of shortcomings and incorrect 
interpretations of the Convention that reflect poorly 
on the Secretariat, including loosely referring to 
corruption in general rather than focusing specifically 
on the bribery of foreign public officials.  USDel 
indicated that we were not yet in a position to approve 
the draft, but would forward specific comments and 
edits shortly.  The WGB discussed how to further engage 
Russia, given that there have been no follow-up 
contacts by Russian officials since Russia attended the 
WGB Phase 2 examination of the UK in December 2004. 
 
------------ 
SOUTH AFRICA 
------------ 
 
¶31.  The Secretariat explained that the OECD Council 
had approved inviting South Africa to become part of 
the WGB; a draft letter inviting South Africa had been 
sent to the South Africans for comment.  While South 
African officials had said they would have comments, 
they have yet to be received.  WGB Chair Pieth 
expressed frustration with the slow pace of 
developments and urged the Secretariat to follow up 
with South Africa representatives in Paris. 
MORELLA