You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

December 6, 2018

Myanmar Extends Anti-Corruption Law to Private Transactions

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

In a development that appears to have received no public attention, Myanmar recently amended the definition of “corruption” in its Anti-Corruption Law, with the result extending the prohibition of corrupt acts to all persons—not just government officials as had previously been the case.   

The Anti-Corruption Law was enacted in 2013 to address acts of corruption by public servants, government officials, and public office holders, with punishments for violators including up to 15 years in prison and fines. It is the primary tool for prosecuting acts of corruption in Myanmar. The Penal Code acts as an additional tool for certain specific instances of corruption, and contains a number of anti-corruption provisions relating to the conduct of public servants, prohibiting them from accepting or soliciting a benefit for the exercise or non-exercise of their duties, and relating to persons providing benefits to induce or reward others in the exercise of their electoral rights.  

The Anti-Corruption Law also established the Anti- Corruption Commission—the government agency tasked with investigating and prosecuting violations of that law on its own initiative, or at the request of the president or parliament, or in response to complaints made by any person. Under the 4th Amendment to the Anti-Corruption Law, enacted on June 21, 2018, the Anti-Corruption Commission is also empowered  to order private organizations to establish codes of business ethics and anti-bribery and corruption policies. The Anti-Corruption Commission has also been given the authority to determine that a person has a general reputation of being corrupt, and initiate investigations, based on prima facie evidence that they have committed a corrupt act.   

The focus of discussion about this most recent amendment has been on the expanded powers of the Anti-Corruption Commission and the new corruption criteria for a person who has the “general repute” of being corrupt. However, the definition of corruption has also been changed slightly, with very significant effect.

Originally, the definition of “corruption” for which persons could be punished under the Anti – Corruption law applied to “an authoritative person,” which was defined as a public servant or government official (emphasis added):”

“the direct or indirect abuse of one’s position as an authoritative person in order to perform an act, refrain from performing a lawful act, [etc.]… such as by giving, accepting, receiving, attempting to receive, offering, pledging … a benefit from a person concerned for himself or any other person or organization.”

The underlined wording has been replaced with “any person” by the 4th Amendment, and corruption can now occur by “other means,” so that now acts by any person, not only government officials, may be prosecuted as acts of corruption(emphasis added):”

“The direct or indirect abuse of his position or other means by any person in order to perform an act, refrain from performing a lawful act, [etc.]…such as by giving, receiving, accepting … a benefit from a person…”

Although we have not seen this discussed elsewhere, we think this change in the definition of corruption means that private acts of corruption (that is, acts of corruption between private parties) are now punishable under the Anti-Corruption Law as amended by the 4th Amendment. We have read of one case where this revised definition may have been applied by a township court which found a lawyer guilty of corruption for obtaining excessive legal fees. This case is being followed with great interest by the legal community in Myanmar.   

The Anti-Corruption Law provides punishment only for the recipient of the unlawful benefit, not the person providing the benefit. However, in an appropriate case the giver can be prosecuted for abetting the offense, with the same potential punishment.   

The implications of this expansion of the definition of bribery and corruption to include private transactions are not yet clear. We do know that Myanmar ranks at the wrong end of the scale of every international corruption ranking, and this is seen by the government as a significant impediment to foreign investment. At this stage of the country’s development, foreign investment is highly desirable in both the public and private sectors, so naturally the Myanmar government wants to be seen as addressing the corruption problem. This expansion of the Anti-Corruption Law is but one of four formal governmental anti-corruption instruments that the Myanmar government has issued in the last two years, and the reforms are likely to continue.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Compliance and Investigations

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 14, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand and Vietnam chapters to Investigations in Southeast Asia, a comprehensive guide published by Drew Network Asia (DNA). The resource provides a practical overview of anticorruption laws, corporate investigations, and compliance frameworks across six key Southeast Asian jurisdictions. Designed for in-house counsel, compliance officers, and risk management professionals, the guide offers actionable insights for navigating complex cross-border regulatory challenges and establishing effective, regionally coordinated compliance and investigation strategies. The guide begins with a regional perspective on enforcement trends and cross-border cooperation initiatives. Jurisdiction-specific chapters follow a standardized structure—covering primary corruption offenses, enforcement authorities, corporate liability, investigation procedures and dawn raids, whistleblower protections, and recommended compliance measures. In addition to country-by-country analysis, the publication highlights best practices for conducting internal investigations, managing digital evidence, and handling parallel proceedings involving multiple regional or international regulators. The guide serves as a practical reference for organizations operating in Southeast Asia. Because legal and regulatory risks depend on specific industry sectors and operational contexts, readers seeking tailored advice are encouraged to contact the authors listed in each chapter. The full guide is available for download through the button below or directly from the DNA website.
Read More
April 28, 2026
Thailand’s Anti-Corruption Cooperation Committee has issued a major update to the anticorruption standards required for private entities engaging in high-value state projects. The update, titled “Announcement re: Procurement Limits and Minimum Anticorruption Standards (No. 2),” replaces and amends key provisions of the original announcement dated September 25, 2024. Published in the Government Gazette on April 10, 2026, the new rules take effect on May 10, 2026, and apply to projects valued at more than THB 300 million (approximately USD 9.3 million). The key amendments to the anticorruption standards are detailed below. Expanded Definition of Conflict of Interest The 2026 regulation significantly broadens the scope of what constitutes a conflict of interest compared to the 2024 version, which focused primarily on basic kinship and business ties. Under the new rules, a conflict of interest includes using one’s position or authority to seek benefits for oneself, a group, close associates, or business, including through business relationships, kinship ties, or relationships with spouses or individuals living together as partners without marriage registration. The 2026 announcement also introduces specific examples that were largely absent from the 2024 text, such as holding shares in similar businesses that submit proposals for the same project, or submitting proposals for projects in which a relative, spouse, or unregistered partner is an “involved party” in that procurement. Continuous Compliance: The “Final Payment” Rule Under the 2024 rules, the coverage period for anticorruption policies was less strictly defined. The new regulation mandates a continuous timeline: policies or certifications must remain effective from the date of bid submission until the contractor receives the final payment installment under the contract. If a certification or policy is set to expire before the final payment, the contractor must submit a new self-audit form and supporting evidence to the state agency before the original
Read More
January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
Read More
December 3, 2025
Recent high-profile corporate fraud and accounting scandals have brought increased scrutiny to governance, compliance, and enforcement practices in Thailand, highlighting the legal and practical challenges facing companies operating in the country. As regulators and law enforcement authorities sharpen their focus on financial misconduct, cybercrime, and corruption, businesses must navigate a complex and evolving investigative landscape. Tilleke & Gibbins’ investigations and compliance team examines these issues in the Thailand chapter of The Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations – Tenth Edition, published by Global Investigations Review (GIR). The chapter provides a detailed overview of Thailand’s legal framework for corporate investigations, offering practical guidance for companies and counsel responding to regulatory and criminal scrutiny. The Thailand chapter covers key topics including corporate criminal liability, enforcement priorities, internal investigations, data protection considerations, dawn raids, whistleblowing, cyber-related investigations, and cross-border cooperation. It also addresses emerging issues such as cybersecurity enforcement, economic sanctions compliance, and anticipated developments affecting investigations in Thailand. The chapter is authored by John Frangos, Chitchai Punsan, Alongkorn Tongmee, Michael Ramirez, Piyawat Vitooraporn, and Michelle McLeod. The Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below, and the full guide can be accessed on the GIR website.
Read More