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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 12, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins’ anticorruption team in Bangkok has authored the Thailand chapter of the newly released Anti-Bribery & Corruption 2026, published by Lexology Panoramic. This global guide provides a comparative overview of antibribery and anticorruption regimes across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter addresses the following key areas: Relevant international and domestic law: International anticorruption conventions, foreign and domestic bribery laws, successor liability, civil and criminal enforcement, out-of-court resolution and leniency mechanisms Foreign bribery: Legal framework, definition of foreign public officials, gifts, travel and entertainment, facilitating payments, payments through intermediaries, individual and corporate liability, private commercial bribery, defenses, enforcement authorities, enforcement trends, prosecution of foreign companies, sanctions, recent decisions and investigations Financial record-keeping and reporting: Applicable laws and regulations, disclosure of violations or irregularities, prosecution under accounting legislation, penalties for record-keeping violations, and tax deductibility of domestic or foreign bribes Domestic bribery: Legal framework, scope of prohibitions, definition of domestic public officials, gifts, travel and entertainment, facilitating payments, public official participation in commercial activities, payments through intermediaries or third parties, individual and corporate liability, private commercial bribery, defenses, enforcement authorities, enforcement trends, prosecution of foreign companies, sanctions, recent decisions and investigations Updates and trends: Key developments over the past year The Thailand chapter outlines recent developments in anticorruption enforcement, including significant cases involving multinational corporations and continued operations targeting transnational fraud networks along the Myanmar border. It also provides an overview of Thailand’s legal framework for addressing domestic and foreign bribery, including the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption B.E. 2561 (2017). The full Thailand chapter is available as a PDF through the button below. Readers may also register for 30 days of complimentary access to the complete Anti-Bribery & Corruption 2026 guide and other Lexology Panoramic publications through this link.
January 30, 2025
The Thai cabinet has approved a draft amendment of the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes as proposed by the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to strengthen measures against technological crimes, particularly targeting call center scams and cyber fraud. Following the Council of State’s review, the emergency decree will be become effective immediately upon its enactment and publication in the Government Gazette. While the draft amendment is not yet publicly available, the government recently indicated that the emergency decree aims to empower authorities with decisive measures to combat cybercrime effectively. It underscores the shared responsibility among various sectors, including banking, telecommunications, and online platforms, in safeguarding against technological crimes. Key provisions of the draft amendment of the emergency decree include: Telecommunications provider obligations: Telecommunications service providers must suspend SIM cards associated with criminal activities. The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission and mobile service providers themselves are authorized to temporarily suspend mobile phone numbers if there is reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activities. Banking responsibilities: Financial institutions are required to promptly report mule accounts to the Anti-Money Laundering Office to facilitate quick restitution to victims. The Anti-Money Laundering Transaction Committee is empowered to order the return of funds to victims without requiring a final court ruling. Penalties for noncompliance: The amended emergency decree introduces penalties for noncompliance by regulated entities that fail to prevent criminal activities for offenses related to technology crimes in the following cases: Digital asset services: Those engaged in the buying, selling, or exchanging of digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies and digital tokens, as well as digital asset businesses that launder money obtained from online crimes by converting it into digital currency, will be subject to imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to THB 100,000,
December 11, 2024
On October 16, 2024, Thailand’s Anti-Corruption Cooperation Committee (ACCC) issued a notification to enhance anticorruption standards in public procurement. The new notification (officially “Notification of the Anti-Corruption Cooperation Committee on the Procurement Budget and Minimum Standards of the Policy and Directions for Anticorruption in Relation to Procurement according to Section 19 of the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act B.E. 2560”) supersedes previous guidelines and imposes stricter compliance requirements on business entities involved in the government procurement processes. The updates not only align with the goals of Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act B.E. 2560 (2017) but also reflect the government’s resolution to mitigate corruption, particularly in high-value public contracts. The ACCC’s new notification introduces additional definitions, lowers budget thresholds for compliance, and strengthens business obligations. Key Components The new notification continues the previous guidelines’ requirement that businesses seeking to bid on government procurement projects meet the specified minimum standards—such as communicating and implementing anticorruption policies at all organizational levels, establishing a code of conduct, and providing related training programs to employees. The notification also introduces a number of changes, the most notable of which are detailed below. “Entrepreneur” definition. The definition of this term is narrowed to entities involved in the public procurement bidding process. Previously, the definition broadly applied to all business entities engaged in selling goods or services. Threshold for mandatory compliance. The project budget threshold that necessitates compliance with the minimum standards is  THB 300 million—a reduction from the previous threshold of THB 500 million. Minimum standards to prevent unfair competition. The new notification introduces a specific definition for “disturbing fair competition,” establishing clear parameters around actions that disrupt competitive fairness within public procurement. Continued compliance requirements. Businesses’ compliance with the minimum standards must now extend from the date of bid submission to the
December 4, 2024
Thailand Legal Basics, a valuable primer for foreign investors, explores all aspects of living and doing business in Thailand. Written by specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok, it is the only comprehensive English-language guide to the Thai legal system with a focus on the concerns of foreign business and investment.