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​ 

June 27, 2024
On May 17, 2024, Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) issued an amended Notification Concerning the Rules for Designating or Reviewing the List of High-Risk Customers Who Require Close Monitoring under the Ministerial Regulation on Customer Due Diligence B.E. 2563 (2020). This notification, which took effect the following day, updates the previous version of the notification from 2022 to cover cybercrimes listed under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023). The amended notification sets out the steps that all financial institutions in Thailand must take to manage money laundering risks and to comply with the AMLO’s mandatory Guidelines on Customer Due Diligence. Under the new notification, account holders suspected of engaging in or facilitating technological crimes, as recorded by the Anti Online Scam Operation Center (AOC), are to be classified as “high-risk persons.” The notification includes provisions for listing high-risk customers under two specific codes: HR-03-1: This code applies to individuals who are the subject of either a petition or a complaint related to a predicate offense accepted by the relevant inquiry officer and recorded as a criminal case. It also covers individuals whose bank accounts are suspected of being used to conduct transactions related to crimes under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), with victims seeking prosecution. The names of individuals in this category are received from responsible agencies according to the Criminal Procedure Code or the AOC and are documented in a publicly accessible online notification system. HR-03-2: This code is for individuals involved in the commission of a predicate offense or those whose bank accounts are suspected of being used in such offenses, but whose cases have not been accepted or numbered by the relevant inquiry officer. Names
Read More
December 15, 2023
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has published an updated edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand for 2023. This guide outlines the key factors for starting and operating a business in the Thai market. Issues covered include: Investment incentives Financial facilities Exchange controls Import and export regulations Structures for doing business Requirements for the Establishment of a Business Operation of the Business Cessation or Termination of the Business Labor legislation, relations, and supply Tax Immigration requirements This publication is part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series prepared by member firms in more than 100 jurisdictions worldwide. The guides serve as a useful resource for planning international business strategy and researching new markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand is available through the button below.
Read More
March 20, 2023
Thailand has enacted new legislation to counter cybercrime and scams. The Royal Decree on Measures for Protection and Suppression of Technology Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023) (“Cybercrime Decree”) was published in the Government Gazette on March 16, 2023, and took effect the following day. The Cybercrime Decree provides a new legal tool to interrupt the money-laundering process and aims to crack down on cybercrime perpetrators and scammers by providing stronger legal measures applying to certain types of offenders that had not been sufficiently covered by existing laws. This new legislation grants victims the right to have commercial banks and online payment platforms freeze suspicious transactions and obligates these banks and platforms to comply with such requests. It further requires these banks and platforms—as well as other service providers—to share data for the prompt prevention and suppression of cybercrime. The key rights, duties, and offenses established by the Cybercrime Decree are detailed below. Freezing Transactions The Cybercrime Decree requires commercial banks and online payment platforms to temporarily freeze (for 72 hours) any related transactions of their account holders upon receipt of an alert from the account holder that he or she is the victim of cybercrime. Victims can report these illicit transactions by phone or electronic means. If by phone, the relevant bank or platform must document the call. The victim must file a police complaint about the illicit transaction within 72 hours of the freeze being made. A police inquiry officer will then notify the bank or platform about the complaint, and the transaction freeze must be maintained for seven days from the filing of the complaint with the police. The police will then determine whether it is necessary to keep the transaction frozen for longer than seven days. If the seven days lapse without a further order to freeze the
Read More
February 13, 2023
Thailand’s Office of the Prime Minister has issued a new regulation titled Giving or Receiving Gifts of State Officials B.E. 2565 (2022). This regulation, which took effect on January 13, 2023, repeals the previous 2001 version and updates certain provisions to be in sync with Thailand’s primary anticorruption law, the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption B.E. 2561 (2018). The regulation prohibits state officials’ family members from receiving gifts from people who are dealing with the officials’ respective agencies. It also prohibits state officials from giving gifts to their supervisors and their supervisors’ family members. An exception, carried over from the previous version of the regulation, is provided for gifts on limited “customary occasions” valued at THB 3,000 or less. There are some notable revisions in the definitions of the new regulation. The term “gift” is now clearly defined to include “training” or “seminars.” In addition, the term “family members” now includes spouses living together “as husband and wife,” even if not legally married. For example, the common-law spouse of an officer considering a license application is not allowed to receive a gift from or attend an overseas seminar organized by the applicant. The regulation also provides: Guidelines for state officials to self-report in case of violation by a family member; Instructions on how to deal with the gifts received in violation; and Disciplinary actions for violation. Importantly, the regulation continues to prohibit the receipt of gifts by state officials’ family members but does not expressly criminalize the giving of gifts by private parties. However, all who deal with government officials should take note of the updated regulation to avoid creating a situation that might violate the rules.
Read More