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​ 

November 3, 2022
On October 31, 2022, the Department of Trade in Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce announced that payments for importation at the border are to be made via bank transaction. This announcement comes into force with Import/Export Newsletter No. 10/2022, dated October 31, 2022, issued by the Department of Trade, with the purpose of implementing a systematic payment system for import and export at the border, in accordance with a suggestion made by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international financial watchdog. (This follows the recent news that the FATF has blacklisted Myanmar.) This requirement means that only bank transactions will be accepted for import payments in the border trade. Initially, this system will be applied to trade at the Myanmar-Thailand border only. The new requirement to pay for imports only via bank transaction states that export earnings and other types of foreign currency earnings (including salary and income remitted by Myanmar workers overseas) will be allowed to be used for imports. Importers are required to make the payments for import goods—using these earnings—via their banks. That is, Importers operating in the border trade must have foreign currency earnings received through official banking channels and must make import payments abroad through official banking channels using those earnings. In contrast to previous practices, they are unable to use other sources of income and are not able to make other payment arrangements that do not involve bank transactions. The procedures for importation at the Myanmar-Thailand border are as follows: Companies applying to the Department of Trade for an import license must produce credit advice and original bank statements that prove the receipt of export earnings or other earnings into their bank account. The Department of Trade will scrutinize the reported export earnings or other earnings, and approve the import license for an
Read More
April 8, 2022
As Thailand has paid more and closer attention to anticorruption issues, a number of measures have been introduced and implemented over the years, including the establishment of the Complaint Center for Foreign Investors (CCFI) in 2015. The CCFI was set up by the Office of Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) to promote transparency and integrity in the Thai public sector and enhance the confidence of foreign investors conducting business in Thailand. Though the CCFI has been in operation for many years, many foreign investors conducting business in Thailand have either remained unaware of it or have been reluctant to use it because of concerns that acting against Thai public officials could cause problems for their businesses or in their personal lives. However, recently the PACC has made a renewed push to promote the CCFI as a suitable channel for foreign investors to lodge complaints when they face unfair services or treatment, or face requests for benefits from Thai public officials. Lodging a Complaint with the CCFI The CCFI was established to administer the PACC’s responsibilities under Section 58/2 of the Executive Measures in Anti-Corruption Act B.E. 2551 (2008), which authorizes the PACC to notify the superior of any state agency appearing to have regulations or procedures that fail to comply with the Licensing Facilitation Act; are deemed by the PACC to cause a nuisance or damages to a public service clientele; or cause severe detriment to a government service. Practically, this means that when investors have a complaint that fits the scope described in the law, they can contact the CCFI, which will take action by getting the relevant agency or government authority to examine the issue. In cases concerning agency regulations and procedures, this will be the head of the relevant agency, but if the circumstances indicate malpractice
Read More
March 18, 2022
As many countries have experienced firsthand, corruption and bribery can have severe and far-reaching effects throughout a country’s political and economic systems. They not only impact the financial status and administrative ability of the countries involved, but at the same time, can also create and perpetuate a negative image of those countries to current or potential trade or investment partners. Recognizing the importance of minimizing or eliminating the damaging effects of bribery and corruption, many countries have made—and continue to make—efforts to strengthen their anticorruption and antibribery capabilities. Thailand has enacted relevant laws and enforced anticorruption measures in both the public and private sectors. Under Thai law, a bribe can take the form of property or a benefit. “Property” can be tangible (such as money, a car, a house, etc.) or intangible (such as copyrights, patents, etc.), while a “benefit” can be a gift, a discount, entertainment, healthcare costs, a job promotion, and so on. This article discusses the key provisions related to criminal offenses committed by private parties under three anticorruption laws in Thailand: Organic Act on Anti-Corruption B.E. 2561 (2018) Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act, B.E. 2560 (2017) Act on Offenses Relating to the Submission of Bids to State Agencies B.E. 2542 (1999) Organic Act on Anti-Corruption The key provision of the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption (OAAC) is Section 176, which prohibits giving, offering, or promising property or a benefit to a public official, foreign public official, or official of a public international organization with the intent to induce the official to wrongfully perform his or her duty. Violations are subject to criminal liability, punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, a fine of up to THB 100,000 (approx. USD 3,000), or both. If the offender is a person associated with a company that does
Read More