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​ 

February 22, 2021
Following the recent imposition of sanctions on Myanmar individuals and companies by the US, the UK and Canada have now imposed new sanctions. As with the US sanctions, these new measures impact UK and Canadian citizens and companies, and non-UK and non-Canadian companies and citizens with interests in those jurisdictions. The EU has indicated that it is planning to issue similar sanctions in the near future. New UK Sanctions In addition to the 16 individuals already sanctioned by the UK government, on February 18, 2021, the UK government announced that three individuals have been sanctioned for serious human rights violations and are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans. The full list of Myanmar individuals and companies sanctioned by the UK is available on the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Breaches of UK financial sanctions are criminal offences punishable in the UK by up to 7 years imprisonment and heavy fines. New Canadian Sanctions Also on February 18, timed to coincide with the UK sanctions, new Canadian sanctions were imposed on nine individuals. As with the UK, Canada already had a number of individuals in the Myanmar military on its sanctions list, and the new additions bring the total number of individuals sanctioned by Canada to 54. All assets of these individuals in Canada are now frozen, and they are banned from travelling to Canada. Canadian businesses or entities may not do business with any of the 54 individuals. Full details of the impact of the sanctions are available on the Government of Canada’s website, as is a database of the Myanmar individuals and companies subject to them. Breach of Canadian sanctions carries with it up to 5 years’ imprisonment in Canada and/or a large fine. Other Countries The EU is reportedly drawing up sanctions
Read More
February 18, 2021
As you will no doubt know, on February 1, 2021, the Myanmar military declared a state of emergency in Myanmar for a period of one year. State Counsellor Daw Aung Sang Su Kyi was detained, as were the president and various significant political and civil leaders. Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar armed forces) has installed himself as chairman of the State Administration Council, the current administration. New sanctions The reaction of the Biden administration has been swift. On February 10, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, which provides bases to impose sanctions on individuals and companies deemed by the US to, among other things: operate in the defense sector of Myanmar; be responsible for policies that undermine democratic processes in Myanmar; have taken actions to undermine democratic processes or institutions, or prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of free speech, in Myanmar; or be a spouse or child of the foregoing. On the next day, February 11, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), imposed sanctions under the new executive order on ten individuals—including General Min Aung Hlaing—and three companies, including Cancri Gems & Jewelry Co, Myanmar Imperial Jade Co, and Myanmar Ruby Enterprise.  All such individuals and companies have now been designated on the US list of specially designated nationals (SDNs). Effect of sanctions As a result of such sanctions, the property of these individuals or companies that is located in the US or is under the possession or control of US companies and citizens is frozen, and US companies and citizens are generally prohibited from dealing deal with any such property.  Reportedly, roughly USD 1 billion of funds belonging to the individuals and companies blocked on February 11 are located in the US and thus now frozen. The SDN list As many
Read More
December 7, 2020
Thailand’s legal framework for preventing transactions that are deliberately designed to conceal the unlawful origin of funds is primarily contained within the Anti-Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (AMLA), as amended. As international money laundering practices evolve and emerge over time, prevention measures must evolve with them. Therefore the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recently recommended amendments to the AMLA, along with the Counter Terrorism and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction Financing Act B.E. 2559 (2016) (CFTA), in order to be consistent with the latest international standards. The amendments passed through the public hearing stage on June 15, 2020, and the laws will now continue through the cabinet and parliament. Key Draft Amendments to the AMLA The definition of “financial institution” is expanded to include operators of many financial technology services, including: asset management and digital asset businesses; trustees in capital market trusts; derivatives businesses; authorized juristic persons under foreign exchange controls; personal loan businesses; nano- and pico-finance businesses; peer-to-peer lending businesses; crowdfunding platforms; regulated e-payment systems and services; non-bank credit card service providers; and additional businesses related to financial services or financial technology services at risk for money laundering (by further announcement in ministerial regulations). The definition of “professions” (formerly known as “section-16 professions”) is expanded to include additional occupations and businesses, such as accounting, auditing, auto trading and leasing, legal consulting, and additional professions at risk for money laundering (by further announcement in ministerial regulations). For cash transactions exceeding the prescribed threshold, parties in the listed professions are assigned recordkeeping duties in addition to their current reporting duties. The authority and power of the Anti-Money Laundering Office are expanded to include acting as a central financial intelligence agency to regulate, check, and rate the operations of companies and branches both within and outside of Thailand. Key
Read More
October 22, 2020
On 27 June 2020, Cambodia issued the new Law on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (‘the 2020 AML/CFT Law’), that abrogates both the 2007 law of the same name and the 2013 sub-decree that accompanied the former law. All other laws relevant to AML will remain in effect. Jay Cohen, Sochanmalisphoung Vannavuth, and Robin Spiess, of Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd., provide an overview of the 2020 AML/CFT Law, and how it differs from the 2007 in areas such as definitions and penalities.
Read More