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

November 7, 2011

Procurement Contracts and Their Impact on Pharmaceutical Companies

PReMA Life

Concerns raised by the Thai pharmaceutical industry in recent years of alleged corrupt practices by employees of state hospitals, has led to the implementation of more stringent legislation to combat the problem of state funds seeping through a porous pharmaceutical procurement system.

Due to the fact that sales of pharmaceutical products to state hospitals by pharmaceutical companies have typically been conducted through procurement contracts, the existing system has long been open to possible abuse, which has stoked increasing concerns among legislators and administrators, both within the government and in state hospitals.

However, with the active enforcement of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and the recent implementation of the UK Bribery Act, foreign pharmaceutical companies are finally delving deeper into the practices of their sales teams and demanding more transparency.

The main concern is that companies without a strong culture of compliance may not attempt to implement these stricter sales rules, which would result in an unbalanced market.

Notification on Procurement Contracts

This objective of raising transparency in government and state agencies has led to the recent implementation of the Notification re: Rules and Procedures Concerning the Preparation and Disclosure of Revenue and Expenses Accounts of Projects in which Individuals or Juristic Entities Are Contractual Parties with Government Agencies (Notification), on August 11, 2011, by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). This notification arose as a direct result of the amendment of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption dated April 12, 2011.

The Notification, which will become effective on January 1, 2012, stipulates that private sector entities that enter into procurement contracts with government agencies will now be required to prepare, and electronically submit, annual revenue and expense accounts to the Revenue Department, as well as their Corporate Income Tax Return for juristic entities.

The Notification will significantly impact entities in the private sector that enter into government procurement contracts, including individuals, Thai companies, and foreign companies with a local presence. The definition of “government agencies” is quite broad and includes government hospitals such as Siriraj Hospital, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, and Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital

One important factor introduced is that the threshold for reporting is set relatively low, as all government procurement contracts with a value of THB 500,000 or more will be subject to the disclosure requirement. Businesses will also be required to submit one revenue and expense account for each contract, and to retain supporting documents for at least five years.

The Notification also states that government agencies should set a condition requiring businesses that enter into procurement contracts to receive and make payment via a current account, with the exception of payments that do not exceed THB 30,000, which can be made in cash.

Government contracts executed before January 1, 2012, will not be subject to this new disclosure requirement. However, if any material amendments are made to such contracts after January 1, 2012, they will also be subject to the disclosure requirement.

Although failure to comply with the new disclosure requirement does not entail criminal penalties, the sanction imposed under the Notification is commercially severe: violators will be disqualified from entering into new procurement contracts with government agencies. In addition, failure to comply with the reporting requirement, or incorrect reporting, could result in scrutiny by the NACC, the Revenue Department, and other relevant government authorities.

The new reporting requirement will place a substantial burden on the private sector, because it requires a separate detailed report for each contract, and contract values exceeding the low threshold of THB 500,000 will subject entities to the reporting requirement.

Impact on Pharmaceutical Companies

Pharmaceutical companies frequently enter into procurement contracts with government agencies, as defined in the Notification. Since most of these procurement contracts exceed the threshold of THB 500,000, pharmaceutical companies will now be required to provide detailed information for each procurement contract. When pharmaceutical companies provide discounts or donations to hospitals, these are sometimes not officially part of the procurement contract. It is therefore questionable whether these items need to be disclosed under the Notification.

Nonetheless, foreign companies must carefully assess the legality of such discounts or donations in pharmaceutical procurement contracts and the impact of the Notification on these aspects of procurement.

The approach adopted by the pharmaceutical company’s headquarters is also an important factor that must be taken into consideration. In any event, the company must ensure legality by implementing measures to lower the possible risk of action being taken by Thai regulators as well as foreign governments. In principle, the firm must at least ensure that a receipt is issued, the recipient is not an individual, and also verify that the money is used by the hospitals, etc.

The worldwide legal framework on corruption is changing, leading to more harmonized rules. However, the environment still remains a difficult one for companies to operate in, because some practices are strongly ingrained in some countries. Thus, despite the introduction of the new regulations in Thailand, the extent to which the new requirements will be implemented by the new government still remains uncertain.

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
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
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
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.