User Name:     Password:        Join Us
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
▪ China’s Market Regulator Reined in Internet Commercial Ads
▪ Stricter than the GDPR, China’s Privacy Law Provides Prohibitive and Control Oblig
▪ China kicked off the 1st national security review on DiDi
▪ Non-prosecution for compliance under ISO 37301 - Dentons lawyers take the world’s
▪ China’s Data Security Law is anything but frightening
▪ Alibaba fined USD 2.68 billion for abusing dominant market position in China
▪ China’s new “Blocking Statute” and the concerns it raised
▪ Survey result: how is bribery risk managed in China?
▪ China’s Administrative Punishment Law Awards Meaningful Credits for Compliance Eff
▪ Salon | How Would the Sanction on Pompeo and Blocking Measures Impact Foreign Comp
▪ Fees to speakers: academic exchange or commercial bribery
▪ China’s Personal Information Protection Law (2)
▪ China’s Personal Information Protection Law (1)
▪ Reading Into China’s Export Control Law
▪ English Translation of Export Control Law of China
▪ China Issued Its List of Unreliable Entities
▪ Demystify Corporate Social Credit System in China
▪ China is deploying “Operation Skynet” to further “Fox Hunt”
▪ China is to award whistleblowers heavily – foreign companies are more vulnerable t
▪ 130 Chinese headhunters arrested, involving breach of 200 million personal info
▪ Corporate Compliance Programs Evaluation Issued by US DOJ (Chinese Translation)
▪ The prospect is promising to commercialize Level-3 autonomous driving in China
▪ Intelligent and digital infrastructures are scheduled to accompany automatic vehic
▪ Will China illegalize VIEs?
▪ You cannot miss the gold rush under China's new Foreign Investment Law
▪ Classified Protection Under China's Cyber Security Law
▪ China is to fast-track law-making in autonomous driving
▪ What compliance obligations to meet to transfer data from within China?
▪ Chinese government uses digital forensics technology to dig bribery evidence
▪ A Chinese medical device distributor fined CNY 50,000 for bribing with Moutai
▪ How would Chinese E-commerce Law affect you (1)?
▪ Conflict between the culture and the Party’s rules: $70 gift money got a director
▪ "Excessive Pricing" from perspective of Competition Law
▪ Does China prohibit cross-border transfer of scientific data?
▪ Hypermarket Caesar jailed for ten years for giving “reward for go-between”
▪ How is environmental protection tax collected in China?
▪ China Redefined Bribery Anticompetitive in Nature
▪ China is to amend its Constitution
▪ Chinese government vowed to crack down on bribe givers more harshly
▪ China has its own Dodd-Frank; the award for whistleblower could be US$ 80K
▪ Chinese government may LIUZHI a suspect of wrongdoing
▪ Cooking clinical trial data is rampant and now criminally punishable in China
▪ 5th Viadrina Compliance Congress
▪ Does a compliance bird eat nothing?
▪ How Are Drugs Being Sold in China Despite the Anti-Corruption Crusading
▪ Chinese whistle-blower lauded while French boss fled out of China
▪ Life Sentence for Deputy Chief Justice of China
▪ Why Is Chinese Anti-bribery Law a Very Important Compliance Obligation?
▪ The Report on Corporate Compliance Management in China (2016)
▪ Use of "predictive coding" in eDiscovery document review…best friend or job replac
 
Home > FCPA
Did Trump repel the FCPA in oil and gas industry?
By Henry Chen | 2017/2/4 10:00:30

On February 1, the United States House of Representatives voted to abolish a transparency regulation adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the U.S. (the “SEC”) in June of 2016 for resource extraction issuers under the Dodd-Frank Act. This ruling caused much confusion in China (as well as in the U.S.), as this seems to imply the Trump administration will be annihilating the role of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the oil and gas industry.  Perhaps even more seriously, this ruling seems to corroborate rumors about Trump administration unleashing the US companies, providing them the freedom to bribe foreign officials in exchange for business opportunities.  This is not true.


The transparency regulation adopted by the SEC on June 27, 2016 (as mentioned above) requires resource extraction issuers to disclose payments made to foreign governments for the commercial development of oil, natural gas or minerals.  These rules, as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, are intended to advance U.S. foreign policy interests by promoting greater transparency associated with payments related to resource extraction on foreign territory.

The final rules require an issuer who is engaged in the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals to disclose payments made to the U.S. federal government or a foreign government.  The issuer will also be required to file annual reports with the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act.  Furthermore, the issuer must also disclose payments made by all subsidiary entities under their control.  The compliance obligations will cause a lot of cost for compliance, which explains why there are some outcries that the transparency rule be annihilated.


Although it is generally known that the FCPA prohibits those that are subject to it from making bribes to foreign governmental officials, many are not aware that “the FCPA prohibits payments to foreign officials, but not to foreign governments” (The Resource Guide to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Page 29) (emphasis original).

 


The question then arises, if the FCPA does not prohibit payments to foreign governments, then why was a rule passed under the Obama administration mandating the payments be disclosed?  Again, mandating full disclosure of payments to foreign governments supports the commitment of the US federal government to its efforts to promote international transparency relating to the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals.  In addition, full disclosure could help with the enforcement of the FCPA on fighting bribing foreign officials.  The more transparent a payment to government is, the less possible that the payment would be used to bribe governmental officials.  In practice, it could happen that a bribe to governmental officials could be disguised as payments to a government, a phenomenon we compliance officers are committed to preventing.  


The efforts to abolish the transparency rule merely takes away the need for companies to fully disclose payments to foreign governments, the payment to which not outlawed under the FCPA.  It does not grant companies a license to bribe foreign government officials, as the FCPA continues to prohibit payments to foreign government officials. 


*The author Henry Chen, a Senior Partner of Dentons Shanghai Office, is licensed to practice law in China and the New York State of the U.S. Henry Chen is a representative of China Delegation to negotiate over ISO19600 Compliance Management System - Guidelines, and the Vice Director of the Working Committee on China national standard Compliance Management System.  Henry Chen is the author of the book Commercial Bribery Risk Management in China. If you have any questions about this report, please do not hesitate to contact henry.chen@dentons.cn.


Tweet Like Email LinkedIn
There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
    Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author:   
Email:    (optional)
URL:    (optional)
Content:  
    
  Comment Moderation Enabled
Your comment will not appear until it has been cleared by a website editor.
The Compliance Reviews COPYRIGHT © 2013-19 All Rights Reserved. Supported by International Risk and Compliance Association and International Risk and Compliance Institute Limited. 沪ICP备10034943号-8
沪ICP备19033746号-4
沪公网安备31010502002477号