May 22, 2012

China Criminalizes Foreign Bribery

The People’s Republic of China has joined the growing number of nations to criminalize bribery of foreign officials through recent amendments to its Criminal Law, which took effect May 1, 2011. Though the PRC had already criminalized payment of bribes to Chinese governmental officials, the amendment represents the first time that the PRC has prohibited PRC residents and companies from paying bribes to foreign officials. 

The pre-existing provision of the Criminal Law had criminalized “giving money or property to any employee of a company or enterprise or other entity” “for the purpose of seeking illegitimate benefits.” The amendment simply adds that “[w]hoever, for the purpose of seeking illegitimate commercial benefit, gives property to any foreign public official or official of an international public organization” shall be punished in the same manner as one who bribes a PRC governmental official. There appear to be no defenses or exceptions to the provisions. 

The jurisdiction of the Criminal Law—and as a result, these provisions—is rather broad. The Criminal Law applies to all PRC citizens—whether they are located within the PRC or elsewhere—anyone of any nationality located within the PRC, and all companies, enterprises, and institutions organized under PRC law. Generally, that would include domestic companies, Sino-foreign joint ventures, wholly foreign-owned enterprises, and representative offices. 

The penalties provided for violations of these provisions are severe. Depending on the amounts involved, the sentence may be a fixed-term of imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention, or when larger amounts are involved, the sentence is a fixed-term of imprisonment of not less than three but not more than ten years, in addition to a fine. If an entity is involved, it may be fined, and the persons directly involved may be imprisoned.

The significance of the terms used in the amendment remains to be seen. For example, the terms “illegitimate commercial benefit,” and “international public organization” are not defined within the Criminal Law. And of course, many countries have laws criminalizing bribery of foreign officials but do not enforce those provisions uniformly. Thus, until judicial interpretations or administrative regulations regarding these provisions are promulgated, parties must rely upon the remainder of the Criminal Law to provide guidance as to how the provisions are to be interpreted. 

The impact of the law on companies that do business in China, of course, depends on how the business is structured. Though the law does not directly affect non-PRC companies, it certainly could reach a joint venture organized under PRC law between a PRC-company and a foreign company, or a company with a representative office within the PRC. As such, companies that do business in China—particularly through a wholly-owned entity or representative office should take note of these amendments and continue to monitor their interpretation and enforcement.

© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Jacob A. Manning is a member of the Litigation Department. Jacob maintains a diverse litigation practice, and represents a wide variety of parties in civil litigation in state and federal courts in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. He has successfully represented clients before appellate courts in each jurisdiction.

In particular, Jacob focuses a significant portion of his practice on construction law and represents owners—particularly public entities—contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers in litigation as well as during contract negotiations. Jacob...

304-230-1604

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.