Abstract

The Utrecht Law Review is an open-access peer-reviewed journal which aims to offer an international academic platform for cross-border legal research. In the first place, this concerns research in which the boundaries of the classic branches of the law (private law, criminal law, constitutional and administrative law, European and public international law) are crossed and connections are made between these areas of the law, amongst others from a comparative law perspective. In addition, the journal welcomes research in which classic law is brought face to face with not strictly legal disciplines such as philosophy, economics, political sciences and public administration science.The journal was established in 2005 and is affiliated to the Utrecht University School of Law. If you wish to receive e-mail alerts please join the mailing list.

Highlights

  • Numerous international and regional conventions provide anti-corruption frameworks to tackle bribery

  • The following sections illustrate how the United Kingdom (UK) and the Netherlands execute these obligations through their criminal legal system

  • Anti-corruption law Until 2011, the criminal law of bribery in the UK consisted of one general common law offence and various statutory offences

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Numerous international and regional conventions provide anti-corruption frameworks to tackle bribery. A different and for the purposes of this contribution interesting development is that in an increasing number of jurisdictions legal entities can be held criminally liable, among other things for violating antibribery legislation The result of these developments is that legal entities run an increasing risk of being held criminally liable for bribery.[1] In order to minimise this risk, companies, those with frequent foreign contacts, invest more money and time in setting up compliance schemes. To do so, they often call in the services of internal compliance officers and external consultants, such as lawyers. Will analyse the key elements of this comparison, including an assessment of the need for an adjustment of the Dutch system

International context
United Kingdom
Due diligence defence
The Netherlands
96. Translation
Corporate criminal liability
12. Translation
Due diligence: a comparison
Conclusion
Analysis
A separate duty-of-care provision?
Concluding remarks

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.