Analysing Obstacles and Challenges in Fighting Corruption in Cases of Illegal Investments
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Setting the Scene: Corruption and International Investment Law
While the definition of corruption must be subject to national law, it should be understood to encompass the commission or omission of an act in the performance of or in connection with one’s duties, in response to gifts, promises or incentives demanded or accepted, or the wrongful receipt of these once the act has been committed or omitted.23
Corruption is used almost uniformly to describe bribery between an investor’s employee or intermediary and a public official of the host State. Fraud is often used in a generic sense and can further be subdivided into deceit (i.e., a form of fraud that involves the intent to deceive the host State to the investor’s advantage) and to misrepresentation (which need not delve into whether there existed willful intent to deceive). … the lack of good faith in the making of an investment and two of its manifestations—abuse of process and abuse of rights. International law and various domestic legal systems recognize ‘good faith’, broadly conceived, and to some extent the provenance of these terms can be traced to customary international law and general principles. They possess commonality in that they are ‘framed in order to avoid misuse of the law’.25
3. The Definition of the Legality Requirement
3.1. ‘In Accordance with the Host State Law’ Requirement
3.2. Is Legality an Implicit Requirement?
If, at the time of the initiation of the investment, there has been compliance with the law of the host State, allegations by the host State of violations of its law in the course of the investment, as a justification for State action with respect to the investment, might be a defense to claimed substantive violations of the BIT, but could not deprive a tribunal acting under the authority of the BIT of its Jurisdiction.46
3.3. The Broader Perspective: Anti-Corruption Clauses in Trade and Investment Agreements
4. Main Challenges in Fighting Corruption in International Investment Law
4.1. Procedural Obstacles Encountered in Arbitral Proceedings
4.2. Exploring the Links between Due Diligence and the Fight against Corruption
4.3. Is the Principle of Good Faith Enforceable?
(i) [I]n the good faith with which the Arbitral Tribunal must act when making its jurisdictional analysis and (ii) said analysis must start from the premise that the consent of the parties was manifested in writing and given in good faith and, therefore, at the time they manifested their consent, the parties did so with the sincere intent for it to produce all of its effects under the circumstances agreed upon by them.90
If a State, for example, restricts foreign investment in a sector of its economy and a foreign investor disregards such restriction, the investment concerned cannot be protected under the ICSID/BIT system. These are illegal investments according to the national law of the host State and cannot be protected through an ICSID arbitral process. And it is the Tribunal’s view that this condition—the conformity of the establishment of the investment with the national laws—is implicit even when not expressly stated in the relevant BIT.111
An investment will not be protected if it has been created in violation of national or international principles of good faith; by way of corruption, fraud, or deceitful conduct; or if its creation itself constitutes a misuse of the system of international investment protection under the ICSID Convention. It will also not be protected if it is made in violation of the host State’s law.112
4.4. Extra-Territorial Effects of Domestic Anti-Corruption Legislation and the Mandate of Arbitrators
Establishing corruption is, as a matter of fact, difficult. The evidence is usually not readily available. The opposing party will usually not cooperate to establish the facts, even if the production of evidence is ordered by the arbitral tribunal. Putting an additional burden on the party alleging corruption may unduly disadvantage this party and endanger the equality of the parties. Arbitral tribunals applying such higher standards may, however, simply have expressed their view that there are no lower standards for the establishment of corruption, even if corruption is difficult to prove.160
5. The APUNCAC as an Innovative Response to Dealing with Corruption Cases
6. Conclusions: The Way Forward
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ades, Alberto, and Rafael Di Tella. 1997. The New Economics of Corruption: A Survey and some New Result. Political Studies 45: 496–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alldridge, Peter. 2014. Proceeds of crime law since 2003—Two key areas. Criminal Law Review 2014: 171–88. [Google Scholar]
- Betz, Kathrin. 2017. Proving Bribery, Fraud and Money Laundering in International Arbitration: On Applicable Criminal Law and Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Cosar, Utku. 2015. Claims of Corruption in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Proof, Legal Consequences and Sanctions. In Legitimacy: Myths, Realities, Challenges. Edited by Albert Jan van den Berg. ICCA Congress Series; Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, vol. 18, pp. 531–56. [Google Scholar]
- De Brabandere, Eric. 2015. Host States Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law. Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 42: 4. Available online: https://surface.syr.edu/jilc/vol42/iss2/4 (accessed on 18 December 2021).
- Dolzer, Rudolf, and Christoph Schreuer. 2008. Principles of International Investment Law. Oxford: OUP, p. 84. [Google Scholar]
- Dumberry, Patrick. 2016. The Importation of the FET Standard through MFN Clauses: An Empirical Study of BITs. ICSID Review 32: 116–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egger, Peter, and Hannes Winner. 2005. Evidence on Corruption as an Incentive for Foreign Direct Investment. European Journal of Political Economy 21: 932–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francioni, Francesco. 2010. Access to Justice, Denial of Justice, and International Investment Law. In Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration. Edited by Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Francesco Francioni and Ernst-Ullrich Petersmann. Oxford: OUP, pp. 63–81. [Google Scholar]
- Haugeneder, Florian, and Christoph Liebscher. 2009. Chapter V: Investment Arbitration—Corruption and Investment Arbitration: Substantive Standards and Proof. In Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration. Edited by Christian Klausegger, Peter Klein, Florian Kremslehner, Alexander Petsche, Nikolaus Pitkowitz, Amelie Abt, Gordon Blanke and Stavros Brekoulakis. Wien: Manz’sche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung, pp. 539–64. [Google Scholar]
- Hendry, Jennifer, and Colin P. King. 2015. How Far Is Too Far? Theorising Non-Conviction-Based Asset Forfeiture. International Journal of Law in Context 11: 398–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hepburn, Jarrod. 2014. In Accordance with Which Host State Laws? Restoring the ‘Defence’ of Investor Illegality in Investment Arbitration. November 19. Available online: https://www.iisd.org/itn/2014/11/19/in-accordance-with-which-host-state-laws-restoring-the-defence-of-investor-illegality-in-investment-arbitration/ (accessed on 18 December 2021).
- Jenkins, Matthew. 2017. Anti-Corruption and Transparency Provisions in Trade Agreements. Transparency International. Available online: https://www.transparency.org/files/content/corruptionqas/Anti-corruption_and_transparency_provisions_in_trade_agreements_2017.pdf (accessed on 18 December 2021).
- Knahr, Christina. 2007. Investments “In Accordance with Host State Law”. TDM 5 Investor-State Disputes—International Investment Law 2007: 4. [Google Scholar]
- Kriebaum, Ursula. 2010. Investment Arbitration—Illegal Investments. Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration 307: 319. [Google Scholar]
- Lamy, Pascal. 2015. Pascal Lamy on Trade Agreement Generations. New Perspectives on Global Economic Dynamics, Berstelsmann Foundation. Available online: https://ged-project.de/topics/international-trade/effects_of_regional_trade_agreements/pascal-lamy-on-trade-agreement-generations/ (accessed on 18 December 2021).
- Lejárraga, Iza. 2014. Deep Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: How Multilateral-Friendly? An Overview of OECD Finding. OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 168. Paris: OECD Publishing, October 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llamzon, Aloysius, and Anthony C. Sinclair. 2015. Investor Wrongdoing in Investment Arbitration: Standards Governing Issues of Corruption, Fraud, Misrepresentation and Other Investor Misconduct. In Legitimacy: Myths, Realities. Edited by Albert Jan van den Berg. Challenges, ICCA Congress Series; Alphen aan den Rijn: KluwerLaw International, vol. 18, pp. 451–530. [Google Scholar]
- Orta, David M., and Lucas Loviscek. 2019. Allegations of Corruption in Investment Treaty Arbitration: The Need for Reform. September 17. Available online: https://www.expertguides.com/articles/allegations-of-corruption-in-investment-treaty-arbitration-the-need-for-reform/arkesfdy (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- Partasides, Constantine. 2010. Proving Corruption in International Arbitration: A Balanced Standard for the Real World. ICSID Review—Foreign Investment Law Journal 25: 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paulsson, Jan. 2005. Jurisdiction and Admissibility. In Global Reflections on International Law, Commerce and Dispute Resolution—Liber Amicorum in Honour of Robert Briner. Edited by Gerald Aksen, Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel, Michael J. Mustill, Paolo Michele Patocchi and Anne Marie Whitesell. Paris: ICC Publishing, p. 948. ISBN 92-842-1354-1. [Google Scholar]
- Polkinghorne, Michael, and Sven Volkmer. 2017. The Legality Requirement in Investment Arbitration. Journal of International Arbitration 34: 149–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redfern, Alan. 1994. The Practical Distinction Between the Burden of Proof and the Taking of Evidence—An English Perspective. Arbitration Int’l 10: 317–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redmayne, Mike. 1999. Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation. The Modern Law Review 62: 167–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, Lucy, Jan Paulsson, and Nigel Blackaby. 2011. Guide to ICSID Arbitration, 2nd ed. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, p. 142. [Google Scholar]
- Scherer, Matthias. 2002. Circumstantial Evidence in Corruption Cases Before International Arbitral Tribunals. Oil, Gas & Energy Law 5: 29–31. [Google Scholar]
- WTO. n.d. Singapore Agenda. Available online: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min96_e/sing_agenda_e.htm (accessed on 18 December 2021).
- Yeh, Stuart S. 2020. APUNCAC and the International Anti-Corruption Court (IACC). Laws 10: 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
1 | Fraport v. Republic of the Philippines (n 3) para 306. Although the Fraport decision was later annulled by the ad hoc committee, the committee still rejected Fraport’s argument concerning the tribunal’s misinterpretation of the definition of investment Article 1(1) of the Germany–Philippines BIT. The second tribunal deciding after the annulment reached the same finding. |
2 | APUNCAC, Articles 7 and 8. |
3 | Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco [I], ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4 <https://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/959> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
4 | Inceysa Vallisoletana, S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26), Award, 2 August 2006, para 238. https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0424_0.pdf accessed on 18 December 2021. |
5 | Fraport A.G. Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Award (16 August 2007), para 306 <https://www.italaw.com/cases/456> accessed on 29 May 2019. |
6 | OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, signed on 17 December 1997 and in force since 15 February 1999. <http://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/ConvCombatBribery_ENG.pdf> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
7 | The Act received the Royal Assent on 8 April 2010. |
8 | European Commission, Foreign Direct Investment EU Screening Framework, available at https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2019/february/tradoc_157683.pdf accessed on 18 December 2021. |
9 | Article 1, United Nations Convention against Corruption (2003). <https://www.unodc.org/documents/brussels/UN_Convention_Against_Corruption.pdf> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
10 | Ibid., p. 452. |
11 | Kofi Annan, Foreword, United Nations Convention against Corruption (2003), iii, <https://www.unodc.org/documents/brussels/UN_Convention_Against_Corruption.pdf> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
12 | Ibid. |
13 | United Nations Convention against Corruption (n 7). |
14 | OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials (n 4). |
15 | Convention on the Fight Against Corruption Involving Officials of the European Communities or Officials of Member States of the European Union (1997) Official Journal C 195 of 25 June 1997, <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:1997:195:TOC> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
16 | Civil Law Convention on Corruption (1999) ETS No.174 (Date of entry 01/11/2003), <https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/174> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
17 | Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (1999) ETS No.173 (Date of entry 01/07/2002), <https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/173> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
18 | African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (2003) (Date of Entry 05 August 2006; Date of last signature 26 December 2018), <https://au.int/en/treaties/african-union-convention-preventing-and-combating-corruption> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
19 | Inter-American Convention Against Corruption, 29 March 1996, <http://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/inter_american_treaties_B-58_against_Corruption.asp> accessed on 29 May 2019. |
20 | See note 14. |
21 | 1–10, with 10 meaning the least red tape; see www.integrity-index.org accessed on 18 December 2021. |
22 | Adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003, <https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/travaux-preparatoires.html> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
23 | Ibid., p. xiv. |
24 | Llamzon and Sinclair (n 8) 461. |
25 | Ibid., p. 453. |
26 | Travaux préparatoires (n 23). |
27 | It reads: ‘Public official’ shall mean: (i) any person holding a legislative, executive, administrative or judicial office of a State Party, whether appointed or elected, whether permanent or temporary, whether paid or unpaid, irrespective of that person’s seniority; (ii) any other person who performs a public function, including for a public agency or public enterprise, or provides a public service, as defined in the domestic law of the State Party and as applied in the pertinent area of law of that State Party; (iii) any other person defined as a ‘public official’ in the domestic law of a State Party. However, for the purpose of some specific measures contained in chapter II of this Convention, ‘public official’ may mean any person who performs a public function or provides a public service as defined in the domestic law of the State Party and as applied in the pertinent area of law of that State Party. |
28 | Tokios Tokelės v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction (29 April 2004), <https://www.italaw.com/cases/1099> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
29 | Tokios Tokelės v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction (29 April 2004), para 84, <https://www.italaw.com/cases/1099> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
30 | Fraport v. Republic of the Philippines, (n 3). |
31 | United Nations Convention against Corruption (n 6); European Commission, Anti-corruption provisions in EU free trade and investment agreements: Delivering on clean trade, April 2018, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/603867/EXPO_STU(2018)603867_EN.pdf access on 18 December 2021. |
32 | Metal-Tech Ltd. v. The Republic of Uzbekistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3), Award, 4. October 2013, 373; https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw3012.pdf (accessed on 6 July 2022); Inceysa Vallisoletana (n 2) para 238. |
33 | Achmea B.V. v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008–13 (formerly Eureko B.V. v. The Slovak Republic). The case concerned the interpretations of the Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Republic, which was signed on 29 April 1991 and entered into force on 1 October 1992, <https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw3206.pdf> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
34 | Ibid., para 162. |
35 | Ibid., para 166. |
36 | Ibid., para 168. |
37 | Ibid., para 169. |
38 | Ibid., para 172. |
39 | For example, Article 2 of the Spain—El Salvador BIT. |
40 | For example, Article 3 of the Spain—El Salvador BIT. |
41 | Fraport v. The Republic of The Philippines (n 3). |
42 | Ibid., para 300. |
43 | Ibid., para 336. |
44 | Ibid., para 309. |
45 | Ibid., para 345. |
46 | Ibid. |
47 | InceysaVallisoletana (n 2) paras 192–96. |
48 | Lejárraga (n 58) 15. |
49 | Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, (Award, 15 April 2009), para 104, <https://www.italaw.com/cases/850> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
50 | Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe S.A. v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24 <https://www.italaw.com/cases/3003> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
51 | Ibid., para 208, 239. |
52 | Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine (n 30). |
53 | Desert Line Projects LLC v. The Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17. Award, para 104 <https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0248_0.pdf> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
54 | Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, para 297 <https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0866.pdf> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
55 | Desert Line Projects LLC v. The Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17. Award, para 117 <https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0248_0.pdf> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
56 | Mamidoil v. Republic of Albania, (n 65) para 304. |
57 | Ibid., para 492. |
58 | Malicorp Ltd. v. Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18, (Award 7 February 2011) para 118, <https://www.italaw.com/cases/660> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
59 | Franck Charles Arif v. Republic of Moldova, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/23, Award (8 April 2013) para 376, where article 1(1) of the France–Moldova BIT expressly provided ‘in accordance with the legislation …, on the territory or maritime area of which the investment is made’. |
60 | Malicorp Ltd. v. Egypt (n 73), para 117. |
61 | Ibid., para 119. |
62 | Ibid., para 117. |
63 | Inceysa Vallisoletana (n 2) paras 142–45. |
64 | See the eespondent’s submission in Malicorp Ltd. v. Egypt (n 73), para 98. |
65 | Cosar (n 43) 540. |
66 | Mamidoil v. Republic of Albania (n 63). |
67 | Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine (n 34). |
68 | Desert Line v.Yemen, (n 70) para 104. |
69 | Inceysa Vallisoletana (n 2) paras 46 and 47. |
70 | Hochtief AG v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/31 <https://www.italaw.com/cases/538> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
71 | Metalpar S.A. and Buen Aire S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/5 <https://www.italaw.com/cases/680> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
72 | Ibid. Decision on Jurisdiction (27 April 2006) However, this view is different from the one held by the tribunal in Alasdair Ross Anderson et al. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/3, Award (19 May 2010), 50 I.L.M. 23 (2011) para 57. The tribunal in Anderson v Costa Rica held that all regulatory requirements must be complied with in order to establish the true ownership of the investment, as the tribunal was required to establish its jurisdiction ratione materiae; see Quiborax S.A., Non Metallic Minerals S.A., & Allan Fosk Kaplún v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Award on Jurisdiction (27 September 2012), where the tribunal did not distinguish between minor and major non-compliance with the law of the host state, para 240. (The words ‘any kind’ of investment were used in Article 1(2) of the Bolivia–Chile BIT.) |
73 | Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc. and A.S. Baltoil v. The Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2 <https://www.italaw.com/cases/484> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
74 | International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. The United Mexican States, UNCITRAL ARB/99/2 <https://www.italaw.com/cases/571> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
75 | Fraport (n 3) |
76 | Ibid., para 396. |
77 | Ibid., paras 396–97. |
78 | Ibid., paras 346–47, 387. |
79 | Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2 <https://www.italaw.com/cases/1087> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
80 | World Duty Free Company Limited v. The Republic of Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7. paras 184–85 <https://www.italaw.com/documents/WDFv.KenyaAward.pdf> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
81 | Phoenix (n 64). |
82 | Pheonix (n 64) paras 102–4. |
83 | Swem Balt v Latvia, UNCITRAL Case, 23 October 2000, paras 34, 35. |
84 | SAUR International SA v. Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4, para 241 <https://www.italaw.com/cases/1456> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
85 | Álvarez y Marín Corporación S.A. and others v. Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/14, para 95. |
86 | Ibid., para 229 and 318. |
87 | Ibid., para 319. |
88 | Inceysa Vallisoletana (n 2) paras 179. |
89 | Inceysa Vallisoletana (n 2) paras 180. |
90 | Inceysa Vallisoletana, paras 181. |
91 | Peter Muchlinski, ‘Caveat Investor’? The Relevance of the Conduct of the Investor under the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard, 55 INT’L & COMP. L. Q. 527 (2006). |
92 | L.E.S.I. S.p.A. and ASTALDI S.p.A. v. République Algérienne Démocratique et Populaire, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3 <https://www.italaw.com/cases/618> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
93 | Inceysa Vallisoletana (n 2) para 230. |
94 | Ibid., para 231. |
95 | Ibid. |
96 | Ibid., para 233. |
97 | Ibid., para 232. |
98 | Ibid., para 233. |
99 | Ibid., para 237. |
100 | Ibid., para 238. |
101 | Ibid., para 240. |
102 | Ibid., para 244. |
103 | Ibid., para 247. |
104 | Gustav F.W. Hamester GmbH & Co. K.G. v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award (18 June 2010) para 125 accessed on 18 December 2021. |
105 | Ibid. |
106 | SAUR (n 98) para 308; Polkinghorne and Volkmer (n 31) 157. |
107 | Gustav F.W. Hamester GmbH & Co. K.G. v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award (18 June 2010), paras. 123–24 <https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0396.pdf> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
108 | Gustav Hamester (n 121). |
109 | Ibid. |
110 | Ibid., para 123; Phoenix (n 64) para 106. |
111 | Phoenix (n 64) para 106. |
112 | Gustav Hamester (n 121) para 123. |
113 | Desert Line (n 70). |
114 | Ibid., para 104. |
115 | Phoenix (n 62) para 101. |
116 | Ibid., para 142. |
117 | Saba Fakes v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award (14 July 2010) para 114. The investor’s claim was dismissed due to a lack of legal title to the share certificates related to the investment in dispute. |
118 | Metal-Tech v. Republic of Uzbekistan (n 40) para 127, See Article 1(1) of the Israel-Uzbekistan BIT. |
119 | Phoenix (n 62) para 113. |
120 | Saba Fakes v. Turkey (n 132) para 113. |
121 | Other cases include: Salini (n 1) where the host stat’s claim of corruption was rejected; Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24 https://www.italaw.com/cases/857 accessed on 6 July 2022; Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/10, https://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/477 (accessed on 6 July 2022); Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29 https://www.italaw.com/cases/131 (accessed on 6 July 2022); Mytilineos Holdings SA v. The State Union of Serbia & Montenegro and Republic of Serbia, https://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/726 accessed on 6 July 2022; L.E.S.I. (n 106); Saipem S.p.A. v. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/07 https://www.italaw.com/cases/951; Desert Line (n 68) David Minnotte & Robert Lewis v. Republic of Poland, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/10/1 https://www.italaw.com/cases/707 (accessed on 6 July 2022); Yaung Chi Oo Trading Pte. Ltd. v. Government of the Union of Myanmar, ASEAN I.D. Case No. ARB/01/1 https://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/1174 (accessed on 29 May 2019). |
122 | Aguas del Tunari, S.A. v. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3 <https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/AdT_Decision-en.pdf> (accessed on 18 December 2021). |
123 | United Nations Convention against Corruption (n 6). |
124 | OECD (n 4). |
125 | UK Bribery Act, s 6(1). |
126 | A foreign public official is defined as someone who holds a legislative, administrative, or judicial position of any kind, whether appointed or elected, of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or exercises a public function for the host state outside the United Kingdom or has acted for any public agency or public enterprise of the host state or as an official or agent of a public international organisation. |
127 | Available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/contents accessed on 18 December 2021. |
128 | Fraser Davidson, Evidence (2007 SULI), para 4.78. |
129 | Specimen Directions in Jury Trail, 2.1 <https://keithhotten.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/sdjt.pdf>; The Crown Court Compendium, June 2018 page 18–19 https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/crown-court-compendium-pt1-jury-and-trial-management-and-summing-up-june-2018-1.pdf accessed on 18 December 2021. |
130 | Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. |
131 | Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372, 373. |
132 | Ibid. |
133 | (Redmayne 1999, p. 168); Fraser Davidson, Evidence (2007 SULI), para 4.78. |
134 | Bater v Bater [1951] P. 35, 37. |
135 | Blyth v Blyth [1966] AC 643, 669. |
136 | Haugeneder and Liebscher, (n 12) 546. |
137 | Article 24(1) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules mentioned that each party shall have the burden of proving the facts relied on to support his claim or defense. Nevertheless, no threshold is prescribed. |
138 | Cosar (n 43) 532. |
139 | Cosar (n 43) 534. |
140 | Haugeneder and Liebscher (n 12) 547. |
141 | Ibid., p. 546; Cosar (n 43) 534. |
142 | Ibid., pp. 539–64, 546. |
143 | Ibid. |
144 | Ibid. |
145 | Cosar (n 43) 538. |
146 | The Rompetrol Group N.V. v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3), 6 May 2013, para 223; https://www.italaw.com/cases/920 accessed on 18 December 2021. |
147 | Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Uzbekistan (n 135) para 372. In this award, the tribunal looked at the evidence of the number of payments, the qualifications of the consultants, and the relationship with the government. |
148 | Rompetrol (n 168) para 186. |
149 | Ibid., para 183. |
150 | Ibid., para 185. |
151 | Ibid., para 184. |
152 | BSG Resources Limited v. The Republic of Guinea ICSID Case No. ARB/14/22 <https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7735.pdf> accessed on 18 December 2021. |
153 | Ibid., p. 5. |
154 | Ibid., para 136. |
155 | Ibid., para 136; VBG-Vale BSGR Sarl was formed by Vale S.A. (with 51% of shares in BSGR Guernsey) and BSGR (with 51% of shares in BSGR Guernsey). |
156 | BSG Resources Limited v. The Republic of Guinea ICSID CASE No. ARB/14/22; <https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7378.pdf> accessed on 18 December 2021, para 162. |
157 | This includes the terminations of Zogota Mining Concession, Blocks 1 and 2 Permits and the Base Convention for the investment, paras 146–48. |
158 | Ibid. |
159 | Global Arbitration Review https://www.clearygottlieb.com/-/media/files/award-in-guinean-bribery-dispute-made-public-pdf.pdf accessed on 18 December 2021. Although the LCIA tribunal concluded that there was insufficient evidence for the alleged bribery, the allegation did spark criminal investigations in the US, Switzerland, and Israel, one of which leading to the agent receiving a two-year custodial sentence in the US for obstruction of justice. |
160 | Haugeneder and Liebscher (n 12) 547. They also raised the possibility of the violation of due process if the alleged corruptive practice was laid to rest on the basis of diplomatic reasons. |
161 | Vantage Deepwater Company and Vantage Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Petrobras America, Inc., Petrobras Venezuela Investments & Services, bv, and Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.—Petrobras United States District Court Southern District of Texas Houston Division, Civil Action No. 18-cv-2246; https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1193157/petrobras-award-upheld-despite-bribery-claims accessed on 18 December 2021 |
162 | Clause 10.15 reads: ‘Contractor acknowledges and agrees that it will be transporting the Drilling Unit between the Countries and conducting Drilling Operations in each of the Countries. Contractor shall comply with all Applicable Law, including all Applicable Law in each of the Countries, in connection with the Services performed by Contractor’. |
163 | Vantage Deepwater Drilling (n 183) page 13. |
164 | Ibid., p. 16. |
165 | Ibid., p. 50. |
166 | Ibid., p. 50, award para 229. |
167 | Ibid., p. 54, award para 252. |
168 | Ibid., page 55, Claimants’ Summary of Claims and Defenses, at p. 5. award para 257–58. |
169 | Ibid., page 56, para 267; Claimants’ Summary of Claims and Defenses, at p. 5. |
170 | Ibid., page 53, award para 247. |
171 | Ibid., page 59 para 286. |
172 | Ibid., page 60 para 292. |
173 | Ibid., page 60 para 358. |
174 | Ibid., page 73 para 372. |
175 | Ibid., page 73 para 374. |
176 | Ibid., page 42 para 173. |
177 | Eighth session of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, held in Abu Dhabi, from 16 to 20 December 2019. Available at https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/COSP/session8-resolutions.html accessed 21 December 2021. |
178 | Ibid. |
179 | Ibid. |
180 | Ibid., p. 12. When the case is handed over to the prosecuting authority, copies of the final report shall be submitted to: (a) the Commission; (b) the complainant; (c) the appropriate prosecuting authority; (d) the appropriate court; and (e) Transparency International. |
181 | Ibid., p. 13. |
182 | Article 8.1. |
183 | Article 8.2. |
184 | The system also includes FINCEN, the Chief Debarment Officer, the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, a State Party Conflicts of Interest Board, and a State Party Fair Political Practices Commission. A monitor appointed pursuant to paragraph one of Article 11, a monitor appointed pursuant to paragraph 16 of Article 58, or an attorney general or public prosecutor shall ensure the swift resolution of resulting cases and shall not tolerate delays that pervert the course of justice. |
185 | Article 8.3. |
186 | Article 8.4. |
187 | UNCITRAL, Working Group III: Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform, available at https://uncitral.un.org/en/working_groups/3/investor-state accessed on 18 December 2021. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Olmos Giupponi, B.; Yu, H.-L. Analysing Obstacles and Challenges in Fighting Corruption in Cases of Illegal Investments. Laws 2022, 11, 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11040059
Olmos Giupponi B, Yu H-L. Analysing Obstacles and Challenges in Fighting Corruption in Cases of Illegal Investments. Laws. 2022; 11(4):59. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11040059
Chicago/Turabian StyleOlmos Giupponi, Belen, and Hong-Lin Yu. 2022. "Analysing Obstacles and Challenges in Fighting Corruption in Cases of Illegal Investments" Laws 11, no. 4: 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11040059
APA StyleOlmos Giupponi, B., & Yu, H.-L. (2022). Analysing Obstacles and Challenges in Fighting Corruption in Cases of Illegal Investments. Laws, 11(4), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11040059