Source: https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/bribery-and-corruption-laws-and-regulations/china
Timestamp: 2020-07-14 20:08:24
Document Index: 294023831

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 7', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 26', 'Art. 17']

Bribery & Corruption Laws and Regulations | China | GLI
Home Practice areas Bribery & Corruption 2020 China
Bribery & Corruption 2020 | China
China has had strong anti-corruption laws for many years. On 1 January 1980, the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC Criminal Law”), containing the criminal offences of bribery and corruption, came into effect. The PRC Criminal Law later underwent a sea change to modernise and rejuvenate the laws in 1997, with enhanced provisions on bribery and corruption offences.
The laws have now become even more vigorous, with sustained enforcement following the coming to power of President Xi Jinping in 2013. President Xi has made the curbing and elimination of corruption one of his main goals. This has kick-started the beginning of a new era, which has brought a new focus on and appreciation of the strength and breadth of the Chinese anti-corruption laws.
The actions taken by President Xi have been felt even at the highest echelons of power. According to the statistics provided in a report1 by the Procurator-General of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (the “SPP”), Zhang Jun, to the National People’s Congress in March 2019, there were 9,802 persons charged for corruption or dereliction of duty. Indicative of the seriousness of the anti-corruption campaign, 32 state functionaries at the provincial/ministerial level were investigated. In total, 16,092 state functionaries were transferred by the State Supervisory Committee of the People’s Republic of China to the SPP and investigated for corruption or dereliction of duty.2
As another example, banquets for representatives of the National People’s Congress have given way to self-serve and alcohol-free buffets. This focus is also evidenced by the issuance of the Administrative Measures on Conferences of Central and State Departments (the “Measures”) and the Provisions on Administration of Domestic Official Reception by Party and Government Organs (the “Provisions”) in September and December 2013, respectively. The Measures aim at cutting expenditure on official meetings by central government departments. The Provisions contain strict and more detailed requirements and standards on where a business meal may take place and what must be excluded from a business meal. These developments are part of President Xi’s overall efforts to eliminate opportunities for corruption and extravagance in connection with official meetings and receptions.
It is also noteworthy that the Chinese government invited the State Parties under the United Nations Convention Against Corruption to inspect China’s compliance with the treaty for the first review period from 2010 to 2015.3 This was indicative of the seriousness of the Chinese government’s efforts in its anti-corruption campaign.
As further evidence of China’s focus on and commitment to anti-corruption enforcement, in March 2018, the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China passed an amendment to the Constitution Law of the People’s Republic of China, which established a new supervisory agency, the State Supervisory Committee of the People’s Republic of China (the “State Supervisory Committee”). The State Supervisory Committee combined the Central Commission for Disciplinary Inspection, the State Bureau of Corruption Prevention, the General Administration of Anti-Corruption of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Supervision of the People’s Republic of China.4 The Chinese government believes this will facilitate an even stronger and more coordinated focus on anti-corruption enforcement.
Currently, the primary pieces of anti-bribery and anti-corruption legislation in China are: (i) the PRC Criminal Law; and (ii) the PRC Anti-unfair Competition Law (the “AUCL”). The PRC Criminal Law applies to both “official bribery” (where government officials and state functionaries are involved) and “commercial bribery” (where private enterprises and/or their staff are involved), whereas the AUCL prohibits “commercial bribery”.
In addition to this primary legislation, various government departments’ administrative rules (such as the Interim Regulations on Prohibiting Commercial Bribery) and judicial interpretations issued by the Supreme People’s Court (the “SPC”) and the SPP (such as the Opinion on Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases of Commercial Bribery (the “2008 Commercial Bribery Opinion”) and, most recently, Interpretations of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases Related to Graft and Bribery (the “2016 Judicial Interpretation”)) also contain anti-bribery provisions.
The Communist Party of China (“CPC”) and the State Council have also issued internal disciplinary rules governing corruption or bribery of Communist Party members and Chinese government officials.
The PRC Criminal Law prohibits: (a) “official bribery”, which applies to a “state functionary” or an “entity”; and (b) “commercial bribery”, which applies to a “non-state functionary”.
The term “state functionary” is broadly defined, and includes civil servants who hold office in state organs, persons who perform public duties in state-owned entities or semi-government bodies, persons who are assigned to non-state-owned entities by state organs or state-owned entities to perform public duties, and persons who otherwise perform public duties according to the law.5 The term “entity” includes state organs, state-owned companies, enterprises, institutions, and people’s organisations.6
The term “non-state functionary” means any person or entity that is not a “state functionary” or an “entity” as defined in the PRC Criminal Law. Generally speaking, the criminal sanctions for bribery offences involving state functionaries are more severe than those involving non-state functionaries.
Under the PRC Criminal Law, both the offering and receiving of bribes constitute serious criminal offences in China. The offences are usually categorised as “bribe-giving” or “bribe-accepting” offences. The statutory offences are:
(i) offering of a bribe to a state functionary;7
(ii) offering of a bribe to a non-state functionary;8
(iii) offering of a bribe to a foreign official or an officer of a public international organisation;9
(iv) offering of a bribe to an entity;10
(v) offering of a bribe by an entity;11
(vi) offering of a bribe to a close relative of, or any person close to, a current or former state functionary;12
(vii) introduction to a state functionary of an opportunity to receive a bribe;13
(viii) acceptance of a bribe by a state functionary;14
(ix) acceptance of a bribe by a close relative of, or any person close to, a current or former state functionary;15
(x) acceptance of a bribe by a non-state functionary;16 and
(xi) acceptance of a bribe by an entity.17
The Ninth Amendment to the PRC Criminal Law (the “Ninth Amendment”), which was promulgated by the National People’s Congress on 29 August 2015 and came into effect on 1 November 2015, focuses on empowering judicial organs to more effectively combat corruption. In addition to introducing a new offence of “offering a bribe to a close relative of, or any person close to, a current or former state functionary”, these amendments:
(i) expand the scope of monetary penalties as punishment for bribery offences (see the table setting out the penalties for various offences under the heading Penalties under the PRC Criminal Law below);
(ii) add monetary fines to almost all corruption/bribe-related offences;
(iii) replace specific monetary thresholds for sentencing considerations with more general standards, such as “relatively large”, “huge” and “especially huge”; and
(iv) raise the bar for mitigating circumstances to apply for reduced sentencing.
On 18 April 2016, the SPC and the SPP jointly issued the 2016 Judicial Interpretation on bribery, corruption, and misappropriation of official funds. It became effective immediately. The 2016 Judicial Interpretation provides further clarification to the Ninth Amendment regarding corruption and bribery crimes. In principle, the 2016 Judicial Interpretation:
(i) expands the definition of bribes to include certain intangible benefits;
(ii) adjusts monetary thresholds for bribery prosecutions and sentencing, including raising the thresholds for bribes involving government officials and non-government officials;
(iii) clarifies that a thank-you gift after improper benefits are sought still constitutes bribery; and
(iv) clarifies when leniency may be given and provides additional details on the requirements and benefits of voluntary disclosure.
Jurisdiction of the PRC courts
Foreigners or foreign entities are subject to the same legislation when doing business in China.18 Chinese criminal laws apply to crimes that take place within the territory of China, whether committed by Chinese nationals or foreigners.
Accordingly, the PRC courts would have jurisdiction over:
(i) bribery and other crimes that are committed by PRC or foreign individuals or entities within China;
(ii) bribery and other crimes that are committed by PRC or foreign individuals or entities on board PRC ships or PRC aircraft;
(iii) bribery and other crimes that are committed outside China with the intention of obtaining improper benefits within China;
(iv) bribery by PRC individuals of foreign officials or officers of a public international organisation outside China;
(v) bribery and other crimes committed by PRC nationals outside China which are punishable under the PRC Criminal Law by a fixed term imprisonment of three years or longer; and
(vi) bribery and other crimes committed outside China by PRC state functionaries or military personnel.
“Bribe-giving” offences
The PRC Criminal Law generally prohibits an individual or entity from giving “money or property” to a state functionary, a close relative of, or any person close to, a current or former state functionary, a non-state functionary or an entity for the purpose of obtaining “improper benefits”.
Previously, “money or property” included cash, in-kind objects as well as various “proprietary interests that can be measured by money”, such as the provision of: home decoration; club membership; stored value cards; travel expenses; shares in, or dividends or profits from, a company without corresponding investments in the company; payment through gambling; and payment for services that have not been provided, etc.19
The 2016 Judicial Interpretation reconfirms the definition of bribes to include certain intangible benefits. It defines “money and property” to include money, in-kind objects, and proprietary interests for the crime of bribery and “proprietary interests” include material benefits that can be converted into money, such as home renovation, debt relief, etc., and other benefits that need to be paid using money, such as membership service, travel, etc.20 Previously, the 2008 Commercial Bribery Opinion provided that the amount of such intangible benefits should be calculated on the amount actually paid, whereas the 2016 Judicial Interpretation states that the amount concerned can also be calculated on the amount payable. This is to address situations in which services, travel or other intangible benefits may have been deliberately undervalued by bribe-givers.
In “bribe-giving” cases, a violation occurs when a party makes a bribe with the intent to seek “improper benefits”, which include: (a) seeking benefits from a state functionary, non-state functionary or entity which would be a breach of law, regulations, administrative rules, or policies for that state functionary, non-state functionary or entity to provide; or (b) requesting a state functionary, non-state functionary or entity to breach the law, regulations, administrative rules or policies to provide assistance or facilitating conditions. For commercial activities related to bidding and government procurement, giving money or property to a relevant state functionary in violation of the principle of fairness to secure a competitive advantage is considered as giving money or property for the purpose of obtaining an “improper benefit”.21 Further, where “money or property” has been offered with an intent to seek “improper benefits”, but the offence of giving a bribe is not consummated because of factors independent of the said intent, such action may nevertheless constitute a criminal attempt offence under PRC law.22
However, a person who gives money or property to a state functionary due to pressure or solicitation from that state functionary but who receives no improper benefit shall not be regarded as having committed the crime of offering a bribe.23
As interpreted by the SPP and the SPC, bribery may be distinguished from a gift by reference to the following factors:24
(i) the circumstances giving rise to the transaction, such as the relationship between the parties, the history of their relationship, and the degree of their interaction;
(ii) the value of the property involved in the transaction;
(iii) the reasons, timing and method of the transaction and whether the party giving money or property has made any specific request for favour; and
(iv) whether the party receiving money or property has taken advantage of his/her/its position to obtain any benefit for the party giving money or property.
In other words, a person who gives money or property to a state functionary, non-state functionary or entity without requesting any specific favour may not be regarded as offering a bribe.
Effective from 1 May 2011, China extended the scope of commercial bribery to include illicit payments to foreign officials. The PRC Criminal Law now also criminalises the “giving of money or property to any foreign official or officer of a public international organisation”, for the purpose of seeking “improper commercial benefits”.25 The inclusion of foreign officials in the definition extends the reach of China’s anti-corruption laws beyond the country’s borders, although the distinction between “improper commercial benefits” and “improper benefits” means that the scope of punishable actions involving foreign officials is slightly narrower than those where personnel of Chinese entities, as defined in the PRC Criminal Law, are the recipients of bribes.
“Bribe-accepting” offences
State functionaries, close relatives of, or any persons close to state functionaries, non-state functionaries and entities are all prohibited from accepting money or property or making use of their position to provide improper benefits to a person seeking such improper benefits.
In general, “improper benefits” is a key to a “bribe-accepting” offence, and it must be shown that the party accepting the bribe has used its power or position to seek a benefit for the party giving the bribe, except in the following circumstances:
(i) any person (whether a state functionary or non-state functionary) who takes advantage of his/her position to accept and keep for themselves a “kickback” or “handling fee” under any circumstances shall also be regarded as having committed the crime of accepting a bribe;26
(ii) any state functionary who received bribes with an amount exceeding RMB 30,000 from his/her subordinate and may affect the performance of his/her duty;27 or
(iii) a promise to seek benefits for others should be regarded as “seeking benefits” for others. If an official clearly knows that a person offering a bribe has in mind a specific request seeking the official’s help, the official will be considered to be “seeking benefits” for others.28 This is intended to address situations in which officials accept money or property from bribers who do not request help explicitly but have some unspoken understanding with the officials regarding benefits sought.
In addition, the provision of money or property does not have to occur sequentially prior to “seeking benefits” for others.29 The 2016 Judicial Interpretation clarifies that bribes include payments given after benefits are received, i.e. a thank-you gift received after benefits are sought or received still constitutes bribery. Hence, if nothing has been requested from an official in the performance of his duties but that official later accepts money or property from others based on such performance, that official will be considered to be “seeking benefits for others”.
Monetary thresholds for enforcement
As mentioned above, the Ninth Amendment replaced the then-existing monetary thresholds for commencing an investigation into offences with more general standards such as “relatively large”, “huge”, and “especially huge”.30 The 2016 Judicial Interpretation re-establishes the monetary thresholds and standards for bribery-related prosecution and sentencing.31 In essence, the minimum bar for most prosecutions of offering bribes to state functionaries has been raised from RMB 5,000 to RMB 30,000, and that of offering bribes to non-state functionaries has been raised from RMB 5,000 to RMB 60,000.32 A summary comparing the previous monetary thresholds and the new ones is set out as follows:
““Bribe-giving” cases
Offering of a bribe to a state functionary
RMB 30,000, or RMB 10,000 if it also has an aggregate factor specified in Art. 7 of the 2016 Judicial Interpretation
Offering of a bribe to a non-state functionary
RMB 100,000 where the person offering the bribe is an individual, and RMB 200,000 where the person offering the bribe is an entity
RMB 60,000 where the person offering the bribe is an individual, or RMB 20,000 if it also has an aggregate factor specified in Art. 7 of the 2016 Judicial Interpretation
Offering of a bribe to an entity
If an individual offers bribes to an entity, the threshold is RMB 100,000, or less than RMB 100,000 when it also has an aggregate factor specified in the SPP 2000 Opinions on Prosecution Thresholds of Bribe-giving Offences (the “SPP 2000 Prosecution Standards”). If an entity offers bribes to an entity, the threshold is RMB 200,000, or RMB 100,000 when it also has an aggregate factor specified in the SPP 2000 Prosecution Standards
Offering of a bribe by an entity
RMB 200,000, or RMB 100,000 when it also has an aggregate factor specified in the SPP 2000 Prosecution Standards
RMB 200,000 if the offer is made to an individual who can wield influence over others
Offering of a bribe to a foreign official or an officer of a public international organisation
Offering of a bribe to a close relative of, or any person close to, a current or former state functionary
Introduction to a state functionary of the opportunity to receive a bribe
RMB 20,000 where the introducer is an individual or RMB 200,000 where the introducer is an entity
Acceptance of a bribe by a state functionary
RMB 30,000, or RMB 10,000, if it also has an aggregate factor specified in Art. 1 of the 2016 Judicial Interpretation
Acceptance of a bribe by a non-state functionary
RMB 60,000, or RMB 20,000 if it also has an aggregate factor specified in Art. 1 of the 2016 Judicial Interpretation
Acceptance of a bribe by an entity
RMB 100,000, or less than RMB 100,000 when it also has an aggregate factor specified in the SPC 1999 Interpretation on Prosecution Thresholds for Cases Directly Handled and Initiated by the Procuratorate
Acceptance of a bribe by a close relative of, or any person close to, a current or former state functionary
RMB 30,000, or RMB 10,000 if it also has an aggregate factor specified in Art. 1 of the 2016 Judicial Interpretation
Penalties under the PRC Criminal Law
Criminal penalties vary depending on whether the party offering or accepting a bribe is an individual or an entity and, if the party is an individual, whether he is a state functionary or non-state functionary. As explained above, the criminal sanctions for bribery offences involving state functionaries are generally more severe than those involving non-state functionaries.
Where the individual has received more than one bribe, the amount of each bribe will be aggregated for the purpose of determining the appropriate penalty. The table below sets out the factors taken into consideration and the corresponding penalties for the relevant offences under the legislation.
“Bribe-giving” cases
Natural person offering a bribe to a state functionary
Where the total bribes exceed RMB 30,000, or the total bribes range between RMB 10,000 and RMB 30,000 if it also has an aggravating factor
Criminal detention, or up to five years’ imprisonment, and monetary penalties
Where the total bribes range between RMB 1,000,000 to RMB 5,000,000, or the total bribes range between RMB 500,000 and RMB 1,000,000 if it also has an aggravating factor
Five to 10 years’ imprisonment and monetary penalties
Where the total bribes exceed RMB 5,000,000, or the total bribes range between RMB 2,500,000 and RMB 5,000,000 if it also has an aggravating factor
10 years’ to life imprisonment, in combination with monetary penalties, or confiscation of property
Where the offender volunteers information on the bribery before prosecution
A punishment may be waived, or lessened from the stipulated range, or a lighter punishment within the stipulated range may be imposed
Natural person offering a bribe to a close relative of, or any person close to, a current or former state functionary
Where the total bribes exceed RMB 60,000, or the total bribes range between RMB 20,000 and RMB 60,000 if it also has an aggravating factor
Criminal detention, or up to three years’ imprisonment, and monetary penalties
Where the total bribes range between RMB 1,000,000 and RMB 5,000,000, or the total bribes range between RMB 500,000 and RMB 1,000,000 if it also has an aggravating factor
Three to seven years’ imprisonment, and monetary penalties
Seven to 10 years’ imprisonment, and monetary penalties
Natural person offering a bribe to a non-state functionary or to a foreign functionary or to an official of an international public organisation
Where the total bribe ranges between RMB 2,000,000 to RMB 10,000,000, or the total bribes range between RMB 1,000,000 and RMB 2,000,000 if it also has an aggravating factor
Three to 10 years’ imprisonment and monetary penalties
Natural person offering a bribe to an entity
Criminal detention or up to three years’ imprisonment, plus monetary penalties
Entity offering a bribe to a state functionary
In respect of such entity
In respect of the employees of such entity who are directly in charge of the matter in question and the employees who are directly responsible for the crime (collectively, “Responsible Personnel”)
Criminal detention or up to five years’ imprisonment, plus monetary penalties
Entity offering a bribe to a non-state functionary
In respect of its Responsible Personnel
Refer to the sentence guidance regarding the offence of a “natural person offering a bribe to a non-state functionary or to a foreign functionary or to an official of an international public organisation”
Entity offering a bribe to another entity
Refer to the sentence guidance regarding the offence of a “natural person offering a bribe to an entity”
Introducing an opportunity to a state functionary to receive a bribe
A punishment may be waived, or reduced from the stipulated range
State functionary accepting a bribe
Where the total bribes range between RMB 30,000 and RMB 200,000, or the total bribes range between RMB 10,000 and RMB 30,000 if it also has an aggravating factor
Criminal detention or up to three years’ imprisonment and monetary penalties
Where the total bribes range between RMB 200,000 and RMB 3,000,000, or the total bribes range between RMB 100,000 and RMB 200,000 if it also has an aggravating factor
Imprisonment for between three and 10 years, monetary penalties or confiscation of property
Where the total bribes exceed RMB 3,000,000, or the total bribes range between RMB 1,500,000 and RMB 3,000,000 if it also has an aggravating factor
10 years’ to life imprisonment or the death penalty, and monetary penalties or confiscation of property
A bribe involving an extremely large monetary amount and serious damage to the interests of the state and the people
Life imprisonment or the death penalty and confiscation of property
Non-state functionary accepting a bribe
Where the total bribes range between RMB 60,000 to RMB 400,000, or the total bribes range between RMB 20,000 and RMB 60,000 if it also has an aggravating factor
Criminal detention, or a fixed-term imprisonment of up to five years depending on the amount involved
Where the total bribes range between RMB 400,000 to RMB 6,000,000, or the total bribes range between RMB 100,000 and RMB 200,000 if it also has an aggravating factor
Fixed-term imprisonment of more than five years, and/or confiscation of property
Entity accepting a bribe
Criminal detention, or up to five years of fixed-term imprisonment
A close relative of, or any person close to, a current or former state functionary accepting a bribe
Where the total bribes range between RMB 30,000 to RMB 200,000, or the total bribes range between RMB 10,000 and RMB 30,000 if it also has an aggravating factor
Imprisonment for between three and seven years, and monetary penalties
Imprisonment for between seven and 10 years, monetary penalties or confiscation of property
“Aggravating factors” affecting prosecution and sentence
In the last decade, the SPC and the SPP, either jointly or individually, published several judicial interpretations to give further clarification and more concrete guidance for lower courts and procurators to follow when they prosecute and adjudicate on bribery and corruption-related crimes. The 2016 Judicial Interpretation, which is the latest judicial interpretation from the SPC and the SPP, enumerates the “aggregating factors” that shall be taken into account in connection with the prosecution and sentencing of individuals offering or accepting bribes.
The “aggregating factors” specified in Art. 7 of the 2016 Judicial Interpretation apply to individuals who committed the offences of offering bribes by:
(i) offering bribes to three or more persons;
(ii) using illegal gains to offer bribes;
(iii) seeking promotion or adjustment of positions through offering bribes;
(iv) offering bribes to any state functionary who has supervisory and administrative responsibilities in terms of food, drug, safe production, environment protection, etc. to conduct illegal activities;
(v) offering bribes to any judicial functionary to influence judicial justice; and/or
(vi) causing economic losses in the amount of no less than RMB 500,000 and less than RMB 1,000,000.
Whereas the “aggregating factors” specified in Art. 1 of the 2016 Judicial Interpretation apply to individuals who committed the offences of accepting bribes by:
(i) having received party or administrative disciplinary sections due to graft, taking bribes, or misappropriating public funds;
(ii) having been subject to criminal prosecution for international crimes;
(iii) using grafted (i.e., embezzled) funds and goods for illegal activities;
(iv) refusing to explain the whereabouts of grafted (i.e., embezzled) funds and goods or to cooperate with recovery work, resulting in the funds and goods being unable to be recovered;
(v) causing adverse effects or other serious consequences;
(vi) asking for bribes multiple times;
(vii) seeking illegitimate benefits for others, resulting in loss to public property, the interests of the state and the people; and/or
(viii) seeking promotion or adjustment of positions for others.
With respect to bribes accepted or offered, the SPP in 2000 issued its opinion which specifies the prosecution thresholds. The threshold of prosecuting entities for accepting or offering bribes would be lowered from RMB 200,000 to RMB 100,000, if there is one of the following enumerated “aggregative factors”:33
(i) to gain unlawful benefits through bribery;
(ii) bribery of more than three persons;
(iii) bribery of Party or government leaders, judicial officers, and administrative enforcement officers; or
(iv) to cause significant damage to the state or the people.
Pursuant to the Ninth Amendment and the 2016 Judicial Interpretation, a person who offers or pays a bribe who voluntarily confesses to his or her crime(s) before being prosecuted may receive a mitigated sentence or a lighter sentence within the stipulated range. Further, a person who offers or pays a bribe may be exempted from prosecution or receive a mitigated sentence if he/she plays a key role in resolving a significant case, or performs meritorious deeds.34
The limitation periods for the prosecution of a crime are:35
(i) five years if the maximum penalty for that crime is a term of imprisonment of less than five years;
(ii) 10 years if the maximum penalty for that crime is a term of imprisonment of between five and 10 years;
(iii) 15 years if the maximum penalty for that crime is a term of imprisonment of no less than 10 years; and
(iv) 20 years (and may be extended on approval by the SPP) if the maximum penalty for that crime is life imprisonment or death.
The PRC Anti-unfair Competition Law
The AUCL was just updated in 2017 and is discussed in the next Section.
The major legislation change last year lies in the revision of the AUCL. The previous version of the AUCL was released in 1993. Over the course of the past 24 years, it has played an essential role in encouraging and protecting fair commercial competition in China. However, economic development has necessitated revisions to the AUCL.
On 4 November 2017, the 30th Session of the Standing Committee of the Twelfth National People’s Congress passed important amendments to the AUCL, and the new AUCL took effect on 1 January 2018.
The definition of commercial bribery under the current AUCL
The AUCL is intended to regulate business activities which may lead to unfair competition. It prohibits, inter alia, “commercial bribery”, which is defined as follows:36
(i) the use by a business operator;
(ii) of the means of giving money, property or other benefits;
(iii) to four categories of recipients;
(iv) in order to obtain business transaction opportunities or other competitive advantages.
Compared with the previous version of the AUCL, the current AUCL clarifies the definition of commercial bribery by listing three categories of entities or individuals who could be the recipients of bribes; these categories include:
(1) an employee of the other party to a transaction; (2) the entity or individual authorised by the other party to a transaction to handle relevant affairs; and (3) an entity or an individual that uses power or influence to affect a transaction.37
A significant change in the current AUCL, compared to the previous version of the AUCL, is that the transaction counterparty itself has been excluded from the categories of potential bribe recipients, which effectively narrows the scope of commercial bribery. It is particularly notable that while individual employees of transaction counterparties are included in the categories of potential bribe recipients, transaction counterparties themselves are excluded. On this basis, one of the potential interpretations could be that beneficial payments made between the two transactional parties, such as transactional rebates, may be excluded from the scope of commercial bribery.
The broad scope of prohibition
The term “business operators” is broadly defined as legal persons, or other economic organisations or individuals, who deal with commercial businesses or profitable services.
Pursuant to the Interim Provisions on Prohibition of Commercial Bribery issued by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (the “Anti-Commercial Bribery Provisions”), “property” means cash and tangible assets, and includes promotional fees, advertising fees, sponsorship, research and development fees, consultancy fees, commissions and expense reimbursements paid in order to see or buy goods.38 The term “other benefits” can include things such as the provision of tours and travel within China or abroad.39
Special provision for commercial bribery conducted by employees under the current AUCL
The previous version of the AUCL did not specifically address whether unauthorised conduct of commercial bribery by an employee is attributable to the business operator. In practice, however, the authorities typically regarded any commercial bribery carried out by an employee as an instance of commercial bribery carried out by the individual’s employer.
The current AUCL makes it clear that that bribery committed by an employee of a business is deemed to have been committed by the business.40 However, the current AUCL provides an exception that if the business has evidence that the act of the employee is irrelevant to seeking a transaction opportunity or competitive edge for the business, the business will not be liable.41 The burden is on the employer to provide such evidence.
Safe harbour provisions for the provision of rebates and commissions
The current AUCL retains the safe harbour provisions which allow a business to explicitly pay a discount to the other party to the transaction, or pay a commission to an intermediary, as long as both parties faithfully make a record in their accountancy book.
It is important to note that under the Law of the PRC on Donations for Public Welfare (the “Donation Law”), donations are to be made voluntarily and gratis. Any monetary or goods contributions that are made as donations but with the commercial purpose of seeking economic benefits or transaction opportunities will be seen as commercial bribes.42 The Anti-Commercial Bribery Provisions also provide that business operators shall not provide gifts in the form of cash or articles to counterparties, except for small-amount advertising gifts in accordance with business practices.43
Penalties under the current AUCL
There are three levels of penalties provided by the current AUCL. Where an administrative offence of commercial bribery is found to have taken place but which does not constitute a criminal offence, the authorities will confiscate illegal gains resulting from the offensive conduct, and, depending on the severity of the conduct, impose a fine of between RMB 100,000 and RMB 3,000,000. Further, the authorities are empowered to revoke the business licence of the business operator in question if the situation is sufficiently serious.44 Whether an act of commercial bribery is considered sufficiently serious will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Furthermore, according to Art. 26 of the current AUCL, where a business receives an administrative penalty for engaging in commercial bribery, the supervision and inspection authority will record the penalty in the business operator’s credit record as a matter of public record.
Where the violation in question is minor, the business operator will not face administrative penalties if it corrects such misconduct in a prompt and timely fashion. This change, introduced in the current AUCL, appears to address concerns from the business community that the previous version of the AUCL does not credit business operators for maintaining effective compliance programmes and/or taking steps to discover and rectify misconduct.
The current AUCL additionally provides that business operators which carry out commercial bribery and cause damage to third parties are liable to pay compensation. Art. 17 of the current AUCL clarifies that the amount of compensation payable is determined as per the actual loss of the business incurred for the infringement or if it is difficult to calculate the actual loss, as per the benefits acquired by the tortfeasor from the infringement. Moreover, the amount of compensation shall also include reasonable disbursements made by the business to prevent the infringement.
There is no similar exception under the China laws for facilitation payments or hospitality, like the one under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (the “FCPA”). Therefore, to determine whether facilitation payments and hospitality constitute a violation or offence in China, it is essential to determine the “money or property” for the purpose of obtaining “improper benefits” under the PRC Criminal Law and “commercial bribery” under the AUCL, which have been discussed above.
The risks discussed above are global, and companies operating in China and in the global environment should implement policies and procedures to help prevent violations and remediate them as soon as any potential issue surfaces. Such policies and procedures should include elements of prevention, investigation and remediation.
Prevention − effective compliance programme
An effective compliance programme, which incorporates tough anti-bribery policies and comprehensive internal control measures reflecting a strong stance against corruption from the board of directors and senior management, can lead to early identification of corruption risks. Such a programme should focus on the company’s policies and procedures with respect to gifts, entertainment and other hospitality, and on dealings with third-party representatives and business partners, who should undergo due diligence to ensure compliance, sign anti-corruption representations and be subject to anti-corruption training as appropriate.
A compliance or audit function that periodically reviews company practices for corruption risk, and a group that oversees the implementation and maintenance of the anti-corruption programme, are both critical to early detection and prevention. Confidential reporting channels – for example, a private hotline, through which employees can feel safe to report issues – has also proven effective in detecting risks. Such reporting avenues need to be accompanied with assurances that no retaliation will result from reporting corruption. Appropriate training for all levels of the organisation, as well as positive incentives that promote compliance with company policy and the law, should be prescribed. It is vital that the programme be updated periodically to ensure it keeps pace with continuing developments in anti-bribery laws and regulations in China.
Investigation − quick and adequate response to corruption allegations
Corporations must be prepared to conduct internal investigations of corruption allegations, whether raised as a result of the compliance programme or raised by enforcement agencies, the media or whistleblowers.
It is important and prudent to carefully choose the body responsible for conducting any internal investigation. There may be instances where an independent investigation is required. Allegations involving senior management, or investigations requiring specialist skills, should ideally be handled by independent, external counsel.
The designated investigative body should be properly resourced and the scope of the investigation should be proportionate to the scope of the allegations. Any investigation in China should be conducted in accordance with Chinese privacy, labour and other local laws. Attorney-client privilege should also be maintained to provide confidentiality and protect against retaliation.
Remediation − appropriate corrective measures
Should an internal investigation corroborate corruption allegations, corporations must implement appropriate and adequate remedial measures with appropriate oversight by the board of directors.
Corporations should examine and correct gaps identified in the existing corporate policies and compliance programmes. It is also advisable for corporations to assess whether the identified issues affect its internal controls over financial reporting, and take appropriate remedial steps accordingly.
Consideration should also be given to whether the identified issues should be disclosed to authorities, having regard to the improper conduct and practices identified, the company’s legal obligations, and disclosure obligations under local and/or foreign laws.
Anti-corruption enforcement is increasingly global in scope. As summarised above, China has been aggressively enforcing its own anti-corruption laws on a sustained basis. This has and will continue to mean vigorous multinational anti-corruption enforcement, targeting domestic and foreign companies and individuals.
With adequate preparation and resources, companies can effectively avoid costly risks. Corporations with business in China should have appropriate preventative measures, well-functioning investigation procedures and, if necessary, remediation measures so as to mitigate any potential financial and reputational risks. Those measures will help to minimise, if not eliminate, the risks that employees fall foul of as a result of China’s anti-corruption measures, as well as anti-corruption laws of other jurisdictions. These risks will not go away without the right corporate attitude, resources and attention, and vigilance is key to protecting companies and individuals in this increasing-enforcement environment.
Foreign entities operating in China face the potential of being investigated and charged in connection with this aforementioned sustained anti-corruption campaign. In the summer of 2013, GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”), a British pharmaceutical company listed on both the London and New York stock exchanges, became the focus of the biggest corruption scandal in China involving a foreign company. The GSK chain of events was set in motion by two chains of e-mails accusing GSK of bribing doctors in order to promote GSK’s medical products.45 In September 2014, GSK was found by the Changsha Intermediate People’s Court in Hunan Province, China to have offered money or property to non-government personnel in order to obtain improper commercial gains, and was found guilty of bribing non-government personnel. As a result of the Court’s verdict, GSK was ordered to pay a fine of RMB 3bn (£297m) to the Chinese government.46 Five former GSK senior executives were sentenced to suspended imprisonment of two to three years.47
Following the GSK bribery investigation, the State Administration of Industry and Commerce stated that local Administrations of Industry and Commerce should pay more attention to industries affecting the public interest (including the pharmaceutical industry), strengthen their supervision over the bidding activities carried out by industry players, and conduct thorough investigations against any commercial bribery arising from the bidding process.48 A number of foreign drug manufacturers – UCB, Novartis, AstraZeneca PLC, Pfizer, Bayer AG, and Roche Holding AG − were subsequently visited by the Chinese authorities.49 There were also news articles reporting that Sanofi SA and Eli Lilly were visited by the Chinese authorities as well.50
Recently we have seen more FCPA enforcements announced by the DOJ and the SEC in the technology and manufacturing industries, in addition to the traditional FCPA focus areas such as pharmaceutical and medical devices. It is likely that technology and manufacturing industries (especially automobile electronics manufacturing) will also be areas of anti-corruption focus for China.
Another major problem regarding cross-border bribery & corruption issues lies in the jurisdiction of the PRC courts. As discussed above, foreigners or foreign entities are subject to the same legislation when doing business in China.51
Imposition of a fine on the entity
Criminal detention or up to five years’ imprisonment, plus monetary penalties, for the employees of such entity who are directly in charge of the matter in question and the employees who are directly responsible for the crime (collectively, “Responsible Personnel”)
For Responsible Personnel, refer to the sentence guidance regarding the offence of a “natural person offering a bribe to a non-state functionary or to a foreign functionary or to an official of an international public organisation”
For Responsible Personnel, refer to the sentence guidance regarding the offence of a “natural person offering a bribe to an entity”
For Responsible Personnel, criminal detention or up to three years’ imprisonment and monetary penalties
In March 2018, the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China passed a State Council restructuring plan that merges: the State Administration for Industry and Commerce; the State Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine; the State Food and Drug Administration; the Price Supervision and Anti-Monopoly Bureau under the National Development and Reform Commission; the anti-monopoly bureau under the Ministry of Commerce; and the Anti-monopoly Commission of the State Council into a new government agency called the “State Administration for Market Regulation”, which is under the supervision of the State Council.52 On 10 April 2018, the State Administration of Market Regulation was officially established.53
The functions of the State Administration of Market Regulation include: overall administration of the market; supervision of market participants’ registration and the establishment of a public sharing system for such information; enforcement of regulations for market supervision; enforcement of antitrust regulations; maintenance of the market system; implementation of national quality strategy; administration of industrial product quality and safety, food safety, and special equipment safety; and unification of measurement standards, inspection, testing, certification, and accreditation. The State Food and Drug Administration will work under the State Administration of Market Regulation and be responsible for the registration and supervision of pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and medical devices, and implement supervision and management.54
5. Article 93 of the PRC Criminal Law.
6. Article 391 of the PRC Criminal Law.
7. Article 389 of the PRC Criminal Law.
8. Article 164 of the PRC Criminal Law.
10. Article 391 of the PRC Criminal Law.
11. Article 393 of the PRC Criminal Law.
12. Article 391 of the PRC Criminal Law.
13. Article 392 of the PRC Criminal Law.
14. Article 385 of the PRC Criminal Law.
15. Article 388 of the PRC Criminal Law.
16. Article 163 of the PRC Criminal Law.
17. Article 387 of the PRC Criminal Law.
18. Article 6 of the PRC Criminal Law.
19. Article 7 of the 2008 Commercial Bribery Opinion.
20. Article 12 of the 2016 Judicial Interpretation.
21. Article 9 of the 2008 Commercial Bribery Opinion.
22. Article 23 of the PRC Criminal Law.
23. Article 389 of the PRC Criminal Law.
24. Article 10 of the 2008 Commercial Bribery Opinion.
25. Article 164 of the PRC Criminal Law.
26. Article 385 of the PRC Criminal Law.
27. Article 13 of the 2016 Judicial Interpretation.
30. Article 383 of the PRC Criminal Law.
31. Articles 1 and 7 of the 2016 Judicial Interpretation.
33. Articles 6 and 8 of the SPP 2000 Prosecution Standards.
34. Article 390 of the PRC Criminal Law and Article 14 of the 2016 Judicial Interpretation.
35. Article 87 of the PRC Criminal Law.
36. Article 7 of the AUCL.
37. Article 7 of the AUCL.
38. Article 2 of Anti-Commercial Bribery Provisions.
40. Article 7 of the AUCL.
42. Article 4 of the Donation Law.
43. Article 8 of the Anti-Commercial Bribery Provisions.
44. Article 19 of the AUCL.
45. (Hyperlink).
46. (Hyperlink).
47. (Hyperlink).
48. “SAIC: Focused Investigation of Commercial Bribery arising from Drug Sales”, China Business News, 21 August 2013.
49. (Hyperlink).
50. (Hyperlink).
51. Article 6 of the PRC Criminal Law.
52. (Hyperlink).
53. (Hyperlink).
54. (Hyperlink).
Buy Chapter PDF - £ 125.00 Order the China chapter of Bribery & Corruption 2020 in PDF format or read free online FREE ONLINE In stock