The Netherlands: Tackling Corruption at Home, Challenged Abroad

GUEST BLOGGER

Cathalijne van der Plas
Associate partner at Höcker Advocaten and colleague of ICC FraudNet

Last year, Transparency International released its Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2015, which evaluates the level of endemic corruption in countries across the globe. The Netherlands secured a spot on the CPI as the fifth least corrupt country in the world, moving up from the eighth ranking in 2014 to follow only Denmark, Finland, Sweden and New Zealand in the organization’s annual report.

While the Netherlands’ move toward less corruption signals the country is doing something right when it comes to keeping corruption at a minimum, the CPI’s analysis only covers the public-sector corruption that takes place within a country’s national borders. Its figures do not include corruption by residents of the Netherlands abroad.

The Effect of Out-of-Court Settlements on Perception
It is likely that out-of-court settlements keep a lot of information about alleged corruption out of the public domain. These settlements rarely lead to prosecution of the natural persons responsible for the corrupt actions.

Well-known cases of Dutch companies involved in bribery abroad are SBM Offshore and Ballast Nedam, which both were finalized with out-of-court settlements. Furthermore, in February of 2016, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service entered into another out-of-court settlement with Russian telecom company VimpelCom, headquartered in the Netherlands. It was part of a joint settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), in which VimpelCom and its subsidiary paid $397.6 million to the DOJ and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in fines for bribes paid to a government official of Uzbekistan to win bids for Uzbek telecom providers. More recently, there has been an investigation into the involvement of Shell in corruption in Nigeria.

Improving Enforcement
This highlights what Transparency International in 2015 discovered — that the level of enforcement by the Netherlands abroad can be seen as “limited enforcement.”

In the December 2012 release of its “Phase 3 Report on Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in the Netherlands,” the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) expressed its concerns about the efforts of the Netherlands regarding the active investigation and prosecution of corruption by Dutchmen or Dutch companies abroad.

In its “Follow-up to the Phase 3 Report & Recommendations,” released in May 2015, the OECD noted that the Netherlands has demonstrated significant progress with regard to enforcement, fully implementing 11 out of 22 recommendations and partially implementing six others. Only five of its recommendations were not implemented.

Between the period of December 2012 and May 2015, the Netherlands opened seven new foreign bribery investigations, bringing the total number to 16. Ten of these are ongoing investigations and four have been closed. The remaining two investigations, the cases of the Dutch companies SBM Offshore and Ballast Nedam referenced above, were finalized with sanctions imposed on the defendants through out-of-court settlements. SBM Offshore agreed to a $40 million fine and a $200 million disgorgement for payments in Equatorial Guinea, Angola and Brazil. Ballast Nedam agreed to pay €17.5 million and, in the context of the same case, KPMG Accountants NV agreed to pay a €3.5 million fine and €3.5 million in confiscation for bribery related accounting misconduct.

Nevertheless, the OECD is also aware of 24 other foreign bribery allegations that do not appear to have been investigated.

Changes to the Criminal Code
On January 1, 2015, relevant amendments to the Dutch Criminal Code entered into force. The amendments simplify and harmonize the offences for foreign bribery, including removing the distinction between bribery to induce a violation of official duty and bribery to receive a benefit within the official’s duty. The amendments also increase the maximum sanctions for foreign bribery. Furthermore, the Netherlands has improved the regime of criminal liability of legal persons. However, the Netherlands has not amended its legislation since Phase 3 to increase protections for foreign bribery-related whistleblowing in the public and private sectors.

Enforcement Leads to Improvement
Although the Netherlands is perceived as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, there is room for improvement in its efforts of enforcement against corruption abroad. Stimulating active enforcement will deter from corrupt actions, although the tendency to settle out of court might reduce this effect.

Cathalijne van der Plas is an associate partner at Höcker Advocaten and colleague of ICC FraudNet, an international network of independent lawyers who are leading civil asset-recovery specialists in their respective jurisdictions. Recognized by Chambers Global as the world’s leading asset recovery legal network, FraudNet’s membership extends to every continent and the world’s major economies, as well as leading offshore wealth havens that have complex bank secrecy laws and institutions where the proceeds of fraud often are hidden.