MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W195506792

Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and Secret Commissions Offense

2014· article· en· W195506792 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stuart H. Deming

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican University international law review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign Corrupt Practices ActRatificationLegislationLanguage changeEnforcementConventionLawPolitical scienceBusinessPublic administrationPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I. INTRODUCTIONBy its enactment of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in 1977,1 the United States became the first country to prohibit the bribery of foreign public officials.2 For many years thereafter, the United States remained the only country to have implemented and enforced such a prohibition. A series of significant international developments in the 1990s and the early part of this century have dramatically changed the landscape.3 1 2 3 * S.Today most developed countries have implemented, and increasingly enforce, domestic legislation prohibiting the bribery of foreign public officials.4 Virtually all other countries are parties to international conventions prohibiting the bribery of foreign public officials.5 It is only a matter of time before most of the world will have adopted domestic legislation prohibiting the bribery of foreign public officials. The enforcement of the FCPA by the United States and the adoption by the United Kingdom of its Bribery Act 2010 (UK Bribery Act)* 4 5 6 have both received considerable attention. But the recent adoption of critical amendments by Canada to its Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA)7 signals the need for increased attention to be given to Canadian law with respect to foreign bribery.II. CANADA'S CORRUPTION OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIAL'S ACTOn December 7, 1998, Canada adopted the CFPOA8 in conjunction with its ratification of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (OECD Convention).9 The CFPOA was Canada's OECD Convention implementing legislation, and the law became effective on February 14, 1999.10In adopting the CFPOA, Canada created an act separate from its Criminal Code. The CFPOA combines the OECD Convention's language and requirements with language already in Canada's Criminal Code.11 By its terms, the CFPOA is designed to accommodate additional international conventions relating to the corruption of foreign public officials.12 This now includes Canada's * 10 11 12 ratification of the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (Inter-American Convention), which became effective on January 6, 2000,13 and its ratification of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UN Convention), which became effective on October 2, 2007.14More recently, Canada amended the CFPOA to broaden its jurisdictional reach and the breadth of its prohibitions.15 These amendments were, in large part, prompted by criticism of the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Transactions (OECD Working Group).16 The amendments coincide with considerable efforts by Canadian authorities to establish and train special units of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police devoted to enforcement of the CFPOA.17 Canadian authorities have also sought to ensure the availability of prosecutors with the requisite level of expertise.18 Numerous cases are currently under investigation and a further increase in enforcement is generally anticipated.19A. THE ANTI-BRIBERY LEGISLATIONThe CFPOA provides, in pertinent part, as follows:Every person commits an offence who, in order to obtain or retain an advantage in the course of business, directly or indirectly gives, offers or agrees to give or offer a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind to a foreign public official or to any person for the benefit of a foreign public official(a)as consideration for an act or omission by the official in connection with the performance of the official's duties or functions; or(b)to induce the official to use his or her position to influence any acts or decisions of the foreign state or public international organisation for which the official performs duties or functions.20B. JURISDICTIONWith the recent amendments to the CFPOA,21 conduct that may 18 19 20 21 otherwise violate the CFPOA is now subject to both territorial and nationality jurisdiction. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican University international law reviewSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207