Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionCanadian businesses, business leaders and their legal advisers need to be aware of the recent changes to Canadian anti-corruption legislation, enforcement strategies and recent court decisions to ensure compliance and mitigate risk. Recent developments make it critical for every lawyer who advises businesses with operations in foreign jurisdictions to have a clear policy and compliance programme to mitigate corruption risk. These developments are part of an international trend of increased emphasis on anti-corruption laws and enforcement.The Canadian developments include Bill S-14,1 enacting a number of important changes to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act2 (CFPOA) in June 2013. Fines for corporations that have been charged and convicted under the CFPOA have sky rocketed, to the $10m range. Also, the first individual has gone to trial, been convicted and is awaiting sentencing, with a possible prison term, under the CFPOA. These recent developments, together with an enhanced role for Canada's national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), demonstrate how serious this issue has become for Canadian business. The CFPOA has been expanded to include non-profit organisations, including registered charities and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), within its remit. All Canadian organisations are now more likely to be subject to CFPOA scrutiny, investigations and criminal charges.The United States has been the long-time global leader in anti-corruption law and enforcement. The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977 was passed in response to investigations conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the 1970s, which uncovered over 400 US companies who had made questionable or illegal payments, totalling more than US$300m, to foreign government officials, politicians and political parties. The types of payments detected ranged from outright bribery to 'facilitating payments' to ensure that certain duties or functions were executed in a timely manner.Developments in CanadaLegislationOn 5 February 2013, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs tabled Bill S-14, the Fighting Foreign Corruption Act. It was passed into law in late June 2013. Bill S-14 makes a number of amendments to the CFPOA. The most significant amendments to the CFPOA are as follows:* An expanded jurisdiction, which allows Canadian authorities to prosecute any offending conduct by a Canadian citizen, landed immigrant or 'organization' that is 'incorporated, formed or otherwise organized under the laws of Canada or a province' under the CFPOA, whether the offending conduct occurred inside or outside Canada.* A new 'books and records offense', which makes it an offence to conceal, falsify or destroy books and records for the purposes of bribing a foreign public official or for the purpose of hiding an act of bribery that would constitute a defence under the CFPOA.* An amendment also provides for the eventual elimination of 'facilitation payments', small payments made to a foreign public official to expedite or secure performance of the foreign public official's duties or functions. The delayed implementation of the banning of facilitation payments is intended to give the government flexibility and industry the time to implement policies and procedures to prohibit facilitation payments.* The definition of a 'business' under the CFPOA was amended by removing the phrase 'for profit'; the CFPOA now covers not-for-profit organisations, including NGOs and charities that perform work outside Canada and deal with foreign public officials.* Finally, penalties for an individual convicted of an offence under the CFPOA have been increased to 14 years' imprisonment, up from five years. Further, since a charge under the CFPOA is an indictable criminal offence, there is no maximum penalty for an organisation or corporation, if convicted.Case lawR v Niko Resources Ltd; R v Griffiths Energy InternationalThe increased attention that anti-corruption law and enforcement has received internationally, at both a political and a law enforcement level, has resulted in increased resources being given to the RCMP. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".