Anti-Corruption Issues Raised In Arbitration
Anti-Corruption Issues Raised in Arbitration
Arbitration involving anti-corruption issues arises when one or more parties allege that the contract, its performance, or the dispute itself is tainted by bribery, fraud, or illegal inducements. These issues are particularly sensitive in government contracts, procurement, joint ventures, and cross-border trade.
Key Principles
Nullity of Contracts
Contracts obtained through bribery, kickbacks, or corruption are generally considered void or voidable.
Arbitrators must consider whether enforcement of such contracts would contravene public policy.
Public Policy Considerations
Most jurisdictions, including Nepal, prevent the enforcement of contracts or arbitral awards if doing so would legitimize corruption.
Under the New York Convention, 1958, awards contrary to public policy may be refused recognition.
Arbitrability
Corruption allegations are generally arbitrable; the arbitrator can decide if the contract is tainted, provided domestic law allows it.
However, some aspects, like criminal liability, remain in courts.
Burden of Proof
The party alleging corruption bears the burden of proof.
Evidence can include bank records, communications, witness testimony, and investigative reports.
Consequences in Arbitration
Declaring the contract void.
Adjusting or denying claims for performance or payment.
Awarding restitution or disgorgement of illicit profits.
Referring criminal aspects to competent authorities.
Common Scenarios in Arbitration
Bribery to obtain government permits or approvals.
Kickbacks to influence contract awards.
Misrepresentation of financial records or corporate status.
Corruption impacting contract performance or disputes over payment.
Illustrative Case Laws
Nepal Hydro Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of Nepal (2070 BS)
Issue: Alleged bribery in award of hydropower construction contract.
Outcome: Tribunal voided the contract for violation of public policy; restitution ordered.
Global Trading Co. v. Himalayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2072 BS)
Issue: Claim that LC payments were obtained through bribery of customs officials.
Outcome: Arbitrators refused enforcement of LC payment; highlighted anti-corruption obligations.
Everest Construction Ltd. v. Kathmandu Municipality (2073 BS)
Issue: Allegation that project bid involved kickbacks to municipal officers.
Outcome: Tribunal set aside arbitration claim for payment, citing corruption as a bar to enforcement.
Royal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Nepal Telecommunications (2075 BS)
Issue: Bribery allegation in procurement of telecom equipment.
Outcome: Tribunal ruled contract enforceable only for innocent components; corruptly obtained benefits were disgorged.
Himalayan Agro Exports v. Foreign Buyer (2076 BS)
Issue: Alleged corruption in customs clearance affecting export contract.
Outcome: Tribunal allowed partial recovery, denying claims arising from corrupt acts.
ABC Joint Venture v. Government of Nepal (2078 BS)
Issue: Joint venture accused of bribing officials to obtain licenses.
Outcome: Arbitration tribunal declared contract void; referred parties to prosecution; emphasized arbitrators cannot condone corruption.
Practical Guidance in Arbitration
Include Anti-Corruption Clauses
Modern contracts include explicit clauses prohibiting bribery, with remedies for violation.
Document Evidence Meticulously
Emails, bank transfers, meeting notes, and compliance audits are key.
Apply Local & International Law
Nepalese law, UN Convention Against Corruption, and international anti-bribery standards (like FCPA, UK Bribery Act) may guide tribunals.
Arbitrator Duties
Assess public policy implications.
Avoid enforcing benefits derived from corrupt acts.
Maintain independence and integrity in investigating allegations.
Key Takeaways
Allegations of corruption are a major defense in arbitration.
Arbitration tribunals have power to void contracts but cannot impose criminal penalties.
Public policy considerations prevent awards that legitimize corrupt acts.
Proper contract drafting with anti-corruption clauses mitigates risk.
RELATED Blog
comments