Bribery In Allocation Of Toll Bridge Projects
1. Understanding Bribery in Toll Bridge Projects
Bribery in toll bridge project allocation occurs when government officials or procurement authorities are offered or accept undue advantages to:
Award contracts outside competitive bidding.
Favor certain construction or infrastructure companies.
Influence project design, approvals, or financing decisions.
Key Legal Implications:
Domestic law: Anti-corruption statutes, public procurement laws, criminal codes (fraud, bribery, conspiracy).
International law: U.S. FCPA, UK Bribery Act, OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (for multinational companies).
Corporate liability: Companies can be liable for corrupt practices carried out by employees or agents.
Civil liability: Damage claims by governments, competitors, or citizens affected by corrupt project allocation.
2. Key Case Laws
Case 1: Siemens AG – Toll Infrastructure Projects (2008)
Facts: Siemens was involved in paying bribes to secure toll bridge and highway infrastructure contracts in several countries, including Asia and Europe.
Issue: Corporate liability for offering inducements to influence project allocation.
Holding: Siemens paid over $1.6 billion in fines under the U.S. FCPA and German anti-bribery laws.
Reasoning: Corporations are responsible for the actions of employees who engage in bribery to secure infrastructure contracts.
Significance: Highlighted the international reach of anti-bribery laws and corporate accountability in toll and transportation projects.
Case 2: Alstom S.A. – Toll Bridge Contracts in India (2010)
Facts: Alstom allegedly bribed Indian officials to win toll bridge and highway contracts.
Issue: Liability for bribery in project allocation and misappropriation of public funds.
Holding: Indian authorities imposed fines, and Alstom agreed to internal compliance reforms.
Reasoning: Bribery to influence project awards constitutes a criminal offense under domestic anti-corruption laws.
Significance: Demonstrates that bribery in infrastructure projects is punishable even in domestic law, independent of international statutes.
Case 3: Odebrecht Corruption Scandal – Brazil (2014)
Facts: Odebrecht, a multinational construction company, admitted to paying bribes to government officials across Latin America to secure toll road, bridge, and highway projects.
Issue: Liability for systemic corruption and bribery in project allocation.
Holding: Odebrecht and executives paid over $2.6 billion in fines and settlements in multiple jurisdictions, including the U.S., Brazil, and Switzerland.
Reasoning: Corporate and executive liability exists when companies systematically bribe officials to obtain contracts.
Significance: Illustrates large-scale corporate bribery in toll and infrastructure projects and multi-jurisdictional enforcement.
Case 4: Vinci SA – Toll Road Projects in France and Africa (2012)
Facts: Vinci SA faced allegations of bribing public officials to obtain concessions for toll bridges and highways.
Issue: Accountability of corporations and executives for bribery in public procurement.
Holding: Fines were imposed; compliance programs and internal audits were mandated.
Reasoning: Bribery that influences the allocation of public infrastructure projects violates domestic and international anti-corruption laws.
Significance: Reinforces the principle of corporate liability and the necessity of due diligence in procurement projects.
Case 5: Skanska AB – Toll and Highway Projects in Eastern Europe (2011)
Facts: Skanska was accused of paying kickbacks to officials in Eastern European countries to secure toll bridge and highway contracts.
Issue: Liability for bribery in public works procurement.
Holding: The company implemented internal compliance reforms and faced fines under domestic anti-corruption laws.
Reasoning: Companies cannot evade liability if employees or agents pay bribes to influence the awarding of public infrastructure projects.
Significance: Demonstrates the cross-border risk of bribery liability in toll project allocation.
Case 6: Hyundai Engineering & Construction – Toll Bridges in South Korea (2015)
Facts: Hyundai was investigated for bribing government officials to obtain toll bridge and expressway contracts.
Issue: Liability of corporations and executives for bribery in public project allocation.
Holding: Fines were imposed, and executives faced prosecution.
Reasoning: Bribery in public procurement violates domestic anti-corruption laws and can trigger both corporate and individual criminal liability.
Significance: Highlights that bribery in toll bridge projects can lead to criminal prosecution of both companies and senior officials.
3. Legal Principles from These Cases
Corporate Liability: Companies are liable for bribery committed by employees, agents, or subsidiaries.
Executive Liability: Senior officials can face criminal charges for authorizing or participating in bribery.
Cross-Border Enforcement: Multinational companies are exposed to FCPA, UK Bribery Act, and domestic laws in countries where contracts are awarded.
Systemic Bribery: Repeated or organized bribery schemes increase penalties and enforcement scrutiny.
Preventive Measures: Compliance programs, internal audits, and anti-corruption policies can mitigate liability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments