Brazil has seen extensive legal changes and enforcement efforts against corruption over the past few years. As a result, local and multinational companies active in the region have increased their anti-corruption compliance efforts, particularly by introducing more frequent and comprehensive anti-corruption risk assessments and touchpoints with government entities and officials, as well as strengthening their anti-corruption compliance programmes.
Despite the steps taken by Brazil to fight corruption in recent years, it remains one of the main challenges for the country. Mindful of this, the new government – which came into power in 2018 on the back of its vow to fight corruption – has promised a series of measures to tackle the issue. The measures include toughening prison sentences for corruption-related crimes, separating investigations involving high-level officials and making illegal campaign donations a criminal offence.
The new year started with a new government taking office. Naturally, this has led many to speculate what the government's priorities and policies will be. In particular, enforcement policies are receiving more attention than during previous inaugurations, largely due to the widespread corruption scandal following Operation Car Wash and the appointment of Sergio Moro (former lead judge overseeing Operation Car Wash) as the minister of justice.
The Superior Court of Justice recently appraised a noticeable theme regarding personal data protection from a criminal law perspective: the validity of police evidence obtained from smartphones without a specific judicial order to do so. The precedent has had a strong effect on investigations of varying scope and importance. Two recent examples occurred in the wake of high-profile anti-corruption and anti-money laundering investigations.
A recent review has detailed the limited application of corporate criminal liability and the indirect legal consequences that companies may face following criminal investigations targeting individuals. Corporations may face harsh administrative and civil penalties for business crimes which only individuals can be held liable for. This is especially true where cross-border investigations result in white collar crime regulations becoming increasingly denationalised and tougher than ever before.
Schedule 2 of the Anti-money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Code of Practice 2008 sets out a list of jurisdictions with laws and regulations similar to those of the British Virgin Islands. The principal advantage of relying on Schedule 2 is that business coming from recognised jurisdictions will generally attract the application of reduced client due diligence measures.
In Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi & Brothers Company (AHAB) v Saad, the Grand Court found that AHAB's claims, which attempted to trace its funds into the hands of defendant SIFCO5, were "unparticularised and unprincipled". Further, AHAB was unsuccessful in establishing that funds representing traceable proceeds from the Money Exchange reached SIFCO5 or in articulating any discernible cause of action against SIFCO5 in respect of such funds.
In a landmark ruling, the Grand Court emphatically dismissed a multibillion-dollar claim in a case involving allegations of fraud arising from one of the largest corporate collapses of the financial crisis. The case has showcased the court's ability to manage high-profile large-scale litigation, demonstrating especially the quality of the Cayman Islands judiciary and the court's ability to use cutting-edge technology, as well as the resources and flexibility to manage a year-long, multi-jurisdictional trial.
Under new anti-money laundering legislation, the list of activities classed as relevant financial businesses has been expanded. Unregulated investment funds and some insurance entities have now been given a grace period until May 31 2018 to establish anti-money laundering compliance programmes. This is a welcome move, particularly for unregulated investment funds which were not bound by the preceding regulations and therefore may not have policies and procedures in place.
The government recently adopted updated Anti-money Laundering Regulations. The regulations demonstrate the Cayman Islands' ongoing commitment to comply with the highest international standards on combating money laundering and terrorist financing and aim to ensure consistency with the Financial Action Task Force 2012 recommendations. The move is part of an overall update of the territory's anti-money laundering regime.
Criminal activities such as illegal payment and settlement business and FX trading have become increasingly rampant in recent years. Although these activities have been classified as business crimes in various laws and regulations, the applicable penalties have been unclear. However, new interpretations of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate set out the applicable convictions and penalties for illegal business operations involving FX trading and payment and settlement business.
Articles 59 and 60 of Law 2016-1691 (the Sapin II Law) on transparency, anti-corruption and the modernisation of economic life established a system of immunity from the execution of civil judgments on property in France which is owned by foreign states. The main purpose of this aspect of the Sapin II Law is to limit the risk of litigation arising from seizures or attachments of property belonging to foreign states.