	(264774,25628,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(264775,25628,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(264776,25628,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(264777,25628,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(264778,25629,'PostID','7940'),
	(264779,25629,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(264780,25629,'PostTitle','Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
	(264781,25629,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(264782,25629,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
	(264783,25629,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
	(264784,25629,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
	(264785,25629,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(264786,25629,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(264787,25629,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(264788,25629,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(264789,25630,'PostID','7940'),
	(264790,25630,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(264791,25630,'PostTitle','Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
	(264792,25630,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(264793,25630,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
	(264794,25630,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
	(264795,25630,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
	(264796,25630,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(264797,25630,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(264798,25630,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(264799,25630,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(264800,25631,'PostID','7940'),
	(264801,25631,'PostTitle','Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
	(264802,25631,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(264803,25631,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(264804,25631,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
	(264805,25631,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
	(264806,25631,'MetaID','223314'),
	(264807,25631,'MetaKey','content'),
	(264808,25631,'MetaValueNew','<img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe UK legislature has recently introduced domestic legislation aimed at money launderers, potentially resulting in unintended consequences for foreign nationals who have legitimate assets in the UK. These orders demand the intended target provide information about the origin of their wealth, and refusal to disclose that information may render the target subject to criminal prosecution in the UK. However, if the foreign national does comply with the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO), then that individual may be subject to criminal prosecution in another State… a real Catch 22.\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Controversially, there is no need for a foreign national to be accused of money laundering, or any criminality whatsoever, before they could be made subject to a UWO, which would lead to the freezing of their assets, or, worse, criminal prosecution.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The following article introduces UWOs to our clients and examines how one must be careful in weighing up their rights and obligations in respect of the request of a foreign State’s investigative authorities as it may impact their rights in the UAE, and around the GCC.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is a UWO?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 31st January 2018, the UK introduced their latest attempt at stemming money laundering in the UK: Unexplained Wealth Orders. UWOs are civil investigative powers that are aimed at tackling those who use the UK as a destination for money laundering, or as a destination for those who wish to spend their ill-gotten gains.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs have been introduced in the UK at a time when London, and the UK, is facing scrutiny as a perceived hotbed of money laundering and revelry. A main proponent of UWOs has been Transparency International UK’s corruption taskforce, who, amongst others, have repeatedly called for greater investigative action to be taken in the UK against individuals and entities thought to have been complicit in corruption, and have led the drive to bring UWOs into action in UK law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs are given legal effect pursuant to the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Article 362A, as introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and is defined in the legislation as:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>‘An unexplained wealth order is an order requiring the respondent [i.e. the target of the order] to provide a statement—</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made,</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met),</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified.’</em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The clear advantage that UWOs provide for UK investigative authorities is that it is no longer necessary for the UK authorities to demonstrate that an individual has been subject to a conviction for a criminal offence (either in the UK or abroad) in order to obtain information and take measures against a specific property.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Two months after the introduction of the legislation, in March 2018, it would appear that the first orders are now being made. We have seen the first use of these orders, not on a UK national, but on an Asian politician who owns two properties, worth USD $30 million, in the UK. The specific identity of this individual has not been disclosed as matters are ongoing, and no further details are available publically.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This means that if an individual owns assets in the UK and they are made subject to a UWO, they will be forced to declare how they obtained this asset, and if they fail to do so they would be subject to criminal prosecution by the UK authorities. This may lead to foreign individuals being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to turn and no route of escape.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Why is it Relevant To You?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As will be apparent from the first orders made against the Asian politician, whilst UWOs do apply to individuals who are reasonably suspected of being involved in crime, the UWOs will also target politically exposed individuals who have not been subject to criminal conviction, or investigation, either in the UK or internationally.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The definition of a PEP, or Politically Exposed Person, varies from State to State, but for the purposes of the UK legislation, the legislators have defined PEPs as the following:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">‘(a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international body or by a State other than the UK or other [European Economic Area] State;</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(b) a family member of a person within paragraph (a); or</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(c) known to be a close associate of a person within […] paragraph [a].’</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Evidently from this definition, paying particularly close attention to (c) namely ‘a close associate’ of an individual with prominent public functions, there is a very expansive definition of PEP, and this will likely include many unsuspecting individuals. The effect of this definition is that if you are an individual who has prominent public functions, or you are a close associate of another who has been entrusted with public functions, then you may now be targeted by the UK authorities with a UWO. Alarmingly, there is no need for you to have committed a crime, nor to have been suspected of being involved in a crime, for these orders to apply to you.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specifically, when could a UWO apply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UK high court judge can give notice of a UWO if the judge is satisfied that it is likely that a foreign PEP (as defined above) is the owner of suspicious wealth in the UK beyond their means, and if all of the following provisions are met:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The value of the asset is greater than £50,000 (approx. AED 260,000).</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This legislation does not only target Foreign PEPs, but also where there are reasonable grounds to suspect any individual has been involved in serious crime.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for UWOs may be made without notice. This means that there is no requirement on the UK investigative authority to notify the target of a UWO that they, or their assets, have been made subject of a UWO.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What assets would this apply to?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UWO can be made against assets whose value is greater than £50,000. There is no need for the PEP to be the sole owner of the property whose value is over £50,000, nor is it of relevance if the property was purchased prior to the introduction of the UK legislation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is the effect?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Following the making of an order by the High Court, the Court may order an individual’s property to be frozen, which would preclude the subject of the order from dealing with the property. As these freezing orders may be made without notice, this means that an individual’s assets may be frozen prior to their knowledge of any order being made against them.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UWO will mandate the individual to explain, at a minimum:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The nature and extent of their interest in a particular property; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Explain how the property was obtained.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An explanation will be requested by the UK authorities where ‘there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property’.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Failing to Comply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Should the target of a UWO fail to comply with an order, or provide inaccurate or misleading information, then they will likely be subject to criminal sanction in the UK and may face a period of imprisonment and a financial penalty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Within the legislation, it is stated that a UWO could lead to criminal liability for a target if that individual fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements imposed by the Court against that individual. There is no definition of what a reasonable excuse would be in the legislation, and is a subjective requirement that would be decided in Court during the course of litigation.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-8014 alignright\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"330\" height=\"409\" /></strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A View from the East: Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These orders, whilst designed to tackle money laundering on a global scale, and limit the use of the UK jurisdiction for those who seek to gain from their ill-gotten earnings, may cause legal difficulties for individuals based in foreign jurisdictions who are subject to UWOs – such as the UAE and the wider GCC – due to a conflict of laws between this UK legislation and that of other countries. This conflict could lead to an individual’s adherence to UK legislation meaning that the individual would be liable to prosecution in other jurisdictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Taking the UAE as a representative example of the Middle East’s approach to confidential or private information, the UAE’s jurisdiction imposes very strict obligations on an individual’s use and disclosure of confidential information. It is a criminal offence, pursuant to the UAE’s Federal Law No. 3 of 1987, as amended by Federal Decree No. 7 of 2016 (UAE Penal Code) to disclose secret information. Secret information is afforded an expansive definition in the UAE Penal Code and it is commonly viewed any information that is confidential, i.e. not in the public domain, and that an individual possesses due to their employment or individual nature.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, due to the extraterritorial nature of the UAE Penal Code, should an individual commit a crime that is wholly or partly committed within the UAE, then that individual would be bound by the provisions of the Penal Code, and would be bound by provisions such as the disclosure of secret information. Specifically, should an individual be requested to provide secret information, such as the source of funds from a business entity, to the UK authorities, and that information relates to a UAE business or UAE based individual, then if the material or information is disclosed following a UWO in the UK, then in the UAE the individual may be subject to criminal prosecution for disclosing that exact information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There is no exception afforded under UAE domestic legislation that would permit an individual to disclose confidential information to a foreign investigative authority (such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, or National Security Agency). Should that individual disclose such information to the UK’s, or any other foreign State’s, investigative authority, then that individual may be liable to prosecution in the UAE in the same manner as though the disclosure had been made to a private individual or entity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prosecution for disclosing confidential information is a serious offence in the UAE, and one that may carry a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the stakes are very high when one is subject to an international request for judicial assistance, in any form, and it is for that reason and in order to assist with international criminal investigations that the UAE has entered into number multilateral and bilateral treaties aimed at assisting mutual judicial assistance requests. As with most international requests from law enforcement agencies, such requests should follow the usual diplomatic channels through the deployment of letters rogatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The difficulties for UAE individuals would not stop simply at the threat of criminal sanction, but also according to the UAE’s Labour Law, should an individual disclose the secrets of their employer, then the worker may be dismissed without notice and forfeit their entire severance pay.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Accordingly, the receipt of a UWO in the UK demanding that an individual provide information to the UAE authorities may conflict with the statutory protection relating to confidential information (or other laws) in a foreign jurisdiction, such as the UAE. This would lead to the precarious situation where an individual may face prosecution in the UK if he doesn’t comply with the UWO, but criminal prosecution in the UAE if he does comply.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe above example and review provides a very high-level overview of the competing laws that the UK’s UWOs may catch. Whilst the UK legislation will no doubt serve as an effective deterrent and useful tool in minimising global money laundering, and limiting the attraction of the UK for criminals, it may have unintended consequences for foreign nationals holding legitimate assets in the UK. Prior to making any response to a request for assistance, it is imperative that the recipient apprise themselves of all legal considerations to ensure that they are not jumping out of the frying pan, but straight into the fire.'),
	(264809,25631,'MetaValueOld','<img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe UK legislature has recently introduced domestic legislation aimed at money launderers, potentially resulting in unintended consequences for foreign nationals who have legitimate assets in the UK. These orders demand the intended target provide information about the origin of their wealth, and refusal to disclose that information may render the target subject to criminal prosecution in the UK. However, if the foreign national does comply with the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO), then that individual may be subject to criminal prosecution in another State… a real Catch 22.\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Controversially, there is no need for a foreign national to be accused of money laundering, or any criminality whatsoever, before they could be made subject to a UWO, which would lead to the freezing of their assets, or, worse, criminal prosecution.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The following article introduces UWOs to our clients and examines how one must be careful in weighing up their rights and obligations in respect of the request of a foreign State’s investigative authorities as it may impact their rights in the UAE, and around the GCC.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is a UWO?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 31st January 2018, the UK introduced their latest attempt at stemming money laundering in the UK: Unexplained Wealth Orders. UWOs are civil investigative powers that are aimed at tackling those who use the UK as a destination for money laundering, or as a destination for those who wish to spend their ill-gotten gains.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs have been introduced in the UK at a time when London, and the UK, is facing scrutiny as a perceived hotbed of money laundering and revelry. A main proponent of UWOs has been Transparency International UK’s corruption taskforce, who, amongst others, have repeatedly called for greater investigative action to be taken in the UK against individuals and entities thought to have been complicit in corruption, and have led the drive to bring UWOs into action in UK law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs are given legal effect pursuant to the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Article 362A, as introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and is defined in the legislation as:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>‘An unexplained wealth order is an order requiring the respondent [i.e. the target of the order] to provide a statement—</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made,</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met),</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified.’</em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The clear advantage that UWOs provide for UK investigative authorities is that it is no longer necessary for the UK authorities to demonstrate that an individual has been subject to a conviction for a criminal offence (either in the UK or abroad) in order to obtain information and take measures against a specific property.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Two months after the introduction of the legislation, in March 2018, it would appear that the first orders are now being made. We have seen the first use of these orders, not on a UK national, but on an Asian politician who owns two properties, worth USD $30 million, in the UK. The specific identity of this individual has not been disclosed as matters are ongoing, and no further details are available publically.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This means that if an individual owns assets in the UK and they are made subject to a UWO, they will be forced to declare how they obtained this asset, and if they fail to do so they would be subject to criminal prosecution by the UK authorities. This may lead to foreign individuals being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to turn and no route of escape.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Why is it Relevant To You?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As will be apparent from the first orders made against the Asian politician, whilst UWOs do apply to individuals who are reasonably suspected of being involved in crime, the UWOs will also target politically exposed individuals who have not been subject to criminal conviction, or investigation, either in the UK or internationally.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The definition of a PEP, or Politically Exposed Person, varies from State to State, but for the purposes of the UK legislation, the legislators have defined PEPs as the following:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">‘(a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international body or by a State other than the UK or other [European Economic Area] State;</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(b) a family member of a person within paragraph (a); or</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(c) known to be a close associate of a person within […] paragraph [a].’</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Evidently from this definition, paying particularly close attention to (c) namely ‘a close associate’ of an individual with prominent public functions, there is a very expansive definition of PEP, and this will likely include many unsuspecting individuals. The effect of this definition is that if you are an individual who has prominent public functions, or you are a close associate of another who has been entrusted with public functions, then you may now be targeted by the UK authorities with a UWO. Alarmingly, there is no need for you to have committed a crime, nor to have been suspected of being involved in a crime, for these orders to apply to you.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specifically, when could a UWO apply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UK high court judge can give notice of a UWO if the judge is satisfied that it is likely that a foreign PEP (as defined above) is the owner of suspicious wealth in the UK beyond their means, and if all of the following provisions are met:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The value of the asset is greater than £50,000 (approx. AED 260,000).</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This legislation does not only target Foreign PEPs, but also where there are reasonable grounds to suspect any individual has been involved in serious crime.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for UWOs may be made without notice. This means that there is no requirement on the UK investigative authority to notify the target of a UWO that they, or their assets, have been made subject of a UWO.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What assets would this apply to?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UWO can be made against assets whose value is greater than £50,000. There is no need for the PEP to be the sole owner of the property whose value is over £50,000, nor is it of relevance if the property was purchased prior to the introduction of the UK legislation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is the effect?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Following the making of an order by the High Court, the Court may order an individual’s property to be frozen, which would preclude the subject of the order from dealing with the property. As these freezing orders may be made without notice, this means that an individual’s assets may be frozen prior to their knowledge of any order being made against them.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UWO will mandate the individual to explain, at a minimum:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The nature and extent of their interest in a particular property; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Explain how the property was obtained.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An explanation will be requested by the UK authorities where ‘there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property’.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Failing to Comply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Should the target of a UWO fail to comply with an order, or provide inaccurate or misleading information, then they will likely be subject to criminal sanction in the UK and may face a period of imprisonment and a financial penalty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Within the legislation, it is stated that a UWO could lead to criminal liability for a target if that individual fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements imposed by the Court against that individual. There is no definition of what a reasonable excuse would be in the legislation, and is a subjective requirement that would be decided in Court during the course of litigation.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-8014  alignright\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"330\" height=\"409\" /></strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A View from the East: Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These orders, whilst designed to tackle money laundering on a global scale, and limit the use of the UK jurisdiction for those who seek to gain from their ill-gotten earnings, may cause legal difficulties for individuals based in foreign jurisdictions who are subject to UWOs – such as the UAE and the wider GCC – due to a conflict of laws between this UK legislation and that of other countries. This conflict could lead to an individual’s adherence to UK legislation meaning that the individual would be liable to prosecution in other jurisdictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Taking the UAE as a representative example of the Middle East’s approach to confidential or private information, the UAE’s jurisdiction imposes very strict obligations on an individual’s use and disclosure of confidential information. It is a criminal offence, pursuant to the UAE’s Federal Law No. 3 of 1987, as amended by Federal Decree No. 7 of 2016 (UAE Penal Code) to disclose secret information. Secret information is afforded an expansive definition in the UAE Penal Code and it is commonly viewed any information that is confidential, i.e. not in the public domain, and that an individual possesses due to their employment or individual nature.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, due to the extraterritorial nature of the UAE Penal Code, should an individual commit a crime that is wholly or partly committed within the UAE, then that individual would be bound by the provisions of the Penal Code, and would be bound by provisions such as the disclosure of secret information. Specifically, should an individual be requested to provide secret information, such as the source of funds from a business entity, to the UK authorities, and that information relates to a UAE business or UAE based individual, then if the material or information is disclosed following a UWO in the UK, then in the UAE the individual may be subject to criminal prosecution for disclosing that exact information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There is no exception afforded under UAE domestic legislation that would permit an individual to disclose confidential information to a foreign investigative authority (such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, or National Security Agency). Should that individual disclose such information to the UK’s, or any other foreign State’s, investigative authority, then that individual may be liable to prosecution in the UAE in the same manner as though the disclosure had been made to a private individual or entity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prosecution for disclosing confidential information is a serious offence in the UAE, and one that may carry a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the stakes are very high when one is subject to an international request for judicial assistance, in any form, and it is for that reason and in order to assist with international criminal investigations that the UAE has entered into number multilateral and bilateral treaties aimed at assisting mutual judicial assistance requests. As with most international requests from law enforcement agencies, such requests should follow the usual diplomatic channels through the deployment of letters rogatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The difficulties for UAE individuals would not stop simply at the threat of criminal sanction, but also according to the UAE’s Labour Law, should an individual disclose the secrets of their employer, then the worker may be dismissed without notice and forfeit their entire severance pay.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Accordingly, the receipt of a UWO in the UK demanding that an individual provide information to the UAE authorities may conflict with the statutory protection relating to confidential information (or other laws) in a foreign jurisdiction, such as the UAE. This would lead to the precarious situation where an individual may face prosecution in the UK if he doesn’t comply with the UWO, but criminal prosecution in the UAE if he does comply.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe above example and review provides a very high-level overview of the competing laws that the UK’s UWOs may catch. Whilst the UK legislation will no doubt serve as an effective deterrent and useful tool in minimising global money laundering, and limiting the attraction of the UK for criminals, it may have unintended consequences for foreign nationals holding legitimate assets in the UK. Prior to making any response to a request for assistance, it is imperative that the recipient apprise themselves of all legal considerations to ensure that they are not jumping out of the frying pan, but straight into the fire.'),
	(264810,25631,'MetaLink','content'),
	(264811,25631,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
	(264812,25631,'ReportText','<img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe UK legislature has recently introduced domestic legislation aimed at money launderers, potentially resulting in unintended consequences for foreign nationals who have legitimate assets in the UK. These orders demand the intended target provide information about the origin of their wealth, and refusal to disclose that information may render the target subject to criminal prosecution in the UK. However, if the foreign national does comply with the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO), then that individual may be subject to criminal prosecution in another State… a real Catch 22.\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Controversially, there is no need for a foreign national to be accused of money laundering, or any criminality whatsoever, before they could be made subject to a UWO, which would lead to the freezing of their assets, or, worse, criminal prosecution.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The following article introduces UWOs to our clients and examines how one must be careful in weighing up their rights and obligations in respect of the request of a foreign State’s investigative authorities as it may impact their rights in the UAE, and around the GCC.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is a UWO?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 31st January 2018, the UK introduced their latest attempt at stemming money laundering in the UK: Unexplained Wealth Orders. UWOs are civil investigative powers that are aimed at tackling those who use the UK as a destination for money laundering, or as a destination for those who wish to spend their ill-gotten gains.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs have been introduced in the UK at a time when London, and the UK, is facing scrutiny as a perceived hotbed of money laundering and revelry. A main proponent of UWOs has been Transparency International UK’s corruption taskforce, who, amongst others, have repeatedly called for greater investigative action to be taken in the UK against individuals and entities thought to have been complicit in corruption, and have led the drive to bring UWOs into action in UK law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs are given legal effect pursuant to the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Article 362A, as introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and is defined in the legislation as:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>‘An unexplained wealth order is an order requiring the respondent [i.e. the target of the order] to provide a statement—</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made,</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met),</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified.’</em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The clear advantage that UWOs provide for UK investigative authorities is that it is no longer necessary for the UK authorities to demonstrate that an individual has been subject to a conviction for a criminal offence (either in the UK or abroad) in order to obtain information and take measures against a specific property.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Two months after the introduction of the legislation, in March 2018, it would appear that the first orders are now being made. We have seen the first use of these orders, not on a UK national, but on an Asian politician who owns two properties, worth USD $30 million, in the UK. The specific identity of this individual has not been disclosed as matters are ongoing, and no further details are available publically.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This means that if an individual owns assets in the UK and they are made subject to a UWO, they will be forced to declare how they obtained this asset, and if they fail to do so they would be subject to criminal prosecution by the UK authorities. This may lead to foreign individuals being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to turn and no route of escape.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Why is it Relevant To You?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As will be apparent from the first orders made against the Asian politician, whilst UWOs do apply to individuals who are reasonably suspected of being involved in crime, the UWOs will also target politically exposed individuals who have not been subject to criminal conviction, or investigation, either in the UK or internationally.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The definition of a PEP, or Politically Exposed Person, varies from State to State, but for the purposes of the UK legislation, the legislators have defined PEPs as the following:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">‘(a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international body or by a State other than the UK or other [European Economic Area] State;</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(b) a family member of a person within paragraph (a); or</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(c) known to be a close associate of a person within […] paragraph [a].’</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Evidently from this definition, paying particularly close attention to (c) namely ‘a close associate’ of an individual with prominent public functions, there is a very expansive definition of PEP, and this will likely include many unsuspecting individuals. The effect of this definition is that if you are an individual who has prominent public functions, or you are a close associate of another who has been entrusted with public functions, then you may now be targeted by the UK authorities with a UWO. Alarmingly, there is no need for you to have committed a crime, nor to have been suspected of being involved in a crime, for these orders to apply to you.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specifically, when could a UWO apply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UK high court judge can give notice of a UWO if the judge is satisfied that it is likely that a foreign PEP (as defined above) is the owner of suspicious wealth in the UK beyond their means, and if all of the following provisions are met:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The value of the asset is greater than £50,000 (approx. AED 260,000).</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This legislation does not only target Foreign PEPs, but also where there are reasonable grounds to suspect any individual has been involved in serious crime.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for UWOs may be made without notice. This means that there is no requirement on the UK investigative authority to notify the target of a UWO that they, or their assets, have been made subject of a UWO.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What assets would this apply to?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UWO can be made against assets whose value is greater than £50,000. There is no need for the PEP to be the sole owner of the property whose value is over £50,000, nor is it of relevance if the property was purchased prior to the introduction of the UK legislation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is the effect?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Following the making of an order by the High Court, the Court may order an individual’s property to be frozen, which would preclude the subject of the order from dealing with the property. As these freezing orders may be made without notice, this means that an individual’s assets may be frozen prior to their knowledge of any order being made against them.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UWO will mandate the individual to explain, at a minimum:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The nature and extent of their interest in a particular property; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Explain how the property was obtained.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An explanation will be requested by the UK authorities where ‘there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property’.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Failing to Comply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Should the target of a UWO fail to comply with an order, or provide inaccurate or misleading information, then they will likely be subject to criminal sanction in the UK and may face a period of imprisonment and a financial penalty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Within the legislation, it is stated that a UWO could lead to criminal liability for a target if that individual fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements imposed by the Court against that individual. There is no definition of what a reasonable excuse would be in the legislation, and is a subjective requirement that would be decided in Court during the course of litigation.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-8014  alignright\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"330\" height=\"409\" /></strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A View from the East: Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These orders, whilst designed to tackle money laundering on a global scale, and limit the use of the UK jurisdiction for those who seek to gain from their ill-gotten earnings, may cause legal difficulties for individuals based in foreign jurisdictions who are subject to UWOs – such as the UAE and the wider GCC – due to a conflict of laws between this UK legislation and that of other countries. This conflict could lead to an individual’s adherence to UK legislation meaning that the individual would be liable to prosecution in other jurisdictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Taking the UAE as a representative example of the Middle East’s approach to confidential or private information, the UAE’s jurisdiction imposes very strict obligations on an individual’s use and disclosure of confidential information. It is a criminal offence, pursuant to the UAE’s Federal Law No. 3 of 1987, as amended by Federal Decree No. 7 of 2016 (UAE Penal Code) to disclose secret information. Secret information is afforded an expansive definition in the UAE Penal Code and it is commonly viewed any information that is confidential, i.e. not in the public domain, and that an individual possesses due to their employment or individual nature.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, due to the extraterritorial nature of the UAE Penal Code, should an individual commit a crime that is wholly or partly committed within the UAE, then that individual would be bound by the provisions of the Penal Code, and would be bound by provisions such as the disclosure of secret information. Specifically, should an individual be requested to provide secret information, such as the source of funds from a business entity, to the UK authorities, and that information relates to a UAE business or UAE based individual, then if the material or information is disclosed following a UWO in the UK, then in the UAE the individual may be subject to criminal prosecution for disclosing that exact information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There is no exception afforded under UAE domestic legislation that would permit an individual to disclose confidential information to a foreign investigative authority (such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, or National Security Agency). Should that individual disclose such information to the UK’s, or any other foreign State’s, investigative authority, then that individual may be liable to prosecution in the UAE in the same manner as though the disclosure had been made to a private individual or entity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prosecution for disclosing confidential information is a serious offence in the UAE, and one that may carry a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the stakes are very high when one is subject to an international request for judicial assistance, in any form, and it is for that reason and in order to assist with international criminal investigations that the UAE has entered into number multilateral and bilateral treaties aimed at assisting mutual judicial assistance requests. As with most international requests from law enforcement agencies, such requests should follow the usual diplomatic channels through the deployment of letters rogatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The difficulties for UAE individuals would not stop simply at the threat of criminal sanction, but also according to the UAE’s Labour Law, should an individual disclose the secrets of their employer, then the worker may be dismissed without notice and forfeit their entire severance pay.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Accordingly, the receipt of a UWO in the UK demanding that an individual provide information to the UAE authorities may conflict with the statutory protection relating to confidential information (or other laws) in a foreign jurisdiction, such as the UAE. This would lead to the precarious situation where an individual may face prosecution in the UK if he doesn’t comply with the UWO, but criminal prosecution in the UAE if he does comply.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe above example and review provides a very high-level overview of the competing laws that the UK’s UWOs may catch. Whilst the UK legislation will no doubt serve as an effective deterrent and useful tool in minimising global money laundering, and limiting the attraction of the UK for criminals, it may have unintended consequences for foreign nationals holding legitimate assets in the UK. Prior to making any response to a request for assistance, it is imperative that the recipient apprise themselves of all legal considerations to ensure that they are not jumping out of the frying pan, but straight into the fire.|<img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe UK legislature has recently introduced domestic legislation aimed at money launderers, potentially resulting in unintended consequences for foreign nationals who have legitimate assets in the UK. These orders demand the intended target provide information about the origin of their wealth, and refusal to disclose that information may render the target subject to criminal prosecution in the UK. However, if the foreign national does comply with the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO), then that individual may be subject to criminal prosecution in another State… a real Catch 22.\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Controversially, there is no need for a foreign national to be accused of money laundering, or any criminality whatsoever, before they could be made subject to a UWO, which would lead to the freezing of their assets, or, worse, criminal prosecution.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The following article introduces UWOs to our clients and examines how one must be careful in weighing up their rights and obligations in respect of the request of a foreign State’s investigative authorities as it may impact their rights in the UAE, and around the GCC.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is a UWO?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 31st January 2018, the UK introduced their latest attempt at stemming money laundering in the UK: Unexplained Wealth Orders. UWOs are civil investigative powers that are aimed at tackling those who use the UK as a destination for money laundering, or as a destination for those who wish to spend their ill-gotten gains.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs have been introduced in the UK at a time when London, and the UK, is facing scrutiny as a perceived hotbed of money laundering and revelry. A main proponent of UWOs has been Transparency International UK’s corruption taskforce, who, amongst others, have repeatedly called for greater investigative action to be taken in the UK against individuals and entities thought to have been complicit in corruption, and have led the drive to bring UWOs into action in UK law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs are given legal effect pursuant to the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Article 362A, as introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and is defined in the legislation as:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>‘An unexplained wealth order is an order requiring the respondent [i.e. the target of the order] to provide a statement—</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made,</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met),</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified.’</em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The clear advantage that UWOs provide for UK investigative authorities is that it is no longer necessary for the UK authorities to demonstrate that an individual has been subject to a conviction for a criminal offence (either in the UK or abroad) in order to obtain information and take measures against a specific property.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Two months after the introduction of the legislation, in March 2018, it would appear that the first orders are now being made. We have seen the first use of these orders, not on a UK national, but on an Asian politician who owns two properties, worth USD $30 million, in the UK. The specific identity of this individual has not been disclosed as matters are ongoing, and no further details are available publically.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This means that if an individual owns assets in the UK and they are made subject to a UWO, they will be forced to declare how they obtained this asset, and if they fail to do so they would be subject to criminal prosecution by the UK authorities. This may lead to foreign individuals being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to turn and no route of escape.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Why is it Relevant To You?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As will be apparent from the first orders made against the Asian politician, whilst UWOs do apply to individuals who are reasonably suspected of being involved in crime, the UWOs will also target politically exposed individuals who have not been subject to criminal conviction, or investigation, either in the UK or internationally.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The definition of a PEP, or Politically Exposed Person, varies from State to State, but for the purposes of the UK legislation, the legislators have defined PEPs as the following:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">‘(a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international body or by a State other than the UK or other [European Economic Area] State;</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(b) a family member of a person within paragraph (a); or</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(c) known to be a close associate of a person within […] paragraph [a].’</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Evidently from this definition, paying particularly close attention to (c) namely ‘a close associate’ of an individual with prominent public functions, there is a very expansive definition of PEP, and this will likely include many unsuspecting individuals. The effect of this definition is that if you are an individual who has prominent public functions, or you are a close associate of another who has been entrusted with public functions, then you may now be targeted by the UK authorities with a UWO. Alarmingly, there is no need for you to have committed a crime, nor to have been suspected of being involved in a crime, for these orders to apply to you.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specifically, when could a UWO apply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UK high court judge can give notice of a UWO if the judge is satisfied that it is likely that a foreign PEP (as defined above) is the owner of suspicious wealth in the UK beyond their means, and if all of the following provisions are met:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The value of the asset is greater than £50,000 (approx. AED 260,000).</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This legislation does not only target Foreign PEPs, but also where there are reasonable grounds to suspect any individual has been involved in serious crime.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for UWOs may be made without notice. This means that there is no requirement on the UK investigative authority to notify the target of a UWO that they, or their assets, have been made subject of a UWO.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What assets would this apply to?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UWO can be made against assets whose value is greater than £50,000. There is no need for the PEP to be the sole owner of the property whose value is over £50,000, nor is it of relevance if the property was purchased prior to the introduction of the UK legislation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is the effect?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Following the making of an order by the High Court, the Court may order an individual’s property to be frozen, which would preclude the subject of the order from dealing with the property. As these freezing orders may be made without notice, this means that an individual’s assets may be frozen prior to their knowledge of any order being made against them.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UWO will mandate the individual to explain, at a minimum:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The nature and extent of their interest in a particular property; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Explain how the property was obtained.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An explanation will be requested by the UK authorities where ‘there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property’.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Failing to Comply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Should the target of a UWO fail to comply with an order, or provide inaccurate or misleading information, then they will likely be subject to criminal sanction in the UK and may face a period of imprisonment and a financial penalty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Within the legislation, it is stated that a UWO could lead to criminal liability for a target if that individual fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements imposed by the Court against that individual. There is no definition of what a reasonable excuse would be in the legislation, and is a subjective requirement that would be decided in Court during the course of litigation.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-8014 alignright\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"330\" height=\"409\" /></strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A View from the East: Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These orders, whilst designed to tackle money laundering on a global scale, and limit the use of the UK jurisdiction for those who seek to gain from their ill-gotten earnings, may cause legal difficulties for individuals based in foreign jurisdictions who are subject to UWOs – such as the UAE and the wider GCC – due to a conflict of laws between this UK legislation and that of other countries. This conflict could lead to an individual’s adherence to UK legislation meaning that the individual would be liable to prosecution in other jurisdictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Taking the UAE as a representative example of the Middle East’s approach to confidential or private information, the UAE’s jurisdiction imposes very strict obligations on an individual’s use and disclosure of confidential information. It is a criminal offence, pursuant to the UAE’s Federal Law No. 3 of 1987, as amended by Federal Decree No. 7 of 2016 (UAE Penal Code) to disclose secret information. Secret information is afforded an expansive definition in the UAE Penal Code and it is commonly viewed any information that is confidential, i.e. not in the public domain, and that an individual possesses due to their employment or individual nature.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, due to the extraterritorial nature of the UAE Penal Code, should an individual commit a crime that is wholly or partly committed within the UAE, then that individual would be bound by the provisions of the Penal Code, and would be bound by provisions such as the disclosure of secret information. Specifically, should an individual be requested to provide secret information, such as the source of funds from a business entity, to the UK authorities, and that information relates to a UAE business or UAE based individual, then if the material or information is disclosed following a UWO in the UK, then in the UAE the individual may be subject to criminal prosecution for disclosing that exact information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There is no exception afforded under UAE domestic legislation that would permit an individual to disclose confidential information to a foreign investigative authority (such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, or National Security Agency). Should that individual disclose such information to the UK’s, or any other foreign State’s, investigative authority, then that individual may be liable to prosecution in the UAE in the same manner as though the disclosure had been made to a private individual or entity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prosecution for disclosing confidential information is a serious offence in the UAE, and one that may carry a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the stakes are very high when one is subject to an international request for judicial assistance, in any form, and it is for that reason and in order to assist with international criminal investigations that the UAE has entered into number multilateral and bilateral treaties aimed at assisting mutual judicial assistance requests. As with most international requests from law enforcement agencies, such requests should follow the usual diplomatic channels through the deployment of letters rogatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The difficulties for UAE individuals would not stop simply at the threat of criminal sanction, but also according to the UAE’s Labour Law, should an individual disclose the secrets of their employer, then the worker may be dismissed without notice and forfeit their entire severance pay.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Accordingly, the receipt of a UWO in the UK demanding that an individual provide information to the UAE authorities may conflict with the statutory protection relating to confidential information (or other laws) in a foreign jurisdiction, such as the UAE. This would lead to the precarious situation where an individual may face prosecution in the UK if he doesn’t comply with the UWO, but criminal prosecution in the UAE if he does comply.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe above example and review provides a very high-level overview of the competing laws that the UK’s UWOs may catch. Whilst the UK legislation will no doubt serve as an effective deterrent and useful tool in minimising global money laundering, and limiting the attraction of the UK for criminals, it may have unintended consequences for foreign nationals holding legitimate assets in the UK. Prior to making any response to a request for assistance, it is imperative that the recipient apprise themselves of all legal considerations to ensure that they are not jumping out of the frying pan, but straight into the fire.');

INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`)
VALUES
	(264813,25631,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(264814,25631,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(264815,25631,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(264816,25631,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(264817,25632,'PostID','7940'),
	(264818,25632,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(264819,25632,'PostTitle','Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
	(264820,25632,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(264821,25632,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
	(264822,25632,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
	(264823,25632,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
	(264824,25632,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(264825,25632,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(264826,25632,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(264827,25632,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(264828,25633,'PostID','7940'),
	(264829,25633,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(264830,25633,'PostTitle','Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
	(264831,25633,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(264832,25633,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
	(264833,25633,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
	(264834,25633,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
	(264835,25633,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(264836,25633,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(264837,25633,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(264838,25633,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(264839,25634,'PostID','7940'),
	(264840,25634,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(264841,25634,'PostTitle','Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
	(264842,25634,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(264843,25634,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
	(264844,25634,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
	(264845,25634,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
	(264846,25634,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(264847,25634,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(264848,25634,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(264849,25634,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(264850,25635,'PostID','7940'),
	(264851,25635,'PostTitle','Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
	(264852,25635,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(264853,25635,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(264854,25635,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
	(264855,25635,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
	(264856,25635,'MetaID','223314'),
	(264857,25635,'MetaKey','content'),
	(264858,25635,'MetaValueNew','<img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe UK legislature has recently introduced domestic legislation aimed at money launderers, potentially resulting in unintended consequences for foreign nationals who have legitimate assets in the UK. These orders demand the intended target provide information about the origin of their wealth, and refusal to disclose that information may render the target subject to criminal prosecution in the UK. However, if the foreign national does comply with the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO), then that individual may be subject to criminal prosecution in another State… a real Catch 22.\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Controversially, there is no need for a foreign national to be accused of money laundering, or any criminality whatsoever, before they could be made subject to a UWO, which would lead to the freezing of their assets, or, worse, criminal prosecution.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The following article introduces UWOs to our clients and examines how one must be careful in weighing up their rights and obligations in respect of the request of a foreign State’s investigative authorities as it may impact their rights in the UAE, and around the GCC.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is a UWO?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 31st January 2018, the UK introduced their latest attempt at stemming money laundering in the UK: Unexplained Wealth Orders. UWOs are civil investigative powers that are aimed at tackling those who use the UK as a destination for money laundering, or as a destination for those who wish to spend their ill-gotten gains.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs have been introduced in the UK at a time when London, and the UK, is facing scrutiny as a perceived hotbed of money laundering and revelry. A main proponent of UWOs has been Transparency International UK’s corruption taskforce, who, amongst others, have repeatedly called for greater investigative action to be taken in the UK against individuals and entities thought to have been complicit in corruption, and have led the drive to bring UWOs into action in UK law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs are given legal effect pursuant to the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Article 362A, as introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and is defined in the legislation as:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>‘An unexplained wealth order is an order requiring the respondent [i.e. the target of the order] to provide a statement—</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made,</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met),</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified.’</em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The clear advantage that UWOs provide for UK investigative authorities is that it is no longer necessary for the UK authorities to demonstrate that an individual has been subject to a conviction for a criminal offence (either in the UK or abroad) in order to obtain information and take measures against a specific property.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Two months after the introduction of the legislation, in March 2018, it would appear that the first orders are now being made. We have seen the first use of these orders, not on a UK national, but on an Asian politician who owns two properties, worth USD $30 million, in the UK. The specific identity of this individual has not been disclosed as matters are ongoing, and no further details are available publically.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This means that if an individual owns assets in the UK and they are made subject to a UWO, they will be forced to declare how they obtained this asset, and if they fail to do so they would be subject to criminal prosecution by the UK authorities. This may lead to foreign individuals being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to turn and no route of escape.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Why is it Relevant To You?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As will be apparent from the first orders made against the Asian politician, whilst UWOs do apply to individuals who are reasonably suspected of being involved in crime, the UWOs will also target politically exposed individuals who have not been subject to criminal conviction, or investigation, either in the UK or internationally.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The definition of a PEP, or Politically Exposed Person, varies from State to State, but for the purposes of the UK legislation, the legislators have defined PEPs as the following:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">‘(a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international body or by a State other than the UK or other [European Economic Area] State;</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(b) a family member of a person within paragraph (a); or</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(c) known to be a close associate of a person within […] paragraph [a].’</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Evidently from this definition, paying particularly close attention to (c) namely ‘a close associate’ of an individual with prominent public functions, there is a very expansive definition of PEP, and this will likely include many unsuspecting individuals. The effect of this definition is that if you are an individual who has prominent public functions, or you are a close associate of another who has been entrusted with public functions, then you may now be targeted by the UK authorities with a UWO. Alarmingly, there is no need for you to have committed a crime, nor to have been suspected of being involved in a crime, for these orders to apply to you.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specifically, when could a UWO apply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UK high court judge can give notice of a UWO if the judge is satisfied that it is likely that a foreign PEP (as defined above) is the owner of suspicious wealth in the UK beyond their means, and if all of the following provisions are met:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The value of the asset is greater than £50,000 (approx. AED 260,000).</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This legislation does not only target Foreign PEPs, but also where there are reasonable grounds to suspect any individual has been involved in serious crime.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for UWOs may be made without notice. This means that there is no requirement on the UK investigative authority to notify the target of a UWO that they, or their assets, have been made subject of a UWO.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What assets would this apply to?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UWO can be made against assets whose value is greater than £50,000. There is no need for the PEP to be the sole owner of the property whose value is over £50,000, nor is it of relevance if the property was purchased prior to the introduction of the UK legislation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is the effect?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Following the making of an order by the High Court, the Court may order an individual’s property to be frozen, which would preclude the subject of the order from dealing with the property. As these freezing orders may be made without notice, this means that an individual’s assets may be frozen prior to their knowledge of any order being made against them.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UWO will mandate the individual to explain, at a minimum:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The nature and extent of their interest in a particular property; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Explain how the property was obtained.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An explanation will be requested by the UK authorities where ‘there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property’.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Failing to Comply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Should the target of a UWO fail to comply with an order, or provide inaccurate or misleading information, then they will likely be subject to criminal sanction in the UK and may face a period of imprisonment and a financial penalty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Within the legislation, it is stated that a UWO could lead to criminal liability for a target if that individual fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements imposed by the Court against that individual. There is no definition of what a reasonable excuse would be in the legislation, and is a subjective requirement that would be decided in Court during the course of litigation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-8014 alignright\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"330\" height=\"409\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A View from the East: Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These orders, whilst designed to tackle money laundering on a global scale, and limit the use of the UK jurisdiction for those who seek to gain from their ill-gotten earnings, may cause legal difficulties for individuals based in foreign jurisdictions who are subject to UWOs – such as the UAE and the wider GCC – due to a conflict of laws between this UK legislation and that of other countries. This conflict could lead to an individual’s adherence to UK legislation meaning that the individual would be liable to prosecution in other jurisdictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Taking the UAE as a representative example of the Middle East’s approach to confidential or private information, the UAE’s jurisdiction imposes very strict obligations on an individual’s use and disclosure of confidential information. It is a criminal offence, pursuant to the UAE’s Federal Law No. 3 of 1987, as amended by Federal Decree No. 7 of 2016 (UAE Penal Code) to disclose secret information. Secret information is afforded an expansive definition in the UAE Penal Code and it is commonly viewed any information that is confidential, i.e. not in the public domain, and that an individual possesses due to their employment or individual nature.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, due to the extraterritorial nature of the UAE Penal Code, should an individual commit a crime that is wholly or partly committed within the UAE, then that individual would be bound by the provisions of the Penal Code, and would be bound by provisions such as the disclosure of secret information. Specifically, should an individual be requested to provide secret information, such as the source of funds from a business entity, to the UK authorities, and that information relates to a UAE business or UAE based individual, then if the material or information is disclosed following a UWO in the UK, then in the UAE the individual may be subject to criminal prosecution for disclosing that exact information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There is no exception afforded under UAE domestic legislation that would permit an individual to disclose confidential information to a foreign investigative authority (such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, or National Security Agency). Should that individual disclose such information to the UK’s, or any other foreign State’s, investigative authority, then that individual may be liable to prosecution in the UAE in the same manner as though the disclosure had been made to a private individual or entity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prosecution for disclosing confidential information is a serious offence in the UAE, and one that may carry a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the stakes are very high when one is subject to an international request for judicial assistance, in any form, and it is for that reason and in order to assist with international criminal investigations that the UAE has entered into number multilateral and bilateral treaties aimed at assisting mutual judicial assistance requests. As with most international requests from law enforcement agencies, such requests should follow the usual diplomatic channels through the deployment of letters rogatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The difficulties for UAE individuals would not stop simply at the threat of criminal sanction, but also according to the UAE’s Labour Law, should an individual disclose the secrets of their employer, then the worker may be dismissed without notice and forfeit their entire severance pay.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Accordingly, the receipt of a UWO in the UK demanding that an individual provide information to the UAE authorities may conflict with the statutory protection relating to confidential information (or other laws) in a foreign jurisdiction, such as the UAE. This would lead to the precarious situation where an individual may face prosecution in the UK if he doesn’t comply with the UWO, but criminal prosecution in the UAE if he does comply.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe above example and review provides a very high-level overview of the competing laws that the UK’s UWOs may catch. Whilst the UK legislation will no doubt serve as an effective deterrent and useful tool in minimising global money laundering, and limiting the attraction of the UK for criminals, it may have unintended consequences for foreign nationals holding legitimate assets in the UK. Prior to making any response to a request for assistance, it is imperative that the recipient apprise themselves of all legal considerations to ensure that they are not jumping out of the frying pan, but straight into the fire.'),
	(264859,25635,'MetaValueOld','<img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe UK legislature has recently introduced domestic legislation aimed at money launderers, potentially resulting in unintended consequences for foreign nationals who have legitimate assets in the UK. These orders demand the intended target provide information about the origin of their wealth, and refusal to disclose that information may render the target subject to criminal prosecution in the UK. However, if the foreign national does comply with the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO), then that individual may be subject to criminal prosecution in another State… a real Catch 22.\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Controversially, there is no need for a foreign national to be accused of money laundering, or any criminality whatsoever, before they could be made subject to a UWO, which would lead to the freezing of their assets, or, worse, criminal prosecution.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The following article introduces UWOs to our clients and examines how one must be careful in weighing up their rights and obligations in respect of the request of a foreign State’s investigative authorities as it may impact their rights in the UAE, and around the GCC.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is a UWO?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 31st January 2018, the UK introduced their latest attempt at stemming money laundering in the UK: Unexplained Wealth Orders. UWOs are civil investigative powers that are aimed at tackling those who use the UK as a destination for money laundering, or as a destination for those who wish to spend their ill-gotten gains.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs have been introduced in the UK at a time when London, and the UK, is facing scrutiny as a perceived hotbed of money laundering and revelry. A main proponent of UWOs has been Transparency International UK’s corruption taskforce, who, amongst others, have repeatedly called for greater investigative action to be taken in the UK against individuals and entities thought to have been complicit in corruption, and have led the drive to bring UWOs into action in UK law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs are given legal effect pursuant to the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Article 362A, as introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and is defined in the legislation as:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>‘An unexplained wealth order is an order requiring the respondent [i.e. the target of the order] to provide a statement—</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made,</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met),</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified.’</em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The clear advantage that UWOs provide for UK investigative authorities is that it is no longer necessary for the UK authorities to demonstrate that an individual has been subject to a conviction for a criminal offence (either in the UK or abroad) in order to obtain information and take measures against a specific property.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Two months after the introduction of the legislation, in March 2018, it would appear that the first orders are now being made. We have seen the first use of these orders, not on a UK national, but on an Asian politician who owns two properties, worth USD $30 million, in the UK. The specific identity of this individual has not been disclosed as matters are ongoing, and no further details are available publically.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This means that if an individual owns assets in the UK and they are made subject to a UWO, they will be forced to declare how they obtained this asset, and if they fail to do so they would be subject to criminal prosecution by the UK authorities. This may lead to foreign individuals being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to turn and no route of escape.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Why is it Relevant To You?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As will be apparent from the first orders made against the Asian politician, whilst UWOs do apply to individuals who are reasonably suspected of being involved in crime, the UWOs will also target politically exposed individuals who have not been subject to criminal conviction, or investigation, either in the UK or internationally.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The definition of a PEP, or Politically Exposed Person, varies from State to State, but for the purposes of the UK legislation, the legislators have defined PEPs as the following:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">‘(a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international body or by a State other than the UK or other [European Economic Area] State;</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(b) a family member of a person within paragraph (a); or</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(c) known to be a close associate of a person within […] paragraph [a].’</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Evidently from this definition, paying particularly close attention to (c) namely ‘a close associate’ of an individual with prominent public functions, there is a very expansive definition of PEP, and this will likely include many unsuspecting individuals. The effect of this definition is that if you are an individual who has prominent public functions, or you are a close associate of another who has been entrusted with public functions, then you may now be targeted by the UK authorities with a UWO. Alarmingly, there is no need for you to have committed a crime, nor to have been suspected of being involved in a crime, for these orders to apply to you.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specifically, when could a UWO apply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UK high court judge can give notice of a UWO if the judge is satisfied that it is likely that a foreign PEP (as defined above) is the owner of suspicious wealth in the UK beyond their means, and if all of the following provisions are met:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The value of the asset is greater than £50,000 (approx. AED 260,000).</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This legislation does not only target Foreign PEPs, but also where there are reasonable grounds to suspect any individual has been involved in serious crime.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for UWOs may be made without notice. This means that there is no requirement on the UK investigative authority to notify the target of a UWO that they, or their assets, have been made subject of a UWO.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What assets would this apply to?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UWO can be made against assets whose value is greater than £50,000. There is no need for the PEP to be the sole owner of the property whose value is over £50,000, nor is it of relevance if the property was purchased prior to the introduction of the UK legislation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is the effect?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Following the making of an order by the High Court, the Court may order an individual’s property to be frozen, which would preclude the subject of the order from dealing with the property. As these freezing orders may be made without notice, this means that an individual’s assets may be frozen prior to their knowledge of any order being made against them.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UWO will mandate the individual to explain, at a minimum:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The nature and extent of their interest in a particular property; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Explain how the property was obtained.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An explanation will be requested by the UK authorities where ‘there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property’.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Failing to Comply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Should the target of a UWO fail to comply with an order, or provide inaccurate or misleading information, then they will likely be subject to criminal sanction in the UK and may face a period of imprisonment and a financial penalty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Within the legislation, it is stated that a UWO could lead to criminal liability for a target if that individual fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements imposed by the Court against that individual. There is no definition of what a reasonable excuse would be in the legislation, and is a subjective requirement that would be decided in Court during the course of litigation.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-8014 alignright\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"330\" height=\"409\" /></strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A View from the East: Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These orders, whilst designed to tackle money laundering on a global scale, and limit the use of the UK jurisdiction for those who seek to gain from their ill-gotten earnings, may cause legal difficulties for individuals based in foreign jurisdictions who are subject to UWOs – such as the UAE and the wider GCC – due to a conflict of laws between this UK legislation and that of other countries. This conflict could lead to an individual’s adherence to UK legislation meaning that the individual would be liable to prosecution in other jurisdictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Taking the UAE as a representative example of the Middle East’s approach to confidential or private information, the UAE’s jurisdiction imposes very strict obligations on an individual’s use and disclosure of confidential information. It is a criminal offence, pursuant to the UAE’s Federal Law No. 3 of 1987, as amended by Federal Decree No. 7 of 2016 (UAE Penal Code) to disclose secret information. Secret information is afforded an expansive definition in the UAE Penal Code and it is commonly viewed any information that is confidential, i.e. not in the public domain, and that an individual possesses due to their employment or individual nature.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, due to the extraterritorial nature of the UAE Penal Code, should an individual commit a crime that is wholly or partly committed within the UAE, then that individual would be bound by the provisions of the Penal Code, and would be bound by provisions such as the disclosure of secret information. Specifically, should an individual be requested to provide secret information, such as the source of funds from a business entity, to the UK authorities, and that information relates to a UAE business or UAE based individual, then if the material or information is disclosed following a UWO in the UK, then in the UAE the individual may be subject to criminal prosecution for disclosing that exact information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There is no exception afforded under UAE domestic legislation that would permit an individual to disclose confidential information to a foreign investigative authority (such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, or National Security Agency). Should that individual disclose such information to the UK’s, or any other foreign State’s, investigative authority, then that individual may be liable to prosecution in the UAE in the same manner as though the disclosure had been made to a private individual or entity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prosecution for disclosing confidential information is a serious offence in the UAE, and one that may carry a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the stakes are very high when one is subject to an international request for judicial assistance, in any form, and it is for that reason and in order to assist with international criminal investigations that the UAE has entered into number multilateral and bilateral treaties aimed at assisting mutual judicial assistance requests. As with most international requests from law enforcement agencies, such requests should follow the usual diplomatic channels through the deployment of letters rogatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The difficulties for UAE individuals would not stop simply at the threat of criminal sanction, but also according to the UAE’s Labour Law, should an individual disclose the secrets of their employer, then the worker may be dismissed without notice and forfeit their entire severance pay.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Accordingly, the receipt of a UWO in the UK demanding that an individual provide information to the UAE authorities may conflict with the statutory protection relating to confidential information (or other laws) in a foreign jurisdiction, such as the UAE. This would lead to the precarious situation where an individual may face prosecution in the UK if he doesn’t comply with the UWO, but criminal prosecution in the UAE if he does comply.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe above example and review provides a very high-level overview of the competing laws that the UK’s UWOs may catch. Whilst the UK legislation will no doubt serve as an effective deterrent and useful tool in minimising global money laundering, and limiting the attraction of the UK for criminals, it may have unintended consequences for foreign nationals holding legitimate assets in the UK. Prior to making any response to a request for assistance, it is imperative that the recipient apprise themselves of all legal considerations to ensure that they are not jumping out of the frying pan, but straight into the fire.'),
	(264860,25635,'MetaLink','content'),
	(264861,25635,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
	(264862,25635,'ReportText','<img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe UK legislature has recently introduced domestic legislation aimed at money launderers, potentially resulting in unintended consequences for foreign nationals who have legitimate assets in the UK. These orders demand the intended target provide information about the origin of their wealth, and refusal to disclose that information may render the target subject to criminal prosecution in the UK. However, if the foreign national does comply with the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO), then that individual may be subject to criminal prosecution in another State… a real Catch 22.\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Controversially, there is no need for a foreign national to be accused of money laundering, or any criminality whatsoever, before they could be made subject to a UWO, which would lead to the freezing of their assets, or, worse, criminal prosecution.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The following article introduces UWOs to our clients and examines how one must be careful in weighing up their rights and obligations in respect of the request of a foreign State’s investigative authorities as it may impact their rights in the UAE, and around the GCC.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is a UWO?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 31st January 2018, the UK introduced their latest attempt at stemming money laundering in the UK: Unexplained Wealth Orders. UWOs are civil investigative powers that are aimed at tackling those who use the UK as a destination for money laundering, or as a destination for those who wish to spend their ill-gotten gains.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs have been introduced in the UK at a time when London, and the UK, is facing scrutiny as a perceived hotbed of money laundering and revelry. A main proponent of UWOs has been Transparency International UK’s corruption taskforce, who, amongst others, have repeatedly called for greater investigative action to be taken in the UK against individuals and entities thought to have been complicit in corruption, and have led the drive to bring UWOs into action in UK law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs are given legal effect pursuant to the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Article 362A, as introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and is defined in the legislation as:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>‘An unexplained wealth order is an order requiring the respondent [i.e. the target of the order] to provide a statement—</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made,</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met),</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified.’</em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The clear advantage that UWOs provide for UK investigative authorities is that it is no longer necessary for the UK authorities to demonstrate that an individual has been subject to a conviction for a criminal offence (either in the UK or abroad) in order to obtain information and take measures against a specific property.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Two months after the introduction of the legislation, in March 2018, it would appear that the first orders are now being made. We have seen the first use of these orders, not on a UK national, but on an Asian politician who owns two properties, worth USD $30 million, in the UK. The specific identity of this individual has not been disclosed as matters are ongoing, and no further details are available publically.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This means that if an individual owns assets in the UK and they are made subject to a UWO, they will be forced to declare how they obtained this asset, and if they fail to do so they would be subject to criminal prosecution by the UK authorities. This may lead to foreign individuals being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to turn and no route of escape.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Why is it Relevant To You?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As will be apparent from the first orders made against the Asian politician, whilst UWOs do apply to individuals who are reasonably suspected of being involved in crime, the UWOs will also target politically exposed individuals who have not been subject to criminal conviction, or investigation, either in the UK or internationally.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The definition of a PEP, or Politically Exposed Person, varies from State to State, but for the purposes of the UK legislation, the legislators have defined PEPs as the following:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">‘(a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international body or by a State other than the UK or other [European Economic Area] State;</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(b) a family member of a person within paragraph (a); or</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(c) known to be a close associate of a person within […] paragraph [a].’</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Evidently from this definition, paying particularly close attention to (c) namely ‘a close associate’ of an individual with prominent public functions, there is a very expansive definition of PEP, and this will likely include many unsuspecting individuals. The effect of this definition is that if you are an individual who has prominent public functions, or you are a close associate of another who has been entrusted with public functions, then you may now be targeted by the UK authorities with a UWO. Alarmingly, there is no need for you to have committed a crime, nor to have been suspected of being involved in a crime, for these orders to apply to you.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specifically, when could a UWO apply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UK high court judge can give notice of a UWO if the judge is satisfied that it is likely that a foreign PEP (as defined above) is the owner of suspicious wealth in the UK beyond their means, and if all of the following provisions are met:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The value of the asset is greater than £50,000 (approx. AED 260,000).</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This legislation does not only target Foreign PEPs, but also where there are reasonable grounds to suspect any individual has been involved in serious crime.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for UWOs may be made without notice. This means that there is no requirement on the UK investigative authority to notify the target of a UWO that they, or their assets, have been made subject of a UWO.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What assets would this apply to?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UWO can be made against assets whose value is greater than £50,000. There is no need for the PEP to be the sole owner of the property whose value is over £50,000, nor is it of relevance if the property was purchased prior to the introduction of the UK legislation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is the effect?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Following the making of an order by the High Court, the Court may order an individual’s property to be frozen, which would preclude the subject of the order from dealing with the property. As these freezing orders may be made without notice, this means that an individual’s assets may be frozen prior to their knowledge of any order being made against them.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UWO will mandate the individual to explain, at a minimum:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The nature and extent of their interest in a particular property; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Explain how the property was obtained.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An explanation will be requested by the UK authorities where ‘there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property’.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Failing to Comply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Should the target of a UWO fail to comply with an order, or provide inaccurate or misleading information, then they will likely be subject to criminal sanction in the UK and may face a period of imprisonment and a financial penalty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Within the legislation, it is stated that a UWO could lead to criminal liability for a target if that individual fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements imposed by the Court against that individual. There is no definition of what a reasonable excuse would be in the legislation, and is a subjective requirement that would be decided in Court during the course of litigation.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-8014 alignright\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"330\" height=\"409\" /></strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A View from the East: Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These orders, whilst designed to tackle money laundering on a global scale, and limit the use of the UK jurisdiction for those who seek to gain from their ill-gotten earnings, may cause legal difficulties for individuals based in foreign jurisdictions who are subject to UWOs – such as the UAE and the wider GCC – due to a conflict of laws between this UK legislation and that of other countries. This conflict could lead to an individual’s adherence to UK legislation meaning that the individual would be liable to prosecution in other jurisdictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Taking the UAE as a representative example of the Middle East’s approach to confidential or private information, the UAE’s jurisdiction imposes very strict obligations on an individual’s use and disclosure of confidential information. It is a criminal offence, pursuant to the UAE’s Federal Law No. 3 of 1987, as amended by Federal Decree No. 7 of 2016 (UAE Penal Code) to disclose secret information. Secret information is afforded an expansive definition in the UAE Penal Code and it is commonly viewed any information that is confidential, i.e. not in the public domain, and that an individual possesses due to their employment or individual nature.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, due to the extraterritorial nature of the UAE Penal Code, should an individual commit a crime that is wholly or partly committed within the UAE, then that individual would be bound by the provisions of the Penal Code, and would be bound by provisions such as the disclosure of secret information. Specifically, should an individual be requested to provide secret information, such as the source of funds from a business entity, to the UK authorities, and that information relates to a UAE business or UAE based individual, then if the material or information is disclosed following a UWO in the UK, then in the UAE the individual may be subject to criminal prosecution for disclosing that exact information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There is no exception afforded under UAE domestic legislation that would permit an individual to disclose confidential information to a foreign investigative authority (such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, or National Security Agency). Should that individual disclose such information to the UK’s, or any other foreign State’s, investigative authority, then that individual may be liable to prosecution in the UAE in the same manner as though the disclosure had been made to a private individual or entity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prosecution for disclosing confidential information is a serious offence in the UAE, and one that may carry a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the stakes are very high when one is subject to an international request for judicial assistance, in any form, and it is for that reason and in order to assist with international criminal investigations that the UAE has entered into number multilateral and bilateral treaties aimed at assisting mutual judicial assistance requests. As with most international requests from law enforcement agencies, such requests should follow the usual diplomatic channels through the deployment of letters rogatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The difficulties for UAE individuals would not stop simply at the threat of criminal sanction, but also according to the UAE’s Labour Law, should an individual disclose the secrets of their employer, then the worker may be dismissed without notice and forfeit their entire severance pay.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Accordingly, the receipt of a UWO in the UK demanding that an individual provide information to the UAE authorities may conflict with the statutory protection relating to confidential information (or other laws) in a foreign jurisdiction, such as the UAE. This would lead to the precarious situation where an individual may face prosecution in the UK if he doesn’t comply with the UWO, but criminal prosecution in the UAE if he does comply.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe above example and review provides a very high-level overview of the competing laws that the UK’s UWOs may catch. Whilst the UK legislation will no doubt serve as an effective deterrent and useful tool in minimising global money laundering, and limiting the attraction of the UK for criminals, it may have unintended consequences for foreign nationals holding legitimate assets in the UK. Prior to making any response to a request for assistance, it is imperative that the recipient apprise themselves of all legal considerations to ensure that they are not jumping out of the frying pan, but straight into the fire.|<img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe UK legislature has recently introduced domestic legislation aimed at money launderers, potentially resulting in unintended consequences for foreign nationals who have legitimate assets in the UK. These orders demand the intended target provide information about the origin of their wealth, and refusal to disclose that information may render the target subject to criminal prosecution in the UK. However, if the foreign national does comply with the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO), then that individual may be subject to criminal prosecution in another State… a real Catch 22.\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Controversially, there is no need for a foreign national to be accused of money laundering, or any criminality whatsoever, before they could be made subject to a UWO, which would lead to the freezing of their assets, or, worse, criminal prosecution.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The following article introduces UWOs to our clients and examines how one must be careful in weighing up their rights and obligations in respect of the request of a foreign State’s investigative authorities as it may impact their rights in the UAE, and around the GCC.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is a UWO?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 31st January 2018, the UK introduced their latest attempt at stemming money laundering in the UK: Unexplained Wealth Orders. UWOs are civil investigative powers that are aimed at tackling those who use the UK as a destination for money laundering, or as a destination for those who wish to spend their ill-gotten gains.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs have been introduced in the UK at a time when London, and the UK, is facing scrutiny as a perceived hotbed of money laundering and revelry. A main proponent of UWOs has been Transparency International UK’s corruption taskforce, who, amongst others, have repeatedly called for greater investigative action to be taken in the UK against individuals and entities thought to have been complicit in corruption, and have led the drive to bring UWOs into action in UK law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs are given legal effect pursuant to the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Article 362A, as introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and is defined in the legislation as:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>‘An unexplained wealth order is an order requiring the respondent [i.e. the target of the order] to provide a statement—</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made,</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met),</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified.’</em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The clear advantage that UWOs provide for UK investigative authorities is that it is no longer necessary for the UK authorities to demonstrate that an individual has been subject to a conviction for a criminal offence (either in the UK or abroad) in order to obtain information and take measures against a specific property.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Two months after the introduction of the legislation, in March 2018, it would appear that the first orders are now being made. We have seen the first use of these orders, not on a UK national, but on an Asian politician who owns two properties, worth USD $30 million, in the UK. The specific identity of this individual has not been disclosed as matters are ongoing, and no further details are available publically.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This means that if an individual owns assets in the UK and they are made subject to a UWO, they will be forced to declare how they obtained this asset, and if they fail to do so they would be subject to criminal prosecution by the UK authorities. This may lead to foreign individuals being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to turn and no route of escape.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Why is it Relevant To You?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As will be apparent from the first orders made against the Asian politician, whilst UWOs do apply to individuals who are reasonably suspected of being involved in crime, the UWOs will also target politically exposed individuals who have not been subject to criminal conviction, or investigation, either in the UK or internationally.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The definition of a PEP, or Politically Exposed Person, varies from State to State, but for the purposes of the UK legislation, the legislators have defined PEPs as the following:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">‘(a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international body or by a State other than the UK or other [European Economic Area] State;</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(b) a family member of a person within paragraph (a); or</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(c) known to be a close associate of a person within […] paragraph [a].’</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Evidently from this definition, paying particularly close attention to (c) namely ‘a close associate’ of an individual with prominent public functions, there is a very expansive definition of PEP, and this will likely include many unsuspecting individuals. The effect of this definition is that if you are an individual who has prominent public functions, or you are a close associate of another who has been entrusted with public functions, then you may now be targeted by the UK authorities with a UWO. Alarmingly, there is no need for you to have committed a crime, nor to have been suspected of being involved in a crime, for these orders to apply to you.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specifically, when could a UWO apply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UK high court judge can give notice of a UWO if the judge is satisfied that it is likely that a foreign PEP (as defined above) is the owner of suspicious wealth in the UK beyond their means, and if all of the following provisions are met:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The value of the asset is greater than £50,000 (approx. AED 260,000).</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This legislation does not only target Foreign PEPs, but also where there are reasonable grounds to suspect any individual has been involved in serious crime.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for UWOs may be made without notice. This means that there is no requirement on the UK investigative authority to notify the target of a UWO that they, or their assets, have been made subject of a UWO.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What assets would this apply to?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UWO can be made against assets whose value is greater than £50,000. There is no need for the PEP to be the sole owner of the property whose value is over £50,000, nor is it of relevance if the property was purchased prior to the introduction of the UK legislation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is the effect?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Following the making of an order by the High Court, the Court may order an individual’s property to be frozen, which would preclude the subject of the order from dealing with the property. As these freezing orders may be made without notice, this means that an individual’s assets may be frozen prior to their knowledge of any order being made against them.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UWO will mandate the individual to explain, at a minimum:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The nature and extent of their interest in a particular property; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Explain how the property was obtained.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An explanation will be requested by the UK authorities where ‘there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property’.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Failing to Comply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Should the target of a UWO fail to comply with an order, or provide inaccurate or misleading information, then they will likely be subject to criminal sanction in the UK and may face a period of imprisonment and a financial penalty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Within the legislation, it is stated that a UWO could lead to criminal liability for a target if that individual fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements imposed by the Court against that individual. There is no definition of what a reasonable excuse would be in the legislation, and is a subjective requirement that would be decided in Court during the course of litigation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-8014 alignright\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"330\" height=\"409\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A View from the East: Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These orders, whilst designed to tackle money laundering on a global scale, and limit the use of the UK jurisdiction for those who seek to gain from their ill-gotten earnings, may cause legal difficulties for individuals based in foreign jurisdictions who are subject to UWOs – such as the UAE and the wider GCC – due to a conflict of laws between this UK legislation and that of other countries. This conflict could lead to an individual’s adherence to UK legislation meaning that the individual would be liable to prosecution in other jurisdictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Taking the UAE as a representative example of the Middle East’s approach to confidential or private information, the UAE’s jurisdiction imposes very strict obligations on an individual’s use and disclosure of confidential information. It is a criminal offence, pursuant to the UAE’s Federal Law No. 3 of 1987, as amended by Federal Decree No. 7 of 2016 (UAE Penal Code) to disclose secret information. Secret information is afforded an expansive definition in the UAE Penal Code and it is commonly viewed any information that is confidential, i.e. not in the public domain, and that an individual possesses due to their employment or individual nature.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, due to the extraterritorial nature of the UAE Penal Code, should an individual commit a crime that is wholly or partly committed within the UAE, then that individual would be bound by the provisions of the Penal Code, and would be bound by provisions such as the disclosure of secret information. Specifically, should an individual be requested to provide secret information, such as the source of funds from a business entity, to the UK authorities, and that information relates to a UAE business or UAE based individual, then if the material or information is disclosed following a UWO in the UK, then in the UAE the individual may be subject to criminal prosecution for disclosing that exact information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There is no exception afforded under UAE domestic legislation that would permit an individual to disclose confidential information to a foreign investigative authority (such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, or National Security Agency). Should that individual disclose such information to the UK’s, or any other foreign State’s, investigative authority, then that individual may be liable to prosecution in the UAE in the same manner as though the disclosure had been made to a private individual or entity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prosecution for disclosing confidential information is a serious offence in the UAE, and one that may carry a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the stakes are very high when one is subject to an international request for judicial assistance, in any form, and it is for that reason and in order to assist with international criminal investigations that the UAE has entered into number multilateral and bilateral treaties aimed at assisting mutual judicial assistance requests. As with most international requests from law enforcement agencies, such requests should follow the usual diplomatic channels through the deployment of letters rogatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The difficulties for UAE individuals would not stop simply at the threat of criminal sanction, but also according to the UAE’s Labour Law, should an individual disclose the secrets of their employer, then the worker may be dismissed without notice and forfeit their entire severance pay.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Accordingly, the receipt of a UWO in the UK demanding that an individual provide information to the UAE authorities may conflict with the statutory protection relating to confidential information (or other laws) in a foreign jurisdiction, such as the UAE. This would lead to the precarious situation where an individual may face prosecution in the UK if he doesn’t comply with the UWO, but criminal prosecution in the UAE if he does comply.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe above example and review provides a very high-level overview of the competing laws that the UK’s UWOs may catch. Whilst the UK legislation will no doubt serve as an effective deterrent and useful tool in minimising global money laundering, and limiting the attraction of the UK for criminals, it may have unintended consequences for foreign nationals holding legitimate assets in the UK. Prior to making any response to a request for assistance, it is imperative that the recipient apprise themselves of all legal considerations to ensure that they are not jumping out of the frying pan, but straight into the fire.'),
	(264863,25635,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(264864,25635,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(264865,25635,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(264866,25635,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(264867,25636,'PostID','7940'),
	(264868,25636,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(264869,25636,'PostTitle','Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
	(264870,25636,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(264871,25636,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
	(264872,25636,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
	(264873,25636,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
	(264874,25636,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(264875,25636,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(264876,25636,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(264877,25636,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265020,25649,'MetaValueOld','<img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe UK legislature has recently introduced domestic legislation aimed at money launderers, potentially resulting in unintended consequences for foreign nationals who have legitimate assets in the UK. These orders demand the intended target provide information about the origin of their wealth, and refusal to disclose that information may render the target subject to criminal prosecution in the UK. However, if the foreign national does comply with the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO), then that individual may be subject to criminal prosecution in another State… a real Catch 22.\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Controversially, there is no need for a foreign national to be accused of money laundering, or any criminality whatsoever, before they could be made subject to a UWO, which would lead to the freezing of their assets, or, worse, criminal prosecution.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The following article introduces UWOs to our clients and examines how one must be careful in weighing up their rights and obligations in respect of the request of a foreign State’s investigative authorities as it may impact their rights in the UAE, and around the GCC.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is a UWO?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 31st January 2018, the UK introduced their latest attempt at stemming money laundering in the UK: Unexplained Wealth Orders. UWOs are civil investigative powers that are aimed at tackling those who use the UK as a destination for money laundering, or as a destination for those who wish to spend their ill-gotten gains.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs have been introduced in the UK at a time when London, and the UK, is facing scrutiny as a perceived hotbed of money laundering and revelry. A main proponent of UWOs has been Transparency International UK’s corruption taskforce, who, amongst others, have repeatedly called for greater investigative action to be taken in the UK against individuals and entities thought to have been complicit in corruption, and have led the drive to bring UWOs into action in UK law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs are given legal effect pursuant to the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Article 362A, as introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and is defined in the legislation as:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>‘An unexplained wealth order is an order requiring the respondent [i.e. the target of the order] to provide a statement—</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made,</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met),</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified.’</em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The clear advantage that UWOs provide for UK investigative authorities is that it is no longer necessary for the UK authorities to demonstrate that an individual has been subject to a conviction for a criminal offence (either in the UK or abroad) in order to obtain information and take measures against a specific property.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Two months after the introduction of the legislation, in March 2018, it would appear that the first orders are now being made. We have seen the first use of these orders, not on a UK national, but on an Asian politician who owns two properties, worth USD $30 million, in the UK. The specific identity of this individual has not been disclosed as matters are ongoing, and no further details are available publically.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This means that if an individual owns assets in the UK and they are made subject to a UWO, they will be forced to declare how they obtained this asset, and if they fail to do so they would be subject to criminal prosecution by the UK authorities. This may lead to foreign individuals being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to turn and no route of escape.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Why is it Relevant To You?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As will be apparent from the first orders made against the Asian politician, whilst UWOs do apply to individuals who are reasonably suspected of being involved in crime, the UWOs will also target politically exposed individuals who have not been subject to criminal conviction, or investigation, either in the UK or internationally.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The definition of a PEP, or Politically Exposed Person, varies from State to State, but for the purposes of the UK legislation, the legislators have defined PEPs as the following:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">‘(a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international body or by a State other than the UK or other [European Economic Area] State;</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(b) a family member of a person within paragraph (a); or</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(c) known to be a close associate of a person within […] paragraph [a].’</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Evidently from this definition, paying particularly close attention to (c) namely ‘a close associate’ of an individual with prominent public functions, there is a very expansive definition of PEP, and this will likely include many unsuspecting individuals. The effect of this definition is that if you are an individual who has prominent public functions, or you are a close associate of another who has been entrusted with public functions, then you may now be targeted by the UK authorities with a UWO. Alarmingly, there is no need for you to have committed a crime, nor to have been suspected of being involved in a crime, for these orders to apply to you.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specifically, when could a UWO apply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UK high court judge can give notice of a UWO if the judge is satisfied that it is likely that a foreign PEP (as defined above) is the owner of suspicious wealth in the UK beyond their means, and if all of the following provisions are met:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The value of the asset is greater than £50,000 (approx. AED 260,000).</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This legislation does not only target Foreign PEPs, but also where there are reasonable grounds to suspect any individual has been involved in serious crime.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for UWOs may be made without notice. This means that there is no requirement on the UK investigative authority to notify the target of a UWO that they, or their assets, have been made subject of a UWO.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What assets would this apply to?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UWO can be made against assets whose value is greater than £50,000. There is no need for the PEP to be the sole owner of the property whose value is over £50,000, nor is it of relevance if the property was purchased prior to the introduction of the UK legislation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is the effect?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Following the making of an order by the High Court, the Court may order an individual’s property to be frozen, which would preclude the subject of the order from dealing with the property. As these freezing orders may be made without notice, this means that an individual’s assets may be frozen prior to their knowledge of any order being made against them.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UWO will mandate the individual to explain, at a minimum:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The nature and extent of their interest in a particular property; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Explain how the property was obtained.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An explanation will be requested by the UK authorities where ‘there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property’.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Failing to Comply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Should the target of a UWO fail to comply with an order, or provide inaccurate or misleading information, then they will likely be subject to criminal sanction in the UK and may face a period of imprisonment and a financial penalty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Within the legislation, it is stated that a UWO could lead to criminal liability for a target if that individual fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements imposed by the Court against that individual. There is no definition of what a reasonable excuse would be in the legislation, and is a subjective requirement that would be decided in Court during the course of litigation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-8014 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"304\" height=\"377\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A View from the East: Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These orders, whilst designed to tackle money laundering on a global scale, and limit the use of the UK jurisdiction for those who seek to gain from their ill-gotten earnings, may cause legal difficulties for individuals based in foreign jurisdictions who are subject to UWOs – such as the UAE and the wider GCC – due to a conflict of laws between this UK legislation and that of other countries. This conflict could lead to an individual’s adherence to UK legislation meaning that the individual would be liable to prosecution in other jurisdictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Taking the UAE as a representative example of the Middle East’s approach to confidential or private information, the UAE’s jurisdiction imposes very strict obligations on an individual’s use and disclosure of confidential information. It is a criminal offence, pursuant to the UAE’s Federal Law No. 3 of 1987, as amended by Federal Decree No. 7 of 2016 (UAE Penal Code) to disclose secret information. Secret information is afforded an expansive definition in the UAE Penal Code and it is commonly viewed any information that is confidential, i.e. not in the public domain, and that an individual possesses due to their employment or individual nature.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, due to the extraterritorial nature of the UAE Penal Code, should an individual commit a crime that is wholly or partly committed within the UAE, then that individual would be bound by the provisions of the Penal Code, and would be bound by provisions such as the disclosure of secret information. Specifically, should an individual be requested to provide secret information, such as the source of funds from a business entity, to the UK authorities, and that information relates to a UAE business or UAE based individual, then if the material or information is disclosed following a UWO in the UK, then in the UAE the individual may be subject to criminal prosecution for disclosing that exact information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There is no exception afforded under UAE domestic legislation that would permit an individual to disclose confidential information to a foreign investigative authority (such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, or National Security Agency). Should that individual disclose such information to the UK’s, or any other foreign State’s, investigative authority, then that individual may be liable to prosecution in the UAE in the same manner as though the disclosure had been made to a private individual or entity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prosecution for disclosing confidential information is a serious offence in the UAE, and one that may carry a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the stakes are very high when one is subject to an international request for judicial assistance, in any form, and it is for that reason and in order to assist with international criminal investigations that the UAE has entered into number multilateral and bilateral treaties aimed at assisting mutual judicial assistance requests. As with most international requests from law enforcement agencies, such requests should follow the usual diplomatic channels through the deployment of letters rogatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The difficulties for UAE individuals would not stop simply at the threat of criminal sanction, but also according to the UAE’s Labour Law, should an individual disclose the secrets of their employer, then the worker may be dismissed without notice and forfeit their entire severance pay.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Accordingly, the receipt of a UWO in the UK demanding that an individual provide information to the UAE authorities may conflict with the statutory protection relating to confidential information (or other laws) in a foreign jurisdiction, such as the UAE. This would lead to the precarious situation where an individual may face prosecution in the UK if he doesn’t comply with the UWO, but criminal prosecution in the UAE if he does comply.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe above example and review provides a very high-level overview of the competing laws that the UK’s UWOs may catch. Whilst the UK legislation will no doubt serve as an effective deterrent and useful tool in minimising global money laundering, and limiting the attraction of the UK for criminals, it may have unintended consequences for foreign nationals holding legitimate assets in the UK. Prior to making any response to a request for assistance, it is imperative that the recipient apprise themselves of all legal considerations to ensure that they are not jumping out of the frying pan, but straight into the fire.'),
	(265021,25649,'MetaLink','content'),
	(265022,25649,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
	(265023,25649,'ReportText','<img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe UK legislature has recently introduced domestic legislation aimed at money launderers, potentially resulting in unintended consequences for foreign nationals who have legitimate assets in the UK. These orders demand the intended target provide information about the origin of their wealth, and refusal to disclose that information may render the target subject to criminal prosecution in the UK. However, if the foreign national does comply with the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO), then that individual may be subject to criminal prosecution in another State… a real Catch 22.\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Controversially, there is no need for a foreign national to be accused of money laundering, or any criminality whatsoever, before they could be made subject to a UWO, which would lead to the freezing of their assets, or, worse, criminal prosecution.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The following article introduces UWOs to our clients and examines how one must be careful in weighing up their rights and obligations in respect of the request of a foreign State’s investigative authorities as it may impact their rights in the UAE, and around the GCC.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is a UWO?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 31st January 2018, the UK introduced their latest attempt at stemming money laundering in the UK: Unexplained Wealth Orders. UWOs are civil investigative powers that are aimed at tackling those who use the UK as a destination for money laundering, or as a destination for those who wish to spend their ill-gotten gains.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs have been introduced in the UK at a time when London, and the UK, is facing scrutiny as a perceived hotbed of money laundering and revelry. A main proponent of UWOs has been Transparency International UK’s corruption taskforce, who, amongst others, have repeatedly called for greater investigative action to be taken in the UK against individuals and entities thought to have been complicit in corruption, and have led the drive to bring UWOs into action in UK law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs are given legal effect pursuant to the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Article 362A, as introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and is defined in the legislation as:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>‘An unexplained wealth order is an order requiring the respondent [i.e. the target of the order] to provide a statement—</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made,</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met),</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified.’</em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The clear advantage that UWOs provide for UK investigative authorities is that it is no longer necessary for the UK authorities to demonstrate that an individual has been subject to a conviction for a criminal offence (either in the UK or abroad) in order to obtain information and take measures against a specific property.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Two months after the introduction of the legislation, in March 2018, it would appear that the first orders are now being made. We have seen the first use of these orders, not on a UK national, but on an Asian politician who owns two properties, worth USD $30 million, in the UK. The specific identity of this individual has not been disclosed as matters are ongoing, and no further details are available publically.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This means that if an individual owns assets in the UK and they are made subject to a UWO, they will be forced to declare how they obtained this asset, and if they fail to do so they would be subject to criminal prosecution by the UK authorities. This may lead to foreign individuals being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to turn and no route of escape.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Why is it Relevant To You?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As will be apparent from the first orders made against the Asian politician, whilst UWOs do apply to individuals who are reasonably suspected of being involved in crime, the UWOs will also target politically exposed individuals who have not been subject to criminal conviction, or investigation, either in the UK or internationally.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The definition of a PEP, or Politically Exposed Person, varies from State to State, but for the purposes of the UK legislation, the legislators have defined PEPs as the following:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">‘(a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international body or by a State other than the UK or other [European Economic Area] State;</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(b) a family member of a person within paragraph (a); or</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(c) known to be a close associate of a person within […] paragraph [a].’</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Evidently from this definition, paying particularly close attention to (c) namely ‘a close associate’ of an individual with prominent public functions, there is a very expansive definition of PEP, and this will likely include many unsuspecting individuals. The effect of this definition is that if you are an individual who has prominent public functions, or you are a close associate of another who has been entrusted with public functions, then you may now be targeted by the UK authorities with a UWO. Alarmingly, there is no need for you to have committed a crime, nor to have been suspected of being involved in a crime, for these orders to apply to you.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Specifically, when could a UWO apply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UK high court judge can give notice of a UWO if the judge is satisfied that it is likely that a foreign PEP (as defined above) is the owner of suspicious wealth in the UK beyond their means, and if all of the following provisions are met:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The value of the asset is greater than £50,000 (approx. AED 260,000).</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This legislation does not only target Foreign PEPs, but also where there are reasonable grounds to suspect any individual has been involved in serious crime.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for UWOs may be made without notice. This means that there is no requirement on the UK investigative authority to notify the target of a UWO that they, or their assets, have been made subject of a UWO.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What assets would this apply to?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UWO can be made against assets whose value is greater than £50,000. There is no need for the PEP to be the sole owner of the property whose value is over £50,000, nor is it of relevance if the property was purchased prior to the introduction of the UK legislation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is the effect?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Following the making of an order by the High Court, the Court may order an individual’s property to be frozen, which would preclude the subject of the order from dealing with the property. As these freezing orders may be made without notice, this means that an individual’s assets may be frozen prior to their knowledge of any order being made against them.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UWO will mandate the individual to explain, at a minimum:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The nature and extent of their interest in a particular property; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Explain how the property was obtained.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An explanation will be requested by the UK authorities where ‘there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property’.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Failing to Comply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Should the target of a UWO fail to comply with an order, or provide inaccurate or misleading information, then they will likely be subject to criminal sanction in the UK and may face a period of imprisonment and a financial penalty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Within the legislation, it is stated that a UWO could lead to criminal liability for a target if that individual fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements imposed by the Court against that individual. There is no definition of what a reasonable excuse would be in the legislation, and is a subjective requirement that would be decided in Court during the course of litigation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-8014 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"304\" height=\"377\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A View from the East: Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These orders, whilst designed to tackle money laundering on a global scale, and limit the use of the UK jurisdiction for those who seek to gain from their ill-gotten earnings, may cause legal difficulties for individuals based in foreign jurisdictions who are subject to UWOs – such as the UAE and the wider GCC – due to a conflict of laws between this UK legislation and that of other countries. This conflict could lead to an individual’s adherence to UK legislation meaning that the individual would be liable to prosecution in other jurisdictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Taking the UAE as a representative example of the Middle East’s approach to confidential or private information, the UAE’s jurisdiction imposes very strict obligations on an individual’s use and disclosure of confidential information. It is a criminal offence, pursuant to the UAE’s Federal Law No. 3 of 1987, as amended by Federal Decree No. 7 of 2016 (UAE Penal Code) to disclose secret information. Secret information is afforded an expansive definition in the UAE Penal Code and it is commonly viewed any information that is confidential, i.e. not in the public domain, and that an individual possesses due to their employment or individual nature.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, due to the extraterritorial nature of the UAE Penal Code, should an individual commit a crime that is wholly or partly committed within the UAE, then that individual would be bound by the provisions of the Penal Code, and would be bound by provisions such as the disclosure of secret information. Specifically, should an individual be requested to provide secret information, such as the source of funds from a business entity, to the UK authorities, and that information relates to a UAE business or UAE based individual, then if the material or information is disclosed following a UWO in the UK, then in the UAE the individual may be subject to criminal prosecution for disclosing that exact information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There is no exception afforded under UAE domestic legislation that would permit an individual to disclose confidential information to a foreign investigative authority (such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, or National Security Agency). Should that individual disclose such information to the UK’s, or any other foreign State’s, investigative authority, then that individual may be liable to prosecution in the UAE in the same manner as though the disclosure had been made to a private individual or entity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prosecution for disclosing confidential information is a serious offence in the UAE, and one that may carry a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the stakes are very high when one is subject to an international request for judicial assistance, in any form, and it is for that reason and in order to assist with international criminal investigations that the UAE has entered into number multilateral and bilateral treaties aimed at assisting mutual judicial assistance requests. As with most international requests from law enforcement agencies, such requests should follow the usual diplomatic channels through the deployment of letters rogatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The difficulties for UAE individuals would not stop simply at the threat of criminal sanction, but also according to the UAE’s Labour Law, should an individual disclose the secrets of their employer, then the worker may be dismissed without notice and forfeit their entire severance pay.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Accordingly, the receipt of a UWO in the UK demanding that an individual provide information to the UAE authorities may conflict with the statutory protection relating to confidential information (or other laws) in a foreign jurisdiction, such as the UAE. This would lead to the precarious situation where an individual may face prosecution in the UK if he doesn’t comply with the UWO, but criminal prosecution in the UAE if he does comply.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe above example and review provides a very high-level overview of the competing laws that the UK’s UWOs may catch. Whilst the UK legislation will no doubt serve as an effective deterrent and useful tool in minimising global money laundering, and limiting the attraction of the UK for criminals, it may have unintended consequences for foreign nationals holding legitimate assets in the UK. Prior to making any response to a request for assistance, it is imperative that the recipient apprise themselves of all legal considerations to ensure that they are not jumping out of the frying pan, but straight into the fire.|<img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe UK legislature has recently introduced domestic legislation aimed at money launderers, potentially resulting in unintended consequences for foreign nationals who have legitimate assets in the UK. These orders demand the intended target provide information about the origin of their wealth, and refusal to disclose that information may render the target subject to criminal prosecution in the UK. However, if the foreign national does comply with the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO), then that individual may be subject to criminal prosecution in another State… a real Catch 22.\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Controversially, there is no need for a foreign national to be accused of money laundering, or any criminality whatsoever, before they could be made subject to a UWO, which would lead to the freezing of their assets, or, worse, criminal prosecution.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The following article introduces UWOs to our clients and examines how one must be careful in weighing up their rights and obligations in respect of the request of a foreign State’s investigative authorities as it may impact their rights in the UAE, and around the GCC.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is a UWO?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 31st January 2018, the UK introduced their latest attempt at stemming money laundering in the UK: Unexplained Wealth Orders. UWOs are civil investigative powers that are aimed at tackling those who use the UK as a destination for money laundering, or as a destination for those who wish to spend their ill-gotten gains.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs have been introduced in the UK at a time when London, and the UK, is facing scrutiny as a perceived hotbed of money laundering and revelry. A main proponent of UWOs has been Transparency International UK’s corruption taskforce, who, amongst others, have repeatedly called for greater investigative action to be taken in the UK against individuals and entities thought to have been complicit in corruption, and have led the drive to bring UWOs into action in UK law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs are given legal effect pursuant to the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Article 362A, as introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and is defined in the legislation as:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>‘An unexplained wealth order is an order requiring the respondent [i.e. the target of the order] to provide a statement—</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made,</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met),</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified.’</em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The clear advantage that UWOs provide for UK investigative authorities is that it is no longer necessary for the UK authorities to demonstrate that an individual has been subject to a conviction for a criminal offence (either in the UK or abroad) in order to obtain information and take measures against a specific property.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Two months after the introduction of the legislation, in March 2018, it would appear that the first orders are now being made. We have seen the first use of these orders, not on a UK national, but on an Asian politician who owns two properties, worth USD $30 million, in the UK. The specific identity of this individual has not been disclosed as matters are ongoing, and no further details are available publically.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This means that if an individual owns assets in the UK and they are made subject to a UWO, they will be forced to declare how they obtained this asset, and if they fail to do so they would be subject to criminal prosecution by the UK authorities. This may lead to foreign individuals being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to turn and no route of escape.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Why is it Relevant To You?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As will be apparent from the first orders made against the Asian politician, whilst UWOs do apply to individuals who are reasonably suspected of being involved in crime, the UWOs will also target politically exposed individuals who have not been subject to criminal conviction, or investigation, either in the UK or internationally.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The definition of a PEP, or Politically Exposed Person, varies from State to State, but for the purposes of the UK legislation, the legislators have defined PEPs as the following:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">‘(a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international body or by a State other than the UK or other [European Economic Area] State;</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(b) a family member of a person within paragraph (a); or</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(c) known to be a close associate of a person within […] paragraph [a].’</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Evidently from this definition, paying particularly close attention to (c) namely ‘a close associate’ of an individual with prominent public functions, there is a very expansive definition of PEP, and this will likely include many unsuspecting individuals. The effect of this definition is that if you are an individual who has prominent public functions, or you are a close associate of another who has been entrusted with public functions, then you may now be targeted by the UK authorities with a UWO. Alarmingly, there is no need for you to have committed a crime, nor to have been suspected of being involved in a crime, for these orders to apply to you.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright  wp-image-8082\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/shutterstock_1097729291-912x1024.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"348\" height=\"391\" />Specifically, when could a UWO apply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UK high court judge can give notice of a UWO if the judge is satisfied that it is likely that a foreign PEP (as defined above) is the owner of suspicious wealth in the UK beyond their means, and if all of the following provisions are met:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The value of the asset is greater than £50,000 (approx. AED 260,000).</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This legislation does not only target Foreign PEPs, but also where there are reasonable grounds to suspect any individual has been involved in serious crime.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for UWOs may be made without notice. This means that there is no requirement on the UK investigative authority to notify the target of a UWO that they, or their assets, have been made subject of a UWO.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What assets would this apply to?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UWO can be made against assets whose value is greater than £50,000. There is no need for the PEP to be the sole owner of the property whose value is over £50,000, nor is it of relevance if the property was purchased prior to the introduction of the UK legislation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is the effect?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Following the making of an order by the High Court, the Court may order an individual’s property to be frozen, which would preclude the subject of the order from dealing with the property. As these freezing orders may be made without notice, this means that an individual’s assets may be frozen prior to their knowledge of any order being made against them.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UWO will mandate the individual to explain, at a minimum:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The nature and extent of their interest in a particular property; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Explain how the property was obtained.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An explanation will be requested by the UK authorities where ‘there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property’.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Failing to Comply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Should the target of a UWO fail to comply with an order, or provide inaccurate or misleading information, then they will likely be subject to criminal sanction in the UK and may face a period of imprisonment and a financial penalty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Within the legislation, it is stated that a UWO could lead to criminal liability for a target if that individual fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements imposed by the Court against that individual. There is no definition of what a reasonable excuse would be in the legislation, and is a subjective requirement that would be decided in Court during the course of litigation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-8014 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"304\" height=\"377\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A View from the East: Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These orders, whilst designed to tackle money laundering on a global scale, and limit the use of the UK jurisdiction for those who seek to gain from their ill-gotten earnings, may cause legal difficulties for individuals based in foreign jurisdictions who are subject to UWOs – such as the UAE and the wider GCC – due to a conflict of laws between this UK legislation and that of other countries. This conflict could lead to an individual’s adherence to UK legislation meaning that the individual would be liable to prosecution in other jurisdictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Taking the UAE as a representative example of the Middle East’s approach to confidential or private information, the UAE’s jurisdiction imposes very strict obligations on an individual’s use and disclosure of confidential information. It is a criminal offence, pursuant to the UAE’s Federal Law No. 3 of 1987, as amended by Federal Decree No. 7 of 2016 (UAE Penal Code) to disclose secret information. Secret information is afforded an expansive definition in the UAE Penal Code and it is commonly viewed any information that is confidential, i.e. not in the public domain, and that an individual possesses due to their employment or individual nature.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, due to the extraterritorial nature of the UAE Penal Code, should an individual commit a crime that is wholly or partly committed within the UAE, then that individual would be bound by the provisions of the Penal Code, and would be bound by provisions such as the disclosure of secret information. Specifically, should an individual be requested to provide secret information, such as the source of funds from a business entity, to the UK authorities, and that information relates to a UAE business or UAE based individual, then if the material or information is disclosed following a UWO in the UK, then in the UAE the individual may be subject to criminal prosecution for disclosing that exact information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There is no exception afforded under UAE domestic legislation that would permit an individual to disclose confidential information to a foreign investigative authority (such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, or National Security Agency). Should that individual disclose such information to the UK’s, or any other foreign State’s, investigative authority, then that individual may be liable to prosecution in the UAE in the same manner as though the disclosure had been made to a private individual or entity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prosecution for disclosing confidential information is a serious offence in the UAE, and one that may carry a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the stakes are very high when one is subject to an international request for judicial assistance, in any form, and it is for that reason and in order to assist with international criminal investigations that the UAE has entered into number multilateral and bilateral treaties aimed at assisting mutual judicial assistance requests. As with most international requests from law enforcement agencies, such requests should follow the usual diplomatic channels through the deployment of letters rogatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The difficulties for UAE individuals would not stop simply at the threat of criminal sanction, but also according to the UAE’s Labour Law, should an individual disclose the secrets of their employer, then the worker may be dismissed without notice and forfeit their entire severance pay.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Accordingly, the receipt of a UWO in the UK demanding that an individual provide information to the UAE authorities may conflict with the statutory protection relating to confidential information (or other laws) in a foreign jurisdiction, such as the UAE. This would lead to the precarious situation where an individual may face prosecution in the UK if he doesn’t comply with the UWO, but criminal prosecution in the UAE if he does comply.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe above example and review provides a very high-level overview of the competing laws that the UK’s UWOs may catch. Whilst the UK legislation will no doubt serve as an effective deterrent and useful tool in minimising global money laundering, and limiting the attraction of the UK for criminals, it may have unintended consequences for foreign nationals holding legitimate assets in the UK. Prior to making any response to a request for assistance, it is imperative that the recipient apprise themselves of all legal considerations to ensure that they are not jumping out of the frying pan, but straight into the fire.'),
	(265024,25649,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265025,25649,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265026,25649,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265027,25649,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265028,25650,'PostID','7940'),
	(265029,25650,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265030,25650,'PostTitle','Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
	(265031,25650,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265032,25650,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
	(265033,25650,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
	(265034,25650,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
	(265035,25650,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265036,25650,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265037,25650,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265038,25650,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265039,25651,'ClientIP','127.0.0.1'),
	(265040,25651,'Username','Plugin'),
	(265041,25651,'PromoMessage','See who is logged in, create user productivity reports, get notified instantly via email of important changes, add search and much more. <strong><a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/admin.php?page=wsal-auditlog-pricing\">Upgrade to Premium</a></strong> | <strong><a href=\"https://www.wpsecurityauditlog.com/premium-features/?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=page&utm_content=alert+more+info&utm_campaign=upgrade+premium\" target=\"_blank\">More Information</a></strong>'),
	(265042,25651,'PromoName','Upgrade to Premium'),
	(265043,25652,'PostID','7940'),
	(265044,25652,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265045,25652,'PostTitle','Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
	(265046,25652,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265047,25652,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
	(265048,25652,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
	(265049,25652,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
	(265050,25652,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265051,25652,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265052,25652,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265053,25652,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265054,25653,'PostID','7940'),
	(265055,25653,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265056,25653,'PostTitle','Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
	(265057,25653,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265058,25653,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
	(265059,25653,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
	(265060,25653,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
	(265061,25653,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265062,25653,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265063,25653,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265064,25653,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265065,25654,'PostID','7940'),
	(265066,25654,'PostTitle','Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
	(265067,25654,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265068,25654,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265069,25654,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
	(265070,25654,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
	(265071,25654,'MetaID','223314'),
	(265072,25654,'MetaKey','content'),
	(265073,25654,'MetaValueNew','<img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe UK legislature has recently introduced domestic legislation aimed at money launderers, potentially resulting in unintended consequences for foreign nationals who have legitimate assets in the UK. These orders demand the intended target provide information about the origin of their wealth, and refusal to disclose that information may render the target subject to criminal prosecution in the UK. However, if the foreign national does comply with the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO), then that individual may be subject to criminal prosecution in another State… a real Catch 22.\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Controversially, there is no need for a foreign national to be accused of money laundering, or any criminality whatsoever, before they could be made subject to a UWO, which would lead to the freezing of their assets, or, worse, criminal prosecution.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The following article introduces UWOs to our clients and examines how one must be careful in weighing up their rights and obligations in respect of the request of a foreign State’s investigative authorities as it may impact their rights in the UAE, and around the GCC.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is a UWO?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 31st January 2018, the UK introduced their latest attempt at stemming money laundering in the UK: Unexplained Wealth Orders. UWOs are civil investigative powers that are aimed at tackling those who use the UK as a destination for money laundering, or as a destination for those who wish to spend their ill-gotten gains.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs have been introduced in the UK at a time when London, and the UK, is facing scrutiny as a perceived hotbed of money laundering and revelry. A main proponent of UWOs has been Transparency International UK’s corruption taskforce, who, amongst others, have repeatedly called for greater investigative action to be taken in the UK against individuals and entities thought to have been complicit in corruption, and have led the drive to bring UWOs into action in UK law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs are given legal effect pursuant to the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Article 362A, as introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and is defined in the legislation as:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>‘An unexplained wealth order is an order requiring the respondent [i.e. the target of the order] to provide a statement—</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made,</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met),</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified.’</em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The clear advantage that UWOs provide for UK investigative authorities is that it is no longer necessary for the UK authorities to demonstrate that an individual has been subject to a conviction for a criminal offence (either in the UK or abroad) in order to obtain information and take measures against a specific property.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Two months after the introduction of the legislation, in March 2018, it would appear that the first orders are now being made. We have seen the first use of these orders, not on a UK national, but on an Asian politician who owns two properties, worth USD $30 million, in the UK. The specific identity of this individual has not been disclosed as matters are ongoing, and no further details are available publically.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This means that if an individual owns assets in the UK and they are made subject to a UWO, they will be forced to declare how they obtained this asset, and if they fail to do so they would be subject to criminal prosecution by the UK authorities. This may lead to foreign individuals being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to turn and no route of escape.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Why is it Relevant To You?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As will be apparent from the first orders made against the Asian politician, whilst UWOs do apply to individuals who are reasonably suspected of being involved in crime, the UWOs will also target politically exposed individuals who have not been subject to criminal conviction, or investigation, either in the UK or internationally.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The definition of a PEP, or Politically Exposed Person, varies from State to State, but for the purposes of the UK legislation, the legislators have defined PEPs as the following:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">‘(a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international body or by a State other than the UK or other [European Economic Area] State;</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(b) a family member of a person within paragraph (a); or</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(c) known to be a close associate of a person within […] paragraph [a].’</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Evidently from this definition, paying particularly close attention to (c) namely ‘a close associate’ of an individual with prominent public functions, there is a very expansive definition of PEP, and this will likely include many unsuspecting individuals. The effect of this definition is that if you are an individual who has prominent public functions, or you are a close associate of another who has been entrusted with public functions, then you may now be targeted by the UK authorities with a UWO. Alarmingly, there is no need for you to have committed a crime, nor to have been suspected of being involved in a crime, for these orders to apply to you.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright wp-image-8082\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/shutterstock_1097729291-912x1024.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"302\" height=\"339\" />Specifically, when could a UWO apply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UK high court judge can give notice of a UWO if the judge is satisfied that it is likely that a foreign PEP (as defined above) is the owner of suspicious wealth in the UK beyond their means, and if all of the following provisions are met:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The value of the asset is greater than £50,000 (approx. AED 260,000).</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This legislation does not only target Foreign PEPs, but also where there are reasonable grounds to suspect any individual has been involved in serious crime.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for UWOs may be made without notice. This means that there is no requirement on the UK investigative authority to notify the target of a UWO that they, or their assets, have been made subject of a UWO.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What assets would this apply to?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UWO can be made against assets whose value is greater than £50,000. There is no need for the PEP to be the sole owner of the property whose value is over £50,000, nor is it of relevance if the property was purchased prior to the introduction of the UK legislation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is the effect?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Following the making of an order by the High Court, the Court may order an individual’s property to be frozen, which would preclude the subject of the order from dealing with the property. As these freezing orders may be made without notice, this means that an individual’s assets may be frozen prior to their knowledge of any order being made against them.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UWO will mandate the individual to explain, at a minimum:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The nature and extent of their interest in a particular property; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Explain how the property was obtained.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An explanation will be requested by the UK authorities where ‘there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property’.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Failing to Comply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Should the target of a UWO fail to comply with an order, or provide inaccurate or misleading information, then they will likely be subject to criminal sanction in the UK and may face a period of imprisonment and a financial penalty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Within the legislation, it is stated that a UWO could lead to criminal liability for a target if that individual fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements imposed by the Court against that individual. There is no definition of what a reasonable excuse would be in the legislation, and is a subjective requirement that would be decided in Court during the course of litigation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-8014 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"304\" height=\"377\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A View from the East: Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These orders, whilst designed to tackle money laundering on a global scale, and limit the use of the UK jurisdiction for those who seek to gain from their ill-gotten earnings, may cause legal difficulties for individuals based in foreign jurisdictions who are subject to UWOs – such as the UAE and the wider GCC – due to a conflict of laws between this UK legislation and that of other countries. This conflict could lead to an individual’s adherence to UK legislation meaning that the individual would be liable to prosecution in other jurisdictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Taking the UAE as a representative example of the Middle East’s approach to confidential or private information, the UAE’s jurisdiction imposes very strict obligations on an individual’s use and disclosure of confidential information. It is a criminal offence, pursuant to the UAE’s Federal Law No. 3 of 1987, as amended by Federal Decree No. 7 of 2016 (UAE Penal Code) to disclose secret information. Secret information is afforded an expansive definition in the UAE Penal Code and it is commonly viewed any information that is confidential, i.e. not in the public domain, and that an individual possesses due to their employment or individual nature.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, due to the extraterritorial nature of the UAE Penal Code, should an individual commit a crime that is wholly or partly committed within the UAE, then that individual would be bound by the provisions of the Penal Code, and would be bound by provisions such as the disclosure of secret information. Specifically, should an individual be requested to provide secret information, such as the source of funds from a business entity, to the UK authorities, and that information relates to a UAE business or UAE based individual, then if the material or information is disclosed following a UWO in the UK, then in the UAE the individual may be subject to criminal prosecution for disclosing that exact information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There is no exception afforded under UAE domestic legislation that would permit an individual to disclose confidential information to a foreign investigative authority (such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, or National Security Agency). Should that individual disclose such information to the UK’s, or any other foreign State’s, investigative authority, then that individual may be liable to prosecution in the UAE in the same manner as though the disclosure had been made to a private individual or entity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prosecution for disclosing confidential information is a serious offence in the UAE, and one that may carry a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the stakes are very high when one is subject to an international request for judicial assistance, in any form, and it is for that reason and in order to assist with international criminal investigations that the UAE has entered into number multilateral and bilateral treaties aimed at assisting mutual judicial assistance requests. As with most international requests from law enforcement agencies, such requests should follow the usual diplomatic channels through the deployment of letters rogatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The difficulties for UAE individuals would not stop simply at the threat of criminal sanction, but also according to the UAE’s Labour Law, should an individual disclose the secrets of their employer, then the worker may be dismissed without notice and forfeit their entire severance pay.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Accordingly, the receipt of a UWO in the UK demanding that an individual provide information to the UAE authorities may conflict with the statutory protection relating to confidential information (or other laws) in a foreign jurisdiction, such as the UAE. This would lead to the precarious situation where an individual may face prosecution in the UK if he doesn’t comply with the UWO, but criminal prosecution in the UAE if he does comply.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe above example and review provides a very high-level overview of the competing laws that the UK’s UWOs may catch. Whilst the UK legislation will no doubt serve as an effective deterrent and useful tool in minimising global money laundering, and limiting the attraction of the UK for criminals, it may have unintended consequences for foreign nationals holding legitimate assets in the UK. Prior to making any response to a request for assistance, it is imperative that the recipient apprise themselves of all legal considerations to ensure that they are not jumping out of the frying pan, but straight into the fire.'),
	(265074,25654,'MetaValueOld','<img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe UK legislature has recently introduced domestic legislation aimed at money launderers, potentially resulting in unintended consequences for foreign nationals who have legitimate assets in the UK. These orders demand the intended target provide information about the origin of their wealth, and refusal to disclose that information may render the target subject to criminal prosecution in the UK. However, if the foreign national does comply with the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO), then that individual may be subject to criminal prosecution in another State… a real Catch 22.\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Controversially, there is no need for a foreign national to be accused of money laundering, or any criminality whatsoever, before they could be made subject to a UWO, which would lead to the freezing of their assets, or, worse, criminal prosecution.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The following article introduces UWOs to our clients and examines how one must be careful in weighing up their rights and obligations in respect of the request of a foreign State’s investigative authorities as it may impact their rights in the UAE, and around the GCC.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is a UWO?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 31st January 2018, the UK introduced their latest attempt at stemming money laundering in the UK: Unexplained Wealth Orders. UWOs are civil investigative powers that are aimed at tackling those who use the UK as a destination for money laundering, or as a destination for those who wish to spend their ill-gotten gains.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs have been introduced in the UK at a time when London, and the UK, is facing scrutiny as a perceived hotbed of money laundering and revelry. A main proponent of UWOs has been Transparency International UK’s corruption taskforce, who, amongst others, have repeatedly called for greater investigative action to be taken in the UK against individuals and entities thought to have been complicit in corruption, and have led the drive to bring UWOs into action in UK law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs are given legal effect pursuant to the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Article 362A, as introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and is defined in the legislation as:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>‘An unexplained wealth order is an order requiring the respondent [i.e. the target of the order] to provide a statement—</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made,</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met),</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified.’</em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The clear advantage that UWOs provide for UK investigative authorities is that it is no longer necessary for the UK authorities to demonstrate that an individual has been subject to a conviction for a criminal offence (either in the UK or abroad) in order to obtain information and take measures against a specific property.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Two months after the introduction of the legislation, in March 2018, it would appear that the first orders are now being made. We have seen the first use of these orders, not on a UK national, but on an Asian politician who owns two properties, worth USD $30 million, in the UK. The specific identity of this individual has not been disclosed as matters are ongoing, and no further details are available publically.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This means that if an individual owns assets in the UK and they are made subject to a UWO, they will be forced to declare how they obtained this asset, and if they fail to do so they would be subject to criminal prosecution by the UK authorities. This may lead to foreign individuals being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to turn and no route of escape.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Why is it Relevant To You?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As will be apparent from the first orders made against the Asian politician, whilst UWOs do apply to individuals who are reasonably suspected of being involved in crime, the UWOs will also target politically exposed individuals who have not been subject to criminal conviction, or investigation, either in the UK or internationally.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The definition of a PEP, or Politically Exposed Person, varies from State to State, but for the purposes of the UK legislation, the legislators have defined PEPs as the following:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">‘(a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international body or by a State other than the UK or other [European Economic Area] State;</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(b) a family member of a person within paragraph (a); or</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(c) known to be a close associate of a person within […] paragraph [a].’</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Evidently from this definition, paying particularly close attention to (c) namely ‘a close associate’ of an individual with prominent public functions, there is a very expansive definition of PEP, and this will likely include many unsuspecting individuals. The effect of this definition is that if you are an individual who has prominent public functions, or you are a close associate of another who has been entrusted with public functions, then you may now be targeted by the UK authorities with a UWO. Alarmingly, there is no need for you to have committed a crime, nor to have been suspected of being involved in a crime, for these orders to apply to you.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright  wp-image-8082\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/shutterstock_1097729291-912x1024.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"348\" height=\"391\" />Specifically, when could a UWO apply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UK high court judge can give notice of a UWO if the judge is satisfied that it is likely that a foreign PEP (as defined above) is the owner of suspicious wealth in the UK beyond their means, and if all of the following provisions are met:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The value of the asset is greater than £50,000 (approx. AED 260,000).</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This legislation does not only target Foreign PEPs, but also where there are reasonable grounds to suspect any individual has been involved in serious crime.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for UWOs may be made without notice. This means that there is no requirement on the UK investigative authority to notify the target of a UWO that they, or their assets, have been made subject of a UWO.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What assets would this apply to?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UWO can be made against assets whose value is greater than £50,000. There is no need for the PEP to be the sole owner of the property whose value is over £50,000, nor is it of relevance if the property was purchased prior to the introduction of the UK legislation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is the effect?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Following the making of an order by the High Court, the Court may order an individual’s property to be frozen, which would preclude the subject of the order from dealing with the property. As these freezing orders may be made without notice, this means that an individual’s assets may be frozen prior to their knowledge of any order being made against them.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UWO will mandate the individual to explain, at a minimum:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The nature and extent of their interest in a particular property; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Explain how the property was obtained.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An explanation will be requested by the UK authorities where ‘there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property’.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Failing to Comply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Should the target of a UWO fail to comply with an order, or provide inaccurate or misleading information, then they will likely be subject to criminal sanction in the UK and may face a period of imprisonment and a financial penalty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Within the legislation, it is stated that a UWO could lead to criminal liability for a target if that individual fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements imposed by the Court against that individual. There is no definition of what a reasonable excuse would be in the legislation, and is a subjective requirement that would be decided in Court during the course of litigation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-8014 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"304\" height=\"377\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A View from the East: Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These orders, whilst designed to tackle money laundering on a global scale, and limit the use of the UK jurisdiction for those who seek to gain from their ill-gotten earnings, may cause legal difficulties for individuals based in foreign jurisdictions who are subject to UWOs – such as the UAE and the wider GCC – due to a conflict of laws between this UK legislation and that of other countries. This conflict could lead to an individual’s adherence to UK legislation meaning that the individual would be liable to prosecution in other jurisdictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Taking the UAE as a representative example of the Middle East’s approach to confidential or private information, the UAE’s jurisdiction imposes very strict obligations on an individual’s use and disclosure of confidential information. It is a criminal offence, pursuant to the UAE’s Federal Law No. 3 of 1987, as amended by Federal Decree No. 7 of 2016 (UAE Penal Code) to disclose secret information. Secret information is afforded an expansive definition in the UAE Penal Code and it is commonly viewed any information that is confidential, i.e. not in the public domain, and that an individual possesses due to their employment or individual nature.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, due to the extraterritorial nature of the UAE Penal Code, should an individual commit a crime that is wholly or partly committed within the UAE, then that individual would be bound by the provisions of the Penal Code, and would be bound by provisions such as the disclosure of secret information. Specifically, should an individual be requested to provide secret information, such as the source of funds from a business entity, to the UK authorities, and that information relates to a UAE business or UAE based individual, then if the material or information is disclosed following a UWO in the UK, then in the UAE the individual may be subject to criminal prosecution for disclosing that exact information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There is no exception afforded under UAE domestic legislation that would permit an individual to disclose confidential information to a foreign investigative authority (such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, or National Security Agency). Should that individual disclose such information to the UK’s, or any other foreign State’s, investigative authority, then that individual may be liable to prosecution in the UAE in the same manner as though the disclosure had been made to a private individual or entity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prosecution for disclosing confidential information is a serious offence in the UAE, and one that may carry a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the stakes are very high when one is subject to an international request for judicial assistance, in any form, and it is for that reason and in order to assist with international criminal investigations that the UAE has entered into number multilateral and bilateral treaties aimed at assisting mutual judicial assistance requests. As with most international requests from law enforcement agencies, such requests should follow the usual diplomatic channels through the deployment of letters rogatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The difficulties for UAE individuals would not stop simply at the threat of criminal sanction, but also according to the UAE’s Labour Law, should an individual disclose the secrets of their employer, then the worker may be dismissed without notice and forfeit their entire severance pay.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Accordingly, the receipt of a UWO in the UK demanding that an individual provide information to the UAE authorities may conflict with the statutory protection relating to confidential information (or other laws) in a foreign jurisdiction, such as the UAE. This would lead to the precarious situation where an individual may face prosecution in the UK if he doesn’t comply with the UWO, but criminal prosecution in the UAE if he does comply.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe above example and review provides a very high-level overview of the competing laws that the UK’s UWOs may catch. Whilst the UK legislation will no doubt serve as an effective deterrent and useful tool in minimising global money laundering, and limiting the attraction of the UK for criminals, it may have unintended consequences for foreign nationals holding legitimate assets in the UK. Prior to making any response to a request for assistance, it is imperative that the recipient apprise themselves of all legal considerations to ensure that they are not jumping out of the frying pan, but straight into the fire.'),
	(265075,25654,'MetaLink','content'),
	(265076,25654,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
	(265077,25654,'ReportText','<img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe UK legislature has recently introduced domestic legislation aimed at money launderers, potentially resulting in unintended consequences for foreign nationals who have legitimate assets in the UK. These orders demand the intended target provide information about the origin of their wealth, and refusal to disclose that information may render the target subject to criminal prosecution in the UK. However, if the foreign national does comply with the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO), then that individual may be subject to criminal prosecution in another State… a real Catch 22.\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Controversially, there is no need for a foreign national to be accused of money laundering, or any criminality whatsoever, before they could be made subject to a UWO, which would lead to the freezing of their assets, or, worse, criminal prosecution.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The following article introduces UWOs to our clients and examines how one must be careful in weighing up their rights and obligations in respect of the request of a foreign State’s investigative authorities as it may impact their rights in the UAE, and around the GCC.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is a UWO?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 31st January 2018, the UK introduced their latest attempt at stemming money laundering in the UK: Unexplained Wealth Orders. UWOs are civil investigative powers that are aimed at tackling those who use the UK as a destination for money laundering, or as a destination for those who wish to spend their ill-gotten gains.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs have been introduced in the UK at a time when London, and the UK, is facing scrutiny as a perceived hotbed of money laundering and revelry. A main proponent of UWOs has been Transparency International UK’s corruption taskforce, who, amongst others, have repeatedly called for greater investigative action to be taken in the UK against individuals and entities thought to have been complicit in corruption, and have led the drive to bring UWOs into action in UK law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs are given legal effect pursuant to the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Article 362A, as introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and is defined in the legislation as:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>‘An unexplained wealth order is an order requiring the respondent [i.e. the target of the order] to provide a statement—</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made,</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met),</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified.’</em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The clear advantage that UWOs provide for UK investigative authorities is that it is no longer necessary for the UK authorities to demonstrate that an individual has been subject to a conviction for a criminal offence (either in the UK or abroad) in order to obtain information and take measures against a specific property.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Two months after the introduction of the legislation, in March 2018, it would appear that the first orders are now being made. We have seen the first use of these orders, not on a UK national, but on an Asian politician who owns two properties, worth USD $30 million, in the UK. The specific identity of this individual has not been disclosed as matters are ongoing, and no further details are available publically.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This means that if an individual owns assets in the UK and they are made subject to a UWO, they will be forced to declare how they obtained this asset, and if they fail to do so they would be subject to criminal prosecution by the UK authorities. This may lead to foreign individuals being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to turn and no route of escape.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Why is it Relevant To You?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As will be apparent from the first orders made against the Asian politician, whilst UWOs do apply to individuals who are reasonably suspected of being involved in crime, the UWOs will also target politically exposed individuals who have not been subject to criminal conviction, or investigation, either in the UK or internationally.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The definition of a PEP, or Politically Exposed Person, varies from State to State, but for the purposes of the UK legislation, the legislators have defined PEPs as the following:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">‘(a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international body or by a State other than the UK or other [European Economic Area] State;</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(b) a family member of a person within paragraph (a); or</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(c) known to be a close associate of a person within […] paragraph [a].’</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Evidently from this definition, paying particularly close attention to (c) namely ‘a close associate’ of an individual with prominent public functions, there is a very expansive definition of PEP, and this will likely include many unsuspecting individuals. The effect of this definition is that if you are an individual who has prominent public functions, or you are a close associate of another who has been entrusted with public functions, then you may now be targeted by the UK authorities with a UWO. Alarmingly, there is no need for you to have committed a crime, nor to have been suspected of being involved in a crime, for these orders to apply to you.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright  wp-image-8082\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/shutterstock_1097729291-912x1024.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"348\" height=\"391\" />Specifically, when could a UWO apply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UK high court judge can give notice of a UWO if the judge is satisfied that it is likely that a foreign PEP (as defined above) is the owner of suspicious wealth in the UK beyond their means, and if all of the following provisions are met:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The value of the asset is greater than £50,000 (approx. AED 260,000).</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This legislation does not only target Foreign PEPs, but also where there are reasonable grounds to suspect any individual has been involved in serious crime.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for UWOs may be made without notice. This means that there is no requirement on the UK investigative authority to notify the target of a UWO that they, or their assets, have been made subject of a UWO.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What assets would this apply to?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UWO can be made against assets whose value is greater than £50,000. There is no need for the PEP to be the sole owner of the property whose value is over £50,000, nor is it of relevance if the property was purchased prior to the introduction of the UK legislation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is the effect?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Following the making of an order by the High Court, the Court may order an individual’s property to be frozen, which would preclude the subject of the order from dealing with the property. As these freezing orders may be made without notice, this means that an individual’s assets may be frozen prior to their knowledge of any order being made against them.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UWO will mandate the individual to explain, at a minimum:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The nature and extent of their interest in a particular property; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Explain how the property was obtained.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An explanation will be requested by the UK authorities where ‘there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property’.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Failing to Comply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Should the target of a UWO fail to comply with an order, or provide inaccurate or misleading information, then they will likely be subject to criminal sanction in the UK and may face a period of imprisonment and a financial penalty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Within the legislation, it is stated that a UWO could lead to criminal liability for a target if that individual fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements imposed by the Court against that individual. There is no definition of what a reasonable excuse would be in the legislation, and is a subjective requirement that would be decided in Court during the course of litigation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-8014 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"304\" height=\"377\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A View from the East: Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These orders, whilst designed to tackle money laundering on a global scale, and limit the use of the UK jurisdiction for those who seek to gain from their ill-gotten earnings, may cause legal difficulties for individuals based in foreign jurisdictions who are subject to UWOs – such as the UAE and the wider GCC – due to a conflict of laws between this UK legislation and that of other countries. This conflict could lead to an individual’s adherence to UK legislation meaning that the individual would be liable to prosecution in other jurisdictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Taking the UAE as a representative example of the Middle East’s approach to confidential or private information, the UAE’s jurisdiction imposes very strict obligations on an individual’s use and disclosure of confidential information. It is a criminal offence, pursuant to the UAE’s Federal Law No. 3 of 1987, as amended by Federal Decree No. 7 of 2016 (UAE Penal Code) to disclose secret information. Secret information is afforded an expansive definition in the UAE Penal Code and it is commonly viewed any information that is confidential, i.e. not in the public domain, and that an individual possesses due to their employment or individual nature.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, due to the extraterritorial nature of the UAE Penal Code, should an individual commit a crime that is wholly or partly committed within the UAE, then that individual would be bound by the provisions of the Penal Code, and would be bound by provisions such as the disclosure of secret information. Specifically, should an individual be requested to provide secret information, such as the source of funds from a business entity, to the UK authorities, and that information relates to a UAE business or UAE based individual, then if the material or information is disclosed following a UWO in the UK, then in the UAE the individual may be subject to criminal prosecution for disclosing that exact information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There is no exception afforded under UAE domestic legislation that would permit an individual to disclose confidential information to a foreign investigative authority (such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, or National Security Agency). Should that individual disclose such information to the UK’s, or any other foreign State’s, investigative authority, then that individual may be liable to prosecution in the UAE in the same manner as though the disclosure had been made to a private individual or entity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prosecution for disclosing confidential information is a serious offence in the UAE, and one that may carry a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the stakes are very high when one is subject to an international request for judicial assistance, in any form, and it is for that reason and in order to assist with international criminal investigations that the UAE has entered into number multilateral and bilateral treaties aimed at assisting mutual judicial assistance requests. As with most international requests from law enforcement agencies, such requests should follow the usual diplomatic channels through the deployment of letters rogatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The difficulties for UAE individuals would not stop simply at the threat of criminal sanction, but also according to the UAE’s Labour Law, should an individual disclose the secrets of their employer, then the worker may be dismissed without notice and forfeit their entire severance pay.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Accordingly, the receipt of a UWO in the UK demanding that an individual provide information to the UAE authorities may conflict with the statutory protection relating to confidential information (or other laws) in a foreign jurisdiction, such as the UAE. This would lead to the precarious situation where an individual may face prosecution in the UK if he doesn’t comply with the UWO, but criminal prosecution in the UAE if he does comply.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe above example and review provides a very high-level overview of the competing laws that the UK’s UWOs may catch. Whilst the UK legislation will no doubt serve as an effective deterrent and useful tool in minimising global money laundering, and limiting the attraction of the UK for criminals, it may have unintended consequences for foreign nationals holding legitimate assets in the UK. Prior to making any response to a request for assistance, it is imperative that the recipient apprise themselves of all legal considerations to ensure that they are not jumping out of the frying pan, but straight into the fire.|<img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8002\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/17-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3567\" height=\"715\" />\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe UK legislature has recently introduced domestic legislation aimed at money launderers, potentially resulting in unintended consequences for foreign nationals who have legitimate assets in the UK. These orders demand the intended target provide information about the origin of their wealth, and refusal to disclose that information may render the target subject to criminal prosecution in the UK. However, if the foreign national does comply with the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO), then that individual may be subject to criminal prosecution in another State… a real Catch 22.\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Controversially, there is no need for a foreign national to be accused of money laundering, or any criminality whatsoever, before they could be made subject to a UWO, which would lead to the freezing of their assets, or, worse, criminal prosecution.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The following article introduces UWOs to our clients and examines how one must be careful in weighing up their rights and obligations in respect of the request of a foreign State’s investigative authorities as it may impact their rights in the UAE, and around the GCC.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is a UWO?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 31st January 2018, the UK introduced their latest attempt at stemming money laundering in the UK: Unexplained Wealth Orders. UWOs are civil investigative powers that are aimed at tackling those who use the UK as a destination for money laundering, or as a destination for those who wish to spend their ill-gotten gains.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs have been introduced in the UK at a time when London, and the UK, is facing scrutiny as a perceived hotbed of money laundering and revelry. A main proponent of UWOs has been Transparency International UK’s corruption taskforce, who, amongst others, have repeatedly called for greater investigative action to be taken in the UK against individuals and entities thought to have been complicit in corruption, and have led the drive to bring UWOs into action in UK law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">UWOs are given legal effect pursuant to the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Article 362A, as introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and is defined in the legislation as:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>‘An unexplained wealth order is an order requiring the respondent [i.e. the target of the order] to provide a statement—</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made,</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met),</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and</em></li>\r\n 	<li><em>setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified.’</em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The clear advantage that UWOs provide for UK investigative authorities is that it is no longer necessary for the UK authorities to demonstrate that an individual has been subject to a conviction for a criminal offence (either in the UK or abroad) in order to obtain information and take measures against a specific property.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Two months after the introduction of the legislation, in March 2018, it would appear that the first orders are now being made. We have seen the first use of these orders, not on a UK national, but on an Asian politician who owns two properties, worth USD $30 million, in the UK. The specific identity of this individual has not been disclosed as matters are ongoing, and no further details are available publically.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This means that if an individual owns assets in the UK and they are made subject to a UWO, they will be forced to declare how they obtained this asset, and if they fail to do so they would be subject to criminal prosecution by the UK authorities. This may lead to foreign individuals being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to turn and no route of escape.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Why is it Relevant To You?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">As will be apparent from the first orders made against the Asian politician, whilst UWOs do apply to individuals who are reasonably suspected of being involved in crime, the UWOs will also target politically exposed individuals who have not been subject to criminal conviction, or investigation, either in the UK or internationally.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The definition of a PEP, or Politically Exposed Person, varies from State to State, but for the purposes of the UK legislation, the legislators have defined PEPs as the following:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">‘(a) an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international body or by a State other than the UK or other [European Economic Area] State;</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(b) a family member of a person within paragraph (a); or</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">(c) known to be a close associate of a person within […] paragraph [a].’</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Evidently from this definition, paying particularly close attention to (c) namely ‘a close associate’ of an individual with prominent public functions, there is a very expansive definition of PEP, and this will likely include many unsuspecting individuals. The effect of this definition is that if you are an individual who has prominent public functions, or you are a close associate of another who has been entrusted with public functions, then you may now be targeted by the UK authorities with a UWO. Alarmingly, there is no need for you to have committed a crime, nor to have been suspected of being involved in a crime, for these orders to apply to you.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright wp-image-8082\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/shutterstock_1097729291-912x1024.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"302\" height=\"339\" />Specifically, when could a UWO apply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UK high court judge can give notice of a UWO if the judge is satisfied that it is likely that a foreign PEP (as defined above) is the owner of suspicious wealth in the UK beyond their means, and if all of the following provisions are met:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The value of the asset is greater than £50,000 (approx. AED 260,000).</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This legislation does not only target Foreign PEPs, but also where there are reasonable grounds to suspect any individual has been involved in serious crime.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for UWOs may be made without notice. This means that there is no requirement on the UK investigative authority to notify the target of a UWO that they, or their assets, have been made subject of a UWO.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What assets would this apply to?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A UWO can be made against assets whose value is greater than £50,000. There is no need for the PEP to be the sole owner of the property whose value is over £50,000, nor is it of relevance if the property was purchased prior to the introduction of the UK legislation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What is the effect?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Following the making of an order by the High Court, the Court may order an individual’s property to be frozen, which would preclude the subject of the order from dealing with the property. As these freezing orders may be made without notice, this means that an individual’s assets may be frozen prior to their knowledge of any order being made against them.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UWO will mandate the individual to explain, at a minimum:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The nature and extent of their interest in a particular property; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Explain how the property was obtained.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An explanation will be requested by the UK authorities where ‘there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property’.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Failing to Comply?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Should the target of a UWO fail to comply with an order, or provide inaccurate or misleading information, then they will likely be subject to criminal sanction in the UK and may face a period of imprisonment and a financial penalty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Within the legislation, it is stated that a UWO could lead to criminal liability for a target if that individual fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements imposed by the Court against that individual. There is no definition of what a reasonable excuse would be in the legislation, and is a subjective requirement that would be decided in Court during the course of litigation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-8014 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.43.01-PM-242x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"304\" height=\"377\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A View from the East: Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These orders, whilst designed to tackle money laundering on a global scale, and limit the use of the UK jurisdiction for those who seek to gain from their ill-gotten earnings, may cause legal difficulties for individuals based in foreign jurisdictions who are subject to UWOs – such as the UAE and the wider GCC – due to a conflict of laws between this UK legislation and that of other countries. This conflict could lead to an individual’s adherence to UK legislation meaning that the individual would be liable to prosecution in other jurisdictions.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Taking the UAE as a representative example of the Middle East’s approach to confidential or private information, the UAE’s jurisdiction imposes very strict obligations on an individual’s use and disclosure of confidential information. It is a criminal offence, pursuant to the UAE’s Federal Law No. 3 of 1987, as amended by Federal Decree No. 7 of 2016 (UAE Penal Code) to disclose secret information. Secret information is afforded an expansive definition in the UAE Penal Code and it is commonly viewed any information that is confidential, i.e. not in the public domain, and that an individual possesses due to their employment or individual nature.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, due to the extraterritorial nature of the UAE Penal Code, should an individual commit a crime that is wholly or partly committed within the UAE, then that individual would be bound by the provisions of the Penal Code, and would be bound by provisions such as the disclosure of secret information. Specifically, should an individual be requested to provide secret information, such as the source of funds from a business entity, to the UK authorities, and that information relates to a UAE business or UAE based individual, then if the material or information is disclosed following a UWO in the UK, then in the UAE the individual may be subject to criminal prosecution for disclosing that exact information.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There is no exception afforded under UAE domestic legislation that would permit an individual to disclose confidential information to a foreign investigative authority (such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, or National Security Agency). Should that individual disclose such information to the UK’s, or any other foreign State’s, investigative authority, then that individual may be liable to prosecution in the UAE in the same manner as though the disclosure had been made to a private individual or entity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prosecution for disclosing confidential information is a serious offence in the UAE, and one that may carry a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the stakes are very high when one is subject to an international request for judicial assistance, in any form, and it is for that reason and in order to assist with international criminal investigations that the UAE has entered into number multilateral and bilateral treaties aimed at assisting mutual judicial assistance requests. As with most international requests from law enforcement agencies, such requests should follow the usual diplomatic channels through the deployment of letters rogatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The difficulties for UAE individuals would not stop simply at the threat of criminal sanction, but also according to the UAE’s Labour Law, should an individual disclose the secrets of their employer, then the worker may be dismissed without notice and forfeit their entire severance pay.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Accordingly, the receipt of a UWO in the UK demanding that an individual provide information to the UAE authorities may conflict with the statutory protection relating to confidential information (or other laws) in a foreign jurisdiction, such as the UAE. This would lead to the precarious situation where an individual may face prosecution in the UK if he doesn’t comply with the UWO, but criminal prosecution in the UAE if he does comply.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe above example and review provides a very high-level overview of the competing laws that the UK’s UWOs may catch. Whilst the UK legislation will no doubt serve as an effective deterrent and useful tool in minimising global money laundering, and limiting the attraction of the UK for criminals, it may have unintended consequences for foreign nationals holding legitimate assets in the UK. Prior to making any response to a request for assistance, it is imperative that the recipient apprise themselves of all legal considerations to ensure that they are not jumping out of the frying pan, but straight into the fire.'),
	(265078,25654,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265079,25654,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265080,25654,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265081,25654,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265082,25655,'PostID','7940'),
	(265083,25655,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265084,25655,'PostTitle','Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
	(265085,25655,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265086,25655,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
	(265087,25655,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
	(265088,25655,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
	(265089,25655,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265090,25655,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265091,25655,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265092,25655,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265093,25656,'PostID','7940'),
	(265094,25656,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265095,25656,'PostTitle','Stuck between a rock and a hard place… : The UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders and the effect in the Middle East'),
	(265096,25656,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265097,25656,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:41:14'),
	(265098,25656,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-uks-unexplained-wealth-orders-and-the-effect-in-the-middle-east/'),
	(265099,25656,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7940&amp;action=edit'),
	(265100,25656,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265101,25656,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265102,25656,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265103,25656,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265104,25657,'PostID','7941'),
	(265105,25657,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265106,25657,'PostTitle','Arabian Nights or Northern Lights: Observing Global Anti-Corruption Practices in Full Daylight'),
	(265107,25657,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265108,25657,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:40:48'),
	(265109,25657,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/arabian-nights-or-northern-lights-observing-global-anti-corruption-practices-in-full-daylight/'),
	(265110,25657,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7941&amp;action=edit'),
	(265111,25657,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265112,25657,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265113,25657,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265114,25657,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265115,25658,'PostID','7941'),
	(265116,25658,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265117,25658,'PostTitle','Arabian Nights or Northern Lights: Observing Global Anti-Corruption Practices in Full Daylight'),
	(265118,25658,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265119,25658,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:40:48'),
	(265120,25658,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/arabian-nights-or-northern-lights-observing-global-anti-corruption-practices-in-full-daylight/'),
	(265121,25658,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7941&amp;action=edit'),
	(265122,25658,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265123,25658,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265124,25658,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265125,25658,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265126,25659,'PostID','7941'),
	(265127,25659,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265128,25659,'PostTitle','Arabian Nights or Northern Lights: Observing Global Anti-Corruption Practices in Full Daylight'),
	(265129,25659,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265130,25659,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:40:48'),
	(265131,25659,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/arabian-nights-or-northern-lights-observing-global-anti-corruption-practices-in-full-daylight/'),
	(265132,25659,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7941&amp;action=edit'),
	(265133,25659,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265134,25659,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265135,25659,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265136,25659,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265137,25660,'PostID','7941'),
	(265138,25660,'PostTitle','Arabian Nights or Northern Lights: Observing Global Anti-Corruption Practices in Full Daylight'),
	(265139,25660,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265140,25660,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265141,25660,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:40:48'),
	(265142,25660,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/arabian-nights-or-northern-lights-observing-global-anti-corruption-practices-in-full-daylight/'),
	(265143,25660,'MetaID','223362'),
	(265144,25660,'MetaKey','content'),
	(265145,25660,'MetaValueNew','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8015\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"4573\" height=\"1322\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption is a hot topic across the globe. Scoring on top of international rankings, the Nordic countries (being Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) have traditionally been regarded as the global frontrunners when it comes to anti-corruption. In the Middle East, governments are working hard to decrease bribery and increase transparency in society, which ultimately complements the general promotion of civil rights. Research indicates that free speech, independent media, political dissent and an open and engaged civil society, access to information and the non-existence of censorship are the core elements preventing corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The author previously practised law in Finland, advising Finnish and Scandinavian clients, before locating to the UAE. In this article I seek to provide comparative insights on the topic of anti-corruption practices between the Middle East and the Nordic countries, in light of current developments.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>From global harmonisation of laws to local enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption on a global level is subject to several international treaties, the provisions of which are then transposed to national laws, harmonising the content thereof. The most important international treaties in this regard are the United Nations Convention Against Corruption of 2003 and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 1997. In Europe, an intergovernmental body called the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was established in 1999 by the Council of Europe to monitor its Member States’ compliance with the organisation’s anti-corruption standards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The intention of international treaties is to establish common worldwide legislative standards for anti-corruption laws through imposing obligations on the Member States to bring their legislation in line with the obligations of the treaties. As a result, the laws of different Member States should include similar provisions criminalising the different forms of bribery, which provisions are locally enforced by national authorities. Despite these developments, it goes without saying that the national anti-corruption laws are far from being harmonised and different geographic regions face different corruption related challenges.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Corruption Perceptions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Transparency International is a non-governmental watchdog promoting anti-corruption in the world. It publishes an annual Corruption Perception Index, ranking 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, predicated on information provided by experts and businesspeople.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Middle East consists of a variety of jurisdictions, many of which are far from homogenous. While some of the countries are still subject to weaker public institutions due to, e.g.; internal conflict, a number of countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Lebanon, are taking positive steps towards fighting corruption and increasing transparency and integrity in their societies. The hard work conducted by local governments in the Middle East is gradually attracting the attention of the rest of the world.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This year, the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") ranked higher on the index than ever before. The UAE reached the 21st position in the ranking being the frontrunner of the Middle East. According to Transparency International, this may be due to good and efficient management of public finances, improved public procurement and better access to public services and infrastructure in the UAE. In 2016, the UAE carried out a significant reform of its criminal laws, which may be reflected in the Index as well.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Nordic countries usually score highest in international anti-corruption rankings. According to the latest Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark was ranked the 2nd least corrupt country in the world, after New Zealand. Finland and Norway shared 3rd spot and Sweden ranked 6th. Iceland, holding 13th position, appears to be an outlier among Nordic countries.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering the rankings, one may ask whether Nordic countries are perhaps a safe-harbour from corruption. Despite the apparently excellent reputation, do corruption related risks still exist for businesses in the Nordics? Are the Nordic Countries the complete opposite to the Middle East?</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Finland: There is a snake in paradise</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Despite direct bribery being relatively rare in Finland and the rest of the Nordic jurisdictions, the existence of conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency in declaring conflicts of interest have turned out to be a common feature of the Nordic countries. This may be difficult to detect considering it is an inherently subjective evaluation. I suggest corruption does exist in Nordic countries, but that it has taken forms that are relatively difficult to detect by researchers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In the aftermath of its evaluation round in September 2017, GRECO issued recommendations to Finland aimed at improving its anti-corruption regime, such recommendations being published in March 2018. Six of the recommendations issued by GRECO concerned senior government officials and ministers, and eight of them law enforcement authorities. Regarding law enforcement agencies, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard develop a dedicated anti-corruption strategy or policy, compile a code of conduct and specify their guidelines for secondary employment, organise training on the prevention and combating of corruption, and reinforce ethical practices in their career-related processes. In addition, it is recommended that the police enhance their risk management, internal oversight, and procedures to be followed by their officials when taking up secondary employment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">When it comes to whistleblower protection, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard be obliged to report suspicions of corruption and that protection of the whistleblowers be enhanced. At the moment, Finnish law does not include all-encompassing provisions protecting whistleblowers, applicable across different industries and, as a result, whistleblowers are practically protected only by the provisions in the Employment Act regulating grounds for dismissal. When it comes to the GRECO anti-corruption recommendations with regards to judges, public prosecutors and Members of Parliament, the Finnish Ministry of Justice announced in May 2018 that it has duly implemented all the recommendations. Also, the current Minister of Labour is strongly promoting enhancing whistleblower protection in Finland according to his political agenda.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Sweden: a recent extraterritoriality exercise in the telecommunications sector</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finland is not the only Nordic jurisdiction that has recently encountered serious corruption allegations. In Sweden, a local leading telecommunications company and its Uzbek subsidiary admitted paying (on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2010) more than USD 331 million in bribes to an Uzbek government official, who was a close relative of a high-ranking government official and had influence over the Uzbek governmental body that regulated the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications operator, which used to be a listed company in New York, used US bank accounts to move the bribery related assets, which triggered the involvement of the US authorities.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2017, the company reached a settlement involving the anti-corruption authorities of the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden. In the United States, the company entered a deferred prosecution agreement agreeing to pay the fine, implement rigorous internal controls and cooperate fully with the Department’s ongoing investigation, including its investigation of individuals. The U.S. authorities agreed to credit any disgorged profits paid to the Swedish and Dutch authorities as a result of related national proceedings in Sweden and in the Netherlands.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to the criminal proceedings faced by the company, the individual directors involved are now being prosecuted in Sweden for bribery. According to the prosecutor, the company paid the authorities to make a preferred decision when considering its operational licenses in Uzbekistan and the prosecuted directors in question were aware of the bribery or even took initiative in the matter.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The loopholes relating to gifts and hospitality in the Middle East</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In Europe and in the United States, there is a common trend of companies becoming extremely cautious when it comes to hospitality and gifts, including business to business relationships. Public officials aside, one of the most common corruption related issues that businesses often struggle with is to understand where to draw the line between illegitimate and legitimate, or sometimes even expected, provision of business gifts and hospitality in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There are different legislative approaches to private sector bribery in the Middle East. For example, the UAE has explicitly criminalised bribery in business in Article 236 bis of the Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 as amended by the Federal Decree Law No. 7 of 2016 (\"UAE Penal Code\"). Another example can be found in Qatar where passive bribery i.e. accepting illegitimate benefits in the private sector has been criminalised in Article 146 of the Law Number 11 of 2004 (\"Qatar Penal Code\")..</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In light of the above, and importantly for companies doing business in the Middle East, it is highly recommended to adopt restrictive hospitality policies in order to avoid bribery risks in relation to both the public and the private sector. It should be noted that the anti-bribery laws in the Middle East do not usually include exceptions when it comes to gifts of only nominal value, if the corrupt intent can be proven. Also, the definition of a public official tends to be relatively broad resulting e.g. employees of many companies subject to (partial) government ownership being regarded as public officials.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key take home for global businesses: global vigilance</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The above examples indicate that regardless of the jurisdiction - whether the Middle East, the high ranking Nordic countries or elsewhere in the world, no business is entirely safe from corruption related risks. International rankings aside, businesses should pay attention to corruption risks and implement strict compliance policies. As demonstrated above, there is no safe-harbour when it comes to corruption risk management.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Adopting an anti-bribery policy is always advisable irrespective of whether the law so obliges. The policy should be embedded in the business procedures of the company, accompanied by quality training of the personnel at regular intervals to identify and avoid compliance risks.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Similarly to compliance policies, legislators have adopted different approaches to whistleblowing regulations. Businesses should not hesitate to go beyond the statutory requirements and implement independent whistleblowing channels to help foster a compliance culture in their organisations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is important to note that bribery is only one aspect of corruption. As demonstrated above, corruption can take many forms. Detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest in business operations can work against presuming corrupt intent, due to which businesses are advised to include relevant provisions on excluding conflicted employees from decision making in order to manage corruption risks. Even though the examples set out above include significant intentional bribery, in many jurisdictions bribery offences are criminalised even if the offence is not intentionally committed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to local laws and local law enforcement, the extraterritorial effect of certain foreign anti-corruption laws should be observed. For example, US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (\"FCPA\") is widely known to be enforced also in respect of corruption offences taking place outside the United States. Transacting in US Dollars or employing US citizens may trigger the application of the FCPA and enforcement thereof by US authorities irrespective of the location of the business or any potential bribery activity, including in the Middle East. Businesses are recommended to adopt anti-corruption policies and accounting standards that meet the requirements of all the statutes potentially applicable to their operations. It seems that national authorities are working closely together to resolve cross-border bribery matters making it more difficult for the offenders to escape the jurisdiction of national authorities in an international context.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It seems that the Nordics can no longer take their high ranking in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for granted. This is partly due not only to international watchdogs, but also legislators and law enforcement authorities realising that the roots of corruption are embedded in conflict of interest which is a prevalent issue in the Nordic countries. At the same time, other countries are also working hard towards efficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws which makes competition at the top level fiercer than ever.</p>\r\nAs Transparency International and intergovernmental bodies, such as the United Nations, do not solely consider the content of laws and enforcement statistics, making general changes in improving transparency and integrity in the public sector may also yield a positive effect on anti-corruption. Importantly for businesses, it should be noted that bribery is widely criminalised in the Middle East and bribery laws actively enforced. The efforts made by the governments in the Middle East are gradually being recognised in the international domain.'),
	(265146,25660,'MetaValueOld','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8015\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"4573\" height=\"1322\" />Combating corruption is a hot topic across the globe. Scoring on top of international rankings, the Nordic countries (being Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) have traditionally been regarded as the global frontrunners when it comes to anti-corruption. In the Middle East, governments are working hard to decrease bribery and increase transparency in society, which ultimately complements the general promotion of civil rights. Research indicates that free speech, independent media, political dissent and an open and engaged civil society, access to information and the non-existence of censorship are the core elements preventing corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The author previously practised law in Finland, advising Finnish and Scandinavian clients, before locating to the UAE. In this article I seek to provide comparative insights on the topic of anti-corruption practices between the Middle East and the Nordic countries, in light of current developments.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>From global harmonisation of laws to local enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption on a global level is subject to several international treaties, the provisions of which are then transposed to national laws, harmonising the content thereof. The most important international treaties in this regard are the United Nations Convention Against Corruption of 2003 and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 1997. In Europe, an intergovernmental body called the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was established in 1999 by the Council of Europe to monitor its Member States’ compliance with the organisation’s anti-corruption standards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The intention of international treaties is to establish common worldwide legislative standards for anti-corruption laws through imposing obligations on the Member States to bring their legislation in line with the obligations of the treaties. As a result, the laws of different Member States should include similar provisions criminalising the different forms of bribery, which provisions are locally enforced by national authorities. Despite these developments, it goes without saying that the national anti-corruption laws are far from being harmonised and different geographic regions face different corruption related challenges.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Corruption Perceptions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Transparency International is a non-governmental watchdog promoting anti-corruption in the world. It publishes an annual Corruption Perception Index, ranking 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, predicated on information provided by experts and businesspeople.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Middle East consists of a variety of jurisdictions, many of which are far from homogenous. While some of the countries are still subject to weaker public institutions due to, e.g.; internal conflict, a number of countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Lebanon, are taking positive steps towards fighting corruption and increasing transparency and integrity in their societies. The hard work conducted by local governments in the Middle East is gradually attracting the attention of the rest of the world.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This year, the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") ranked higher on the index than ever before. The UAE reached the 21st position in the ranking being the frontrunner of the Middle East. According to Transparency International, this may be due to good and efficient management of public finances, improved public procurement and better access to public services and infrastructure in the UAE. In 2016, the UAE carried out a significant reform of its criminal laws, which may be reflected in the Index as well.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Nordic countries usually score highest in international anti-corruption rankings. According to the latest Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark was ranked the 2nd least corrupt country in the world, after New Zealand. Finland and Norway shared 3rd spot and Sweden ranked 6th. Iceland, holding 13th position, appears to be an outlier among Nordic countries.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering the rankings, one may ask whether Nordic countries are perhaps a safe-harbour from corruption. Despite the apparently excellent reputation, do corruption related risks still exist for businesses in the Nordics? Are the Nordic Countries the complete opposite to the Middle East?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Finland: There is a snake in paradise</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Despite direct bribery being relatively rare in Finland and the rest of the Nordic jurisdictions, the existence of conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency in declaring conflicts of interest have turned out to be a common feature of the Nordic countries. This may be difficult to detect considering it is an inherently subjective evaluation. I suggest corruption does exist in Nordic countries, but that it has taken forms that are relatively difficult to detect by researchers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In the aftermath of its evaluation round in September 2017, GRECO issued recommendations to Finland aimed at improving its anti-corruption regime, such recommendations being published in March 2018. Six of the recommendations issued by GRECO concerned senior government officials and ministers, and eight of them law enforcement authorities. Regarding law enforcement agencies, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard develop a dedicated anti-corruption strategy or policy, compile a code of conduct and specify their guidelines for secondary employment, organise training on the prevention and combating of corruption, and reinforce ethical practices in their career-related processes. In addition, it is recommended that the police enhance their risk management, internal oversight, and procedures to be followed by their officials when taking up secondary employment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">When it comes to whistleblower protection, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard be obliged to report suspicions of corruption and that protection of the whistleblowers be enhanced. At the moment, Finnish law does not include all-encompassing provisions protecting whistleblowers, applicable across different industries and, as a result, whistleblowers are practically protected only by the provisions in the Employment Act regulating grounds for dismissal. When it comes to the GRECO anti-corruption recommendations with regards to judges, public prosecutors and Members of Parliament, the Finnish Ministry of Justice announced in May 2018 that it has duly implemented all the recommendations. Also, the current Minister of Labour is strongly promoting enhancing whistleblower protection in Finland according to his political agenda.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Sweden: a recent extraterritoriality exercise in the telecommunications sector</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finland is not the only Nordic jurisdiction that has recently encountered serious corruption allegations. In Sweden, a local leading telecommunications company and its Uzbek subsidiary admitted paying (on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2010) more than USD 331 million in bribes to an Uzbek government official, who was a close relative of a high-ranking government official and had influence over the Uzbek governmental body that regulated the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications operator, which used to be a listed company in New York, used US bank accounts to move the bribery related assets, which triggered the involvement of the US authorities.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2017, the company reached a settlement involving the anti-corruption authorities of the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden. In the United States, the company entered a deferred prosecution agreement agreeing to pay the fine, implement rigorous internal controls and cooperate fully with the Department’s ongoing investigation, including its investigation of individuals. The U.S. authorities agreed to credit any disgorged profits paid to the Swedish and Dutch authorities as a result of related national proceedings in Sweden and in the Netherlands.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to the criminal proceedings faced by the company, the individual directors involved are now being prosecuted in Sweden for bribery. According to the prosecutor, the company paid the authorities to make a preferred decision when considering its operational licenses in Uzbekistan and the prosecuted directors in question were aware of the bribery or even took initiative in the matter.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The loopholes relating to gifts and hospitality in the Middle East</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In Europe and in the United States, there is a common trend of companies becoming extremely cautious when it comes to hospitality and gifts, including business to business relationships. Public officials aside, one of the most common corruption related issues that businesses often struggle with is to understand where to draw the line between illegitimate and legitimate, or sometimes even expected, provision of business gifts and hospitality in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There are different legislative approaches to private sector bribery in the Middle East. For example, the UAE has explicitly criminalised bribery in business in Article 236 bis of the Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 as amended by the Federal Decree Law No. 7 of 2016 (\"UAE Penal Code\"). Another example can be found in Qatar where passive bribery i.e. accepting illegitimate benefits in the private sector has been criminalised in Article 146 of the Law Number 11 of 2004 (\"Qatar Penal Code\")..</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In light of the above, and importantly for companies doing business in the Middle East, it is highly recommended to adopt restrictive hospitality policies in order to avoid bribery risks in relation to both the public and the private sector. It should be noted that the anti-bribery laws in the Middle East do not usually include exceptions when it comes to gifts of only nominal value, if the corrupt intent can be proven. Also, the definition of a public official tends to be relatively broad resulting e.g. employees of many companies subject to (partial) government ownership being regarded as public officials.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key take home for global businesses: global vigilance</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The above examples indicate that regardless of the jurisdiction - whether the Middle East, the high ranking Nordic countries or elsewhere in the world, no business is entirely safe from corruption related risks. International rankings aside, businesses should pay attention to corruption risks and implement strict compliance policies. As demonstrated above, there is no safe-harbour when it comes to corruption risk management.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Adopting an anti-bribery policy is always advisable irrespective of whether the law so obliges. The policy should be embedded in the business procedures of the company, accompanied by quality training of the personnel at regular intervals to identify and avoid compliance risks.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Similarly to compliance policies, legislators have adopted different approaches to whistleblowing regulations. Businesses should not hesitate to go beyond the statutory requirements and implement independent whistleblowing channels to help foster a compliance culture in their organisations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is important to note that bribery is only one aspect of corruption. As demonstrated above, corruption can take many forms. Detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest in business operations can work against presuming corrupt intent, due to which businesses are advised to include relevant provisions on excluding conflicted employees from decision making in order to manage corruption risks. Even though the examples set out above include significant intentional bribery, in many jurisdictions bribery offences are criminalised even if the offence is not intentionally committed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to local laws and local law enforcement, the extraterritorial effect of certain foreign anti-corruption laws should be observed. For example, US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (\"FCPA\") is widely known to be enforced also in respect of corruption offences taking place outside the United States. Transacting in US Dollars or employing US citizens may trigger the application of the FCPA and enforcement thereof by US authorities irrespective of the location of the business or any potential bribery activity, including in the Middle East. Businesses are recommended to adopt anti-corruption policies and accounting standards that meet the requirements of all the statutes potentially applicable to their operations. It seems that national authorities are working closely together to resolve cross-border bribery matters making it more difficult for the offenders to escape the jurisdiction of national authorities in an international context.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It seems that the Nordics can no longer take their high ranking in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for granted. This is partly due not only to international watchdogs, but also legislators and law enforcement authorities realising that the roots of corruption are embedded in conflict of interest which is a prevalent issue in the Nordic countries. At the same time, other countries are also working hard towards efficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws which makes competition at the top level fiercer than ever.</p>\r\nAs Transparency International and intergovernmental bodies, such as the United Nations, do not solely consider the content of laws and enforcement statistics, making general changes in improving transparency and integrity in the public sector may also yield a positive effect on anti-corruption. Importantly for businesses, it should be noted that bribery is widely criminalised in the Middle East and bribery laws actively enforced. The efforts made by the governments in the Middle East are gradually being recognised in the international domain.'),
	(265147,25660,'MetaLink','content'),
	(265148,25660,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7941&amp;action=edit'),
	(265149,25660,'ReportText','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8015\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"4573\" height=\"1322\" />Combating corruption is a hot topic across the globe. Scoring on top of international rankings, the Nordic countries (being Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) have traditionally been regarded as the global frontrunners when it comes to anti-corruption. In the Middle East, governments are working hard to decrease bribery and increase transparency in society, which ultimately complements the general promotion of civil rights. Research indicates that free speech, independent media, political dissent and an open and engaged civil society, access to information and the non-existence of censorship are the core elements preventing corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The author previously practised law in Finland, advising Finnish and Scandinavian clients, before locating to the UAE. In this article I seek to provide comparative insights on the topic of anti-corruption practices between the Middle East and the Nordic countries, in light of current developments.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>From global harmonisation of laws to local enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption on a global level is subject to several international treaties, the provisions of which are then transposed to national laws, harmonising the content thereof. The most important international treaties in this regard are the United Nations Convention Against Corruption of 2003 and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 1997. In Europe, an intergovernmental body called the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was established in 1999 by the Council of Europe to monitor its Member States’ compliance with the organisation’s anti-corruption standards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The intention of international treaties is to establish common worldwide legislative standards for anti-corruption laws through imposing obligations on the Member States to bring their legislation in line with the obligations of the treaties. As a result, the laws of different Member States should include similar provisions criminalising the different forms of bribery, which provisions are locally enforced by national authorities. Despite these developments, it goes without saying that the national anti-corruption laws are far from being harmonised and different geographic regions face different corruption related challenges.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Corruption Perceptions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Transparency International is a non-governmental watchdog promoting anti-corruption in the world. It publishes an annual Corruption Perception Index, ranking 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, predicated on information provided by experts and businesspeople.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Middle East consists of a variety of jurisdictions, many of which are far from homogenous. While some of the countries are still subject to weaker public institutions due to, e.g.; internal conflict, a number of countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Lebanon, are taking positive steps towards fighting corruption and increasing transparency and integrity in their societies. The hard work conducted by local governments in the Middle East is gradually attracting the attention of the rest of the world.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This year, the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") ranked higher on the index than ever before. The UAE reached the 21st position in the ranking being the frontrunner of the Middle East. According to Transparency International, this may be due to good and efficient management of public finances, improved public procurement and better access to public services and infrastructure in the UAE. In 2016, the UAE carried out a significant reform of its criminal laws, which may be reflected in the Index as well.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Nordic countries usually score highest in international anti-corruption rankings. According to the latest Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark was ranked the 2nd least corrupt country in the world, after New Zealand. Finland and Norway shared 3rd spot and Sweden ranked 6th. Iceland, holding 13th position, appears to be an outlier among Nordic countries.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering the rankings, one may ask whether Nordic countries are perhaps a safe-harbour from corruption. Despite the apparently excellent reputation, do corruption related risks still exist for businesses in the Nordics? Are the Nordic Countries the complete opposite to the Middle East?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Finland: There is a snake in paradise</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Despite direct bribery being relatively rare in Finland and the rest of the Nordic jurisdictions, the existence of conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency in declaring conflicts of interest have turned out to be a common feature of the Nordic countries. This may be difficult to detect considering it is an inherently subjective evaluation. I suggest corruption does exist in Nordic countries, but that it has taken forms that are relatively difficult to detect by researchers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In the aftermath of its evaluation round in September 2017, GRECO issued recommendations to Finland aimed at improving its anti-corruption regime, such recommendations being published in March 2018. Six of the recommendations issued by GRECO concerned senior government officials and ministers, and eight of them law enforcement authorities. Regarding law enforcement agencies, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard develop a dedicated anti-corruption strategy or policy, compile a code of conduct and specify their guidelines for secondary employment, organise training on the prevention and combating of corruption, and reinforce ethical practices in their career-related processes. In addition, it is recommended that the police enhance their risk management, internal oversight, and procedures to be followed by their officials when taking up secondary employment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">When it comes to whistleblower protection, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard be obliged to report suspicions of corruption and that protection of the whistleblowers be enhanced. At the moment, Finnish law does not include all-encompassing provisions protecting whistleblowers, applicable across different industries and, as a result, whistleblowers are practically protected only by the provisions in the Employment Act regulating grounds for dismissal. When it comes to the GRECO anti-corruption recommendations with regards to judges, public prosecutors and Members of Parliament, the Finnish Ministry of Justice announced in May 2018 that it has duly implemented all the recommendations. Also, the current Minister of Labour is strongly promoting enhancing whistleblower protection in Finland according to his political agenda.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Sweden: a recent extraterritoriality exercise in the telecommunications sector</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finland is not the only Nordic jurisdiction that has recently encountered serious corruption allegations. In Sweden, a local leading telecommunications company and its Uzbek subsidiary admitted paying (on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2010) more than USD 331 million in bribes to an Uzbek government official, who was a close relative of a high-ranking government official and had influence over the Uzbek governmental body that regulated the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications operator, which used to be a listed company in New York, used US bank accounts to move the bribery related assets, which triggered the involvement of the US authorities.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2017, the company reached a settlement involving the anti-corruption authorities of the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden. In the United States, the company entered a deferred prosecution agreement agreeing to pay the fine, implement rigorous internal controls and cooperate fully with the Department’s ongoing investigation, including its investigation of individuals. The U.S. authorities agreed to credit any disgorged profits paid to the Swedish and Dutch authorities as a result of related national proceedings in Sweden and in the Netherlands.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to the criminal proceedings faced by the company, the individual directors involved are now being prosecuted in Sweden for bribery. According to the prosecutor, the company paid the authorities to make a preferred decision when considering its operational licenses in Uzbekistan and the prosecuted directors in question were aware of the bribery or even took initiative in the matter.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The loopholes relating to gifts and hospitality in the Middle East</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In Europe and in the United States, there is a common trend of companies becoming extremely cautious when it comes to hospitality and gifts, including business to business relationships. Public officials aside, one of the most common corruption related issues that businesses often struggle with is to understand where to draw the line between illegitimate and legitimate, or sometimes even expected, provision of business gifts and hospitality in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There are different legislative approaches to private sector bribery in the Middle East. For example, the UAE has explicitly criminalised bribery in business in Article 236 bis of the Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 as amended by the Federal Decree Law No. 7 of 2016 (\"UAE Penal Code\"). Another example can be found in Qatar where passive bribery i.e. accepting illegitimate benefits in the private sector has been criminalised in Article 146 of the Law Number 11 of 2004 (\"Qatar Penal Code\")..</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In light of the above, and importantly for companies doing business in the Middle East, it is highly recommended to adopt restrictive hospitality policies in order to avoid bribery risks in relation to both the public and the private sector. It should be noted that the anti-bribery laws in the Middle East do not usually include exceptions when it comes to gifts of only nominal value, if the corrupt intent can be proven. Also, the definition of a public official tends to be relatively broad resulting e.g. employees of many companies subject to (partial) government ownership being regarded as public officials.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key take home for global businesses: global vigilance</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The above examples indicate that regardless of the jurisdiction - whether the Middle East, the high ranking Nordic countries or elsewhere in the world, no business is entirely safe from corruption related risks. International rankings aside, businesses should pay attention to corruption risks and implement strict compliance policies. As demonstrated above, there is no safe-harbour when it comes to corruption risk management.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Adopting an anti-bribery policy is always advisable irrespective of whether the law so obliges. The policy should be embedded in the business procedures of the company, accompanied by quality training of the personnel at regular intervals to identify and avoid compliance risks.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Similarly to compliance policies, legislators have adopted different approaches to whistleblowing regulations. Businesses should not hesitate to go beyond the statutory requirements and implement independent whistleblowing channels to help foster a compliance culture in their organisations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is important to note that bribery is only one aspect of corruption. As demonstrated above, corruption can take many forms. Detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest in business operations can work against presuming corrupt intent, due to which businesses are advised to include relevant provisions on excluding conflicted employees from decision making in order to manage corruption risks. Even though the examples set out above include significant intentional bribery, in many jurisdictions bribery offences are criminalised even if the offence is not intentionally committed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to local laws and local law enforcement, the extraterritorial effect of certain foreign anti-corruption laws should be observed. For example, US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (\"FCPA\") is widely known to be enforced also in respect of corruption offences taking place outside the United States. Transacting in US Dollars or employing US citizens may trigger the application of the FCPA and enforcement thereof by US authorities irrespective of the location of the business or any potential bribery activity, including in the Middle East. Businesses are recommended to adopt anti-corruption policies and accounting standards that meet the requirements of all the statutes potentially applicable to their operations. It seems that national authorities are working closely together to resolve cross-border bribery matters making it more difficult for the offenders to escape the jurisdiction of national authorities in an international context.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It seems that the Nordics can no longer take their high ranking in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for granted. This is partly due not only to international watchdogs, but also legislators and law enforcement authorities realising that the roots of corruption are embedded in conflict of interest which is a prevalent issue in the Nordic countries. At the same time, other countries are also working hard towards efficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws which makes competition at the top level fiercer than ever.</p>\r\nAs Transparency International and intergovernmental bodies, such as the United Nations, do not solely consider the content of laws and enforcement statistics, making general changes in improving transparency and integrity in the public sector may also yield a positive effect on anti-corruption. Importantly for businesses, it should be noted that bribery is widely criminalised in the Middle East and bribery laws actively enforced. The efforts made by the governments in the Middle East are gradually being recognised in the international domain.|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8015\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"4573\" height=\"1322\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption is a hot topic across the globe. Scoring on top of international rankings, the Nordic countries (being Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) have traditionally been regarded as the global frontrunners when it comes to anti-corruption. In the Middle East, governments are working hard to decrease bribery and increase transparency in society, which ultimately complements the general promotion of civil rights. Research indicates that free speech, independent media, political dissent and an open and engaged civil society, access to information and the non-existence of censorship are the core elements preventing corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The author previously practised law in Finland, advising Finnish and Scandinavian clients, before locating to the UAE. In this article I seek to provide comparative insights on the topic of anti-corruption practices between the Middle East and the Nordic countries, in light of current developments.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>From global harmonisation of laws to local enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption on a global level is subject to several international treaties, the provisions of which are then transposed to national laws, harmonising the content thereof. The most important international treaties in this regard are the United Nations Convention Against Corruption of 2003 and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 1997. In Europe, an intergovernmental body called the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was established in 1999 by the Council of Europe to monitor its Member States’ compliance with the organisation’s anti-corruption standards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The intention of international treaties is to establish common worldwide legislative standards for anti-corruption laws through imposing obligations on the Member States to bring their legislation in line with the obligations of the treaties. As a result, the laws of different Member States should include similar provisions criminalising the different forms of bribery, which provisions are locally enforced by national authorities. Despite these developments, it goes without saying that the national anti-corruption laws are far from being harmonised and different geographic regions face different corruption related challenges.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Corruption Perceptions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Transparency International is a non-governmental watchdog promoting anti-corruption in the world. It publishes an annual Corruption Perception Index, ranking 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, predicated on information provided by experts and businesspeople.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Middle East consists of a variety of jurisdictions, many of which are far from homogenous. While some of the countries are still subject to weaker public institutions due to, e.g.; internal conflict, a number of countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Lebanon, are taking positive steps towards fighting corruption and increasing transparency and integrity in their societies. The hard work conducted by local governments in the Middle East is gradually attracting the attention of the rest of the world.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This year, the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") ranked higher on the index than ever before. The UAE reached the 21st position in the ranking being the frontrunner of the Middle East. According to Transparency International, this may be due to good and efficient management of public finances, improved public procurement and better access to public services and infrastructure in the UAE. In 2016, the UAE carried out a significant reform of its criminal laws, which may be reflected in the Index as well.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Nordic countries usually score highest in international anti-corruption rankings. According to the latest Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark was ranked the 2nd least corrupt country in the world, after New Zealand. Finland and Norway shared 3rd spot and Sweden ranked 6th. Iceland, holding 13th position, appears to be an outlier among Nordic countries.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering the rankings, one may ask whether Nordic countries are perhaps a safe-harbour from corruption. Despite the apparently excellent reputation, do corruption related risks still exist for businesses in the Nordics? Are the Nordic Countries the complete opposite to the Middle East?</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Finland: There is a snake in paradise</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Despite direct bribery being relatively rare in Finland and the rest of the Nordic jurisdictions, the existence of conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency in declaring conflicts of interest have turned out to be a common feature of the Nordic countries. This may be difficult to detect considering it is an inherently subjective evaluation. I suggest corruption does exist in Nordic countries, but that it has taken forms that are relatively difficult to detect by researchers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In the aftermath of its evaluation round in September 2017, GRECO issued recommendations to Finland aimed at improving its anti-corruption regime, such recommendations being published in March 2018. Six of the recommendations issued by GRECO concerned senior government officials and ministers, and eight of them law enforcement authorities. Regarding law enforcement agencies, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard develop a dedicated anti-corruption strategy or policy, compile a code of conduct and specify their guidelines for secondary employment, organise training on the prevention and combating of corruption, and reinforce ethical practices in their career-related processes. In addition, it is recommended that the police enhance their risk management, internal oversight, and procedures to be followed by their officials when taking up secondary employment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">When it comes to whistleblower protection, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard be obliged to report suspicions of corruption and that protection of the whistleblowers be enhanced. At the moment, Finnish law does not include all-encompassing provisions protecting whistleblowers, applicable across different industries and, as a result, whistleblowers are practically protected only by the provisions in the Employment Act regulating grounds for dismissal. When it comes to the GRECO anti-corruption recommendations with regards to judges, public prosecutors and Members of Parliament, the Finnish Ministry of Justice announced in May 2018 that it has duly implemented all the recommendations. Also, the current Minister of Labour is strongly promoting enhancing whistleblower protection in Finland according to his political agenda.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Sweden: a recent extraterritoriality exercise in the telecommunications sector</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finland is not the only Nordic jurisdiction that has recently encountered serious corruption allegations. In Sweden, a local leading telecommunications company and its Uzbek subsidiary admitted paying (on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2010) more than USD 331 million in bribes to an Uzbek government official, who was a close relative of a high-ranking government official and had influence over the Uzbek governmental body that regulated the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications operator, which used to be a listed company in New York, used US bank accounts to move the bribery related assets, which triggered the involvement of the US authorities.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2017, the company reached a settlement involving the anti-corruption authorities of the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden. In the United States, the company entered a deferred prosecution agreement agreeing to pay the fine, implement rigorous internal controls and cooperate fully with the Department’s ongoing investigation, including its investigation of individuals. The U.S. authorities agreed to credit any disgorged profits paid to the Swedish and Dutch authorities as a result of related national proceedings in Sweden and in the Netherlands.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to the criminal proceedings faced by the company, the individual directors involved are now being prosecuted in Sweden for bribery. According to the prosecutor, the company paid the authorities to make a preferred decision when considering its operational licenses in Uzbekistan and the prosecuted directors in question were aware of the bribery or even took initiative in the matter.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The loopholes relating to gifts and hospitality in the Middle East</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In Europe and in the United States, there is a common trend of companies becoming extremely cautious when it comes to hospitality and gifts, including business to business relationships. Public officials aside, one of the most common corruption related issues that businesses often struggle with is to understand where to draw the line between illegitimate and legitimate, or sometimes even expected, provision of business gifts and hospitality in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There are different legislative approaches to private sector bribery in the Middle East. For example, the UAE has explicitly criminalised bribery in business in Article 236 bis of the Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 as amended by the Federal Decree Law No. 7 of 2016 (\"UAE Penal Code\"). Another example can be found in Qatar where passive bribery i.e. accepting illegitimate benefits in the private sector has been criminalised in Article 146 of the Law Number 11 of 2004 (\"Qatar Penal Code\")..</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In light of the above, and importantly for companies doing business in the Middle East, it is highly recommended to adopt restrictive hospitality policies in order to avoid bribery risks in relation to both the public and the private sector. It should be noted that the anti-bribery laws in the Middle East do not usually include exceptions when it comes to gifts of only nominal value, if the corrupt intent can be proven. Also, the definition of a public official tends to be relatively broad resulting e.g. employees of many companies subject to (partial) government ownership being regarded as public officials.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key take home for global businesses: global vigilance</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The above examples indicate that regardless of the jurisdiction - whether the Middle East, the high ranking Nordic countries or elsewhere in the world, no business is entirely safe from corruption related risks. International rankings aside, businesses should pay attention to corruption risks and implement strict compliance policies. As demonstrated above, there is no safe-harbour when it comes to corruption risk management.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Adopting an anti-bribery policy is always advisable irrespective of whether the law so obliges. The policy should be embedded in the business procedures of the company, accompanied by quality training of the personnel at regular intervals to identify and avoid compliance risks.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Similarly to compliance policies, legislators have adopted different approaches to whistleblowing regulations. Businesses should not hesitate to go beyond the statutory requirements and implement independent whistleblowing channels to help foster a compliance culture in their organisations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is important to note that bribery is only one aspect of corruption. As demonstrated above, corruption can take many forms. Detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest in business operations can work against presuming corrupt intent, due to which businesses are advised to include relevant provisions on excluding conflicted employees from decision making in order to manage corruption risks. Even though the examples set out above include significant intentional bribery, in many jurisdictions bribery offences are criminalised even if the offence is not intentionally committed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to local laws and local law enforcement, the extraterritorial effect of certain foreign anti-corruption laws should be observed. For example, US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (\"FCPA\") is widely known to be enforced also in respect of corruption offences taking place outside the United States. Transacting in US Dollars or employing US citizens may trigger the application of the FCPA and enforcement thereof by US authorities irrespective of the location of the business or any potential bribery activity, including in the Middle East. Businesses are recommended to adopt anti-corruption policies and accounting standards that meet the requirements of all the statutes potentially applicable to their operations. It seems that national authorities are working closely together to resolve cross-border bribery matters making it more difficult for the offenders to escape the jurisdiction of national authorities in an international context.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It seems that the Nordics can no longer take their high ranking in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for granted. This is partly due not only to international watchdogs, but also legislators and law enforcement authorities realising that the roots of corruption are embedded in conflict of interest which is a prevalent issue in the Nordic countries. At the same time, other countries are also working hard towards efficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws which makes competition at the top level fiercer than ever.</p>\r\nAs Transparency International and intergovernmental bodies, such as the United Nations, do not solely consider the content of laws and enforcement statistics, making general changes in improving transparency and integrity in the public sector may also yield a positive effect on anti-corruption. Importantly for businesses, it should be noted that bribery is widely criminalised in the Middle East and bribery laws actively enforced. The efforts made by the governments in the Middle East are gradually being recognised in the international domain.'),
	(265150,25660,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265151,25660,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265152,25660,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265153,25660,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265154,25661,'PostID','7941'),
	(265155,25661,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265156,25661,'PostTitle','Arabian Nights or Northern Lights: Observing Global Anti-Corruption Practices in Full Daylight'),
	(265157,25661,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265158,25661,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:40:48'),
	(265159,25661,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/arabian-nights-or-northern-lights-observing-global-anti-corruption-practices-in-full-daylight/'),
	(265160,25661,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7941&amp;action=edit'),
	(265161,25661,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265162,25661,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265163,25661,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265164,25661,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265165,25662,'AttachmentID','8083'),
	(265166,25662,'FileName','20.jpg'),
	(265167,25662,'FilePath','/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/08'),
	(265168,25662,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265169,25662,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265170,25662,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265171,25662,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265172,25663,'PostID','7941'),
	(265173,25663,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265174,25663,'PostTitle','Arabian Nights or Northern Lights: Observing Global Anti-Corruption Practices in Full Daylight'),
	(265175,25663,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265176,25663,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:40:48'),
	(265177,25663,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/arabian-nights-or-northern-lights-observing-global-anti-corruption-practices-in-full-daylight/'),
	(265178,25663,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7941&amp;action=edit'),
	(265179,25663,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265180,25663,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265181,25663,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265182,25663,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265183,25664,'PostID','7941'),
	(265184,25664,'PostTitle','Arabian Nights or Northern Lights: Observing Global Anti-Corruption Practices in Full Daylight'),
	(265185,25664,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265186,25664,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265187,25664,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:40:48'),
	(265188,25664,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/arabian-nights-or-northern-lights-observing-global-anti-corruption-practices-in-full-daylight/'),
	(265189,25664,'MetaID','223362'),
	(265190,25664,'MetaKey','content'),
	(265191,25664,'MetaValueNew','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8015\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"4573\" height=\"1322\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption is a hot topic across the globe. Scoring on top of international rankings, the Nordic countries (being Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) have traditionally been regarded as the global frontrunners when it comes to anti-corruption. In the Middle East, governments are working hard to decrease bribery and increase transparency in society, which ultimately complements the general promotion of civil rights. Research indicates that free speech, independent media, political dissent and an open and engaged civil society, access to information and the non-existence of censorship are the core elements preventing corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The author previously practised law in Finland, advising Finnish and Scandinavian clients, before locating to the UAE. In this article I seek to provide comparative insights on the topic of anti-corruption practices between the Middle East and the Nordic countries, in light of current developments.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>From global harmonisation of laws to local enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption on a global level is subject to several international treaties, the provisions of which are then transposed to national laws, harmonising the content thereof. The most important international treaties in this regard are the United Nations Convention Against Corruption of 2003 and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 1997. In Europe, an intergovernmental body called the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was established in 1999 by the Council of Europe to monitor its Member States’ compliance with the organisation’s anti-corruption standards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The intention of international treaties is to establish common worldwide legislative standards for anti-corruption laws through imposing obligations on the Member States to bring their legislation in line with the obligations of the treaties. As a result, the laws of different Member States should include similar provisions criminalising the different forms of bribery, which provisions are locally enforced by national authorities. Despite these developments, it goes without saying that the national anti-corruption laws are far from being harmonised and different geographic regions face different corruption related challenges.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Corruption Perceptions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Transparency International is a non-governmental watchdog promoting anti-corruption in the world. It publishes an annual Corruption Perception Index, ranking 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, predicated on information provided by experts and businesspeople.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Middle East consists of a variety of jurisdictions, many of which are far from homogenous. While some of the countries are still subject to weaker public institutions due to, e.g.; internal conflict, a number of countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Lebanon, are taking positive steps towards fighting corruption and increasing transparency and integrity in their societies. The hard work conducted by local governments in the Middle East is gradually attracting the attention of the rest of the world.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This year, the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") ranked higher on the index than ever before. The UAE reached the 21st position in the ranking being the frontrunner of the Middle East. According to Transparency International, this may be due to good and efficient management of public finances, improved public procurement and better access to public services and infrastructure in the UAE. In 2016, the UAE carried out a significant reform of its criminal laws, which may be reflected in the Index as well.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Nordic countries usually score highest in international anti-corruption rankings. According to the latest Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark was ranked the 2nd least corrupt country in the world, after New Zealand. Finland and Norway shared 3rd spot and Sweden ranked 6th. Iceland, holding 13th position, appears to be an outlier among Nordic countries.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering the rankings, one may ask whether Nordic countries are perhaps a safe-harbour from corruption. Despite the apparently excellent reputation, do corruption related risks still exist for businesses in the Nordics? Are the Nordic Countries the complete opposite to the Middle East?</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignleft  wp-image-8083\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/20-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"737\" height=\"492\" />Finland: There is a snake in paradise</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Despite direct bribery being relatively rare in Finland and the rest of the Nordic jurisdictions, the existence of conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency in declaring conflicts of interest have turned out to be a common feature of the Nordic countries. This may be difficult to detect considering it is an inherently subjective evaluation. I suggest corruption does exist in Nordic countries, but that it has taken forms that are relatively difficult to detect by researchers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In the aftermath of its evaluation round in September 2017, GRECO issued recommendations to Finland aimed at improving its anti-corruption regime, such recommendations being published in March 2018. Six of the recommendations issued by GRECO concerned senior government officials and ministers, and eight of them law enforcement authorities. Regarding law enforcement agencies, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard develop a dedicated anti-corruption strategy or policy, compile a code of conduct and specify their guidelines for secondary employment, organise training on the prevention and combating of corruption, and reinforce ethical practices in their career-related processes. In addition, it is recommended that the police enhance their risk management, internal oversight, and procedures to be followed by their officials when taking up secondary employment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">When it comes to whistleblower protection, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard be obliged to report suspicions of corruption and that protection of the whistleblowers be enhanced. At the moment, Finnish law does not include all-encompassing provisions protecting whistleblowers, applicable across different industries and, as a result, whistleblowers are practically protected only by the provisions in the Employment Act regulating grounds for dismissal. When it comes to the GRECO anti-corruption recommendations with regards to judges, public prosecutors and Members of Parliament, the Finnish Ministry of Justice announced in May 2018 that it has duly implemented all the recommendations. Also, the current Minister of Labour is strongly promoting enhancing whistleblower protection in Finland according to his political agenda.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Sweden: a recent extraterritoriality exercise in the telecommunications sector</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finland is not the only Nordic jurisdiction that has recently encountered serious corruption allegations. In Sweden, a local leading telecommunications company and its Uzbek subsidiary admitted paying (on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2010) more than USD 331 million in bribes to an Uzbek government official, who was a close relative of a high-ranking government official and had influence over the Uzbek governmental body that regulated the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications operator, which used to be a listed company in New York, used US bank accounts to move the bribery related assets, which triggered the involvement of the US authorities.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2017, the company reached a settlement involving the anti-corruption authorities of the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden. In the United States, the company entered a deferred prosecution agreement agreeing to pay the fine, implement rigorous internal controls and cooperate fully with the Department’s ongoing investigation, including its investigation of individuals. The U.S. authorities agreed to credit any disgorged profits paid to the Swedish and Dutch authorities as a result of related national proceedings in Sweden and in the Netherlands.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to the criminal proceedings faced by the company, the individual directors involved are now being prosecuted in Sweden for bribery. According to the prosecutor, the company paid the authorities to make a preferred decision when considering its operational licenses in Uzbekistan and the prosecuted directors in question were aware of the bribery or even took initiative in the matter.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The loopholes relating to gifts and hospitality in the Middle East</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In Europe and in the United States, there is a common trend of companies becoming extremely cautious when it comes to hospitality and gifts, including business to business relationships. Public officials aside, one of the most common corruption related issues that businesses often struggle with is to understand where to draw the line between illegitimate and legitimate, or sometimes even expected, provision of business gifts and hospitality in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There are different legislative approaches to private sector bribery in the Middle East. For example, the UAE has explicitly criminalised bribery in business in Article 236 bis of the Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 as amended by the Federal Decree Law No. 7 of 2016 (\"UAE Penal Code\"). Another example can be found in Qatar where passive bribery i.e. accepting illegitimate benefits in the private sector has been criminalised in Article 146 of the Law Number 11 of 2004 (\"Qatar Penal Code\")..</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In light of the above, and importantly for companies doing business in the Middle East, it is highly recommended to adopt restrictive hospitality policies in order to avoid bribery risks in relation to both the public and the private sector. It should be noted that the anti-bribery laws in the Middle East do not usually include exceptions when it comes to gifts of only nominal value, if the corrupt intent can be proven. Also, the definition of a public official tends to be relatively broad resulting e.g. employees of many companies subject to (partial) government ownership being regarded as public officials.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key take home for global businesses: global vigilance</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The above examples indicate that regardless of the jurisdiction - whether the Middle East, the high ranking Nordic countries or elsewhere in the world, no business is entirely safe from corruption related risks. International rankings aside, businesses should pay attention to corruption risks and implement strict compliance policies. As demonstrated above, there is no safe-harbour when it comes to corruption risk management.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Adopting an anti-bribery policy is always advisable irrespective of whether the law so obliges. The policy should be embedded in the business procedures of the company, accompanied by quality training of the personnel at regular intervals to identify and avoid compliance risks.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Similarly to compliance policies, legislators have adopted different approaches to whistleblowing regulations. Businesses should not hesitate to go beyond the statutory requirements and implement independent whistleblowing channels to help foster a compliance culture in their organisations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is important to note that bribery is only one aspect of corruption. As demonstrated above, corruption can take many forms. Detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest in business operations can work against presuming corrupt intent, due to which businesses are advised to include relevant provisions on excluding conflicted employees from decision making in order to manage corruption risks. Even though the examples set out above include significant intentional bribery, in many jurisdictions bribery offences are criminalised even if the offence is not intentionally committed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to local laws and local law enforcement, the extraterritorial effect of certain foreign anti-corruption laws should be observed. For example, US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (\"FCPA\") is widely known to be enforced also in respect of corruption offences taking place outside the United States. Transacting in US Dollars or employing US citizens may trigger the application of the FCPA and enforcement thereof by US authorities irrespective of the location of the business or any potential bribery activity, including in the Middle East. Businesses are recommended to adopt anti-corruption policies and accounting standards that meet the requirements of all the statutes potentially applicable to their operations. It seems that national authorities are working closely together to resolve cross-border bribery matters making it more difficult for the offenders to escape the jurisdiction of national authorities in an international context.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It seems that the Nordics can no longer take their high ranking in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for granted. This is partly due not only to international watchdogs, but also legislators and law enforcement authorities realising that the roots of corruption are embedded in conflict of interest which is a prevalent issue in the Nordic countries. At the same time, other countries are also working hard towards efficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws which makes competition at the top level fiercer than ever.</p>\r\nAs Transparency International and intergovernmental bodies, such as the United Nations, do not solely consider the content of laws and enforcement statistics, making general changes in improving transparency and integrity in the public sector may also yield a positive effect on anti-corruption. Importantly for businesses, it should be noted that bribery is widely criminalised in the Middle East and bribery laws actively enforced. The efforts made by the governments in the Middle East are gradually being recognised in the international domain.');

INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`)
VALUES
	(265192,25664,'MetaValueOld','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8015\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"4573\" height=\"1322\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption is a hot topic across the globe. Scoring on top of international rankings, the Nordic countries (being Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) have traditionally been regarded as the global frontrunners when it comes to anti-corruption. In the Middle East, governments are working hard to decrease bribery and increase transparency in society, which ultimately complements the general promotion of civil rights. Research indicates that free speech, independent media, political dissent and an open and engaged civil society, access to information and the non-existence of censorship are the core elements preventing corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The author previously practised law in Finland, advising Finnish and Scandinavian clients, before locating to the UAE. In this article I seek to provide comparative insights on the topic of anti-corruption practices between the Middle East and the Nordic countries, in light of current developments.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>From global harmonisation of laws to local enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption on a global level is subject to several international treaties, the provisions of which are then transposed to national laws, harmonising the content thereof. The most important international treaties in this regard are the United Nations Convention Against Corruption of 2003 and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 1997. In Europe, an intergovernmental body called the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was established in 1999 by the Council of Europe to monitor its Member States’ compliance with the organisation’s anti-corruption standards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The intention of international treaties is to establish common worldwide legislative standards for anti-corruption laws through imposing obligations on the Member States to bring their legislation in line with the obligations of the treaties. As a result, the laws of different Member States should include similar provisions criminalising the different forms of bribery, which provisions are locally enforced by national authorities. Despite these developments, it goes without saying that the national anti-corruption laws are far from being harmonised and different geographic regions face different corruption related challenges.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Corruption Perceptions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Transparency International is a non-governmental watchdog promoting anti-corruption in the world. It publishes an annual Corruption Perception Index, ranking 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, predicated on information provided by experts and businesspeople.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Middle East consists of a variety of jurisdictions, many of which are far from homogenous. While some of the countries are still subject to weaker public institutions due to, e.g.; internal conflict, a number of countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Lebanon, are taking positive steps towards fighting corruption and increasing transparency and integrity in their societies. The hard work conducted by local governments in the Middle East is gradually attracting the attention of the rest of the world.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This year, the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") ranked higher on the index than ever before. The UAE reached the 21st position in the ranking being the frontrunner of the Middle East. According to Transparency International, this may be due to good and efficient management of public finances, improved public procurement and better access to public services and infrastructure in the UAE. In 2016, the UAE carried out a significant reform of its criminal laws, which may be reflected in the Index as well.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Nordic countries usually score highest in international anti-corruption rankings. According to the latest Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark was ranked the 2nd least corrupt country in the world, after New Zealand. Finland and Norway shared 3rd spot and Sweden ranked 6th. Iceland, holding 13th position, appears to be an outlier among Nordic countries.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering the rankings, one may ask whether Nordic countries are perhaps a safe-harbour from corruption. Despite the apparently excellent reputation, do corruption related risks still exist for businesses in the Nordics? Are the Nordic Countries the complete opposite to the Middle East?</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Finland: There is a snake in paradise</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Despite direct bribery being relatively rare in Finland and the rest of the Nordic jurisdictions, the existence of conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency in declaring conflicts of interest have turned out to be a common feature of the Nordic countries. This may be difficult to detect considering it is an inherently subjective evaluation. I suggest corruption does exist in Nordic countries, but that it has taken forms that are relatively difficult to detect by researchers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In the aftermath of its evaluation round in September 2017, GRECO issued recommendations to Finland aimed at improving its anti-corruption regime, such recommendations being published in March 2018. Six of the recommendations issued by GRECO concerned senior government officials and ministers, and eight of them law enforcement authorities. Regarding law enforcement agencies, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard develop a dedicated anti-corruption strategy or policy, compile a code of conduct and specify their guidelines for secondary employment, organise training on the prevention and combating of corruption, and reinforce ethical practices in their career-related processes. In addition, it is recommended that the police enhance their risk management, internal oversight, and procedures to be followed by their officials when taking up secondary employment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">When it comes to whistleblower protection, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard be obliged to report suspicions of corruption and that protection of the whistleblowers be enhanced. At the moment, Finnish law does not include all-encompassing provisions protecting whistleblowers, applicable across different industries and, as a result, whistleblowers are practically protected only by the provisions in the Employment Act regulating grounds for dismissal. When it comes to the GRECO anti-corruption recommendations with regards to judges, public prosecutors and Members of Parliament, the Finnish Ministry of Justice announced in May 2018 that it has duly implemented all the recommendations. Also, the current Minister of Labour is strongly promoting enhancing whistleblower protection in Finland according to his political agenda.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Sweden: a recent extraterritoriality exercise in the telecommunications sector</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finland is not the only Nordic jurisdiction that has recently encountered serious corruption allegations. In Sweden, a local leading telecommunications company and its Uzbek subsidiary admitted paying (on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2010) more than USD 331 million in bribes to an Uzbek government official, who was a close relative of a high-ranking government official and had influence over the Uzbek governmental body that regulated the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications operator, which used to be a listed company in New York, used US bank accounts to move the bribery related assets, which triggered the involvement of the US authorities.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2017, the company reached a settlement involving the anti-corruption authorities of the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden. In the United States, the company entered a deferred prosecution agreement agreeing to pay the fine, implement rigorous internal controls and cooperate fully with the Department’s ongoing investigation, including its investigation of individuals. The U.S. authorities agreed to credit any disgorged profits paid to the Swedish and Dutch authorities as a result of related national proceedings in Sweden and in the Netherlands.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to the criminal proceedings faced by the company, the individual directors involved are now being prosecuted in Sweden for bribery. According to the prosecutor, the company paid the authorities to make a preferred decision when considering its operational licenses in Uzbekistan and the prosecuted directors in question were aware of the bribery or even took initiative in the matter.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The loopholes relating to gifts and hospitality in the Middle East</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In Europe and in the United States, there is a common trend of companies becoming extremely cautious when it comes to hospitality and gifts, including business to business relationships. Public officials aside, one of the most common corruption related issues that businesses often struggle with is to understand where to draw the line between illegitimate and legitimate, or sometimes even expected, provision of business gifts and hospitality in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There are different legislative approaches to private sector bribery in the Middle East. For example, the UAE has explicitly criminalised bribery in business in Article 236 bis of the Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 as amended by the Federal Decree Law No. 7 of 2016 (\"UAE Penal Code\"). Another example can be found in Qatar where passive bribery i.e. accepting illegitimate benefits in the private sector has been criminalised in Article 146 of the Law Number 11 of 2004 (\"Qatar Penal Code\")..</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In light of the above, and importantly for companies doing business in the Middle East, it is highly recommended to adopt restrictive hospitality policies in order to avoid bribery risks in relation to both the public and the private sector. It should be noted that the anti-bribery laws in the Middle East do not usually include exceptions when it comes to gifts of only nominal value, if the corrupt intent can be proven. Also, the definition of a public official tends to be relatively broad resulting e.g. employees of many companies subject to (partial) government ownership being regarded as public officials.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key take home for global businesses: global vigilance</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The above examples indicate that regardless of the jurisdiction - whether the Middle East, the high ranking Nordic countries or elsewhere in the world, no business is entirely safe from corruption related risks. International rankings aside, businesses should pay attention to corruption risks and implement strict compliance policies. As demonstrated above, there is no safe-harbour when it comes to corruption risk management.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Adopting an anti-bribery policy is always advisable irrespective of whether the law so obliges. The policy should be embedded in the business procedures of the company, accompanied by quality training of the personnel at regular intervals to identify and avoid compliance risks.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Similarly to compliance policies, legislators have adopted different approaches to whistleblowing regulations. Businesses should not hesitate to go beyond the statutory requirements and implement independent whistleblowing channels to help foster a compliance culture in their organisations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is important to note that bribery is only one aspect of corruption. As demonstrated above, corruption can take many forms. Detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest in business operations can work against presuming corrupt intent, due to which businesses are advised to include relevant provisions on excluding conflicted employees from decision making in order to manage corruption risks. Even though the examples set out above include significant intentional bribery, in many jurisdictions bribery offences are criminalised even if the offence is not intentionally committed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to local laws and local law enforcement, the extraterritorial effect of certain foreign anti-corruption laws should be observed. For example, US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (\"FCPA\") is widely known to be enforced also in respect of corruption offences taking place outside the United States. Transacting in US Dollars or employing US citizens may trigger the application of the FCPA and enforcement thereof by US authorities irrespective of the location of the business or any potential bribery activity, including in the Middle East. Businesses are recommended to adopt anti-corruption policies and accounting standards that meet the requirements of all the statutes potentially applicable to their operations. It seems that national authorities are working closely together to resolve cross-border bribery matters making it more difficult for the offenders to escape the jurisdiction of national authorities in an international context.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It seems that the Nordics can no longer take their high ranking in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for granted. This is partly due not only to international watchdogs, but also legislators and law enforcement authorities realising that the roots of corruption are embedded in conflict of interest which is a prevalent issue in the Nordic countries. At the same time, other countries are also working hard towards efficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws which makes competition at the top level fiercer than ever.</p>\r\nAs Transparency International and intergovernmental bodies, such as the United Nations, do not solely consider the content of laws and enforcement statistics, making general changes in improving transparency and integrity in the public sector may also yield a positive effect on anti-corruption. Importantly for businesses, it should be noted that bribery is widely criminalised in the Middle East and bribery laws actively enforced. The efforts made by the governments in the Middle East are gradually being recognised in the international domain.'),
	(265193,25664,'MetaLink','content'),
	(265194,25664,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7941&amp;action=edit'),
	(265195,25664,'ReportText','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8015\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"4573\" height=\"1322\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption is a hot topic across the globe. Scoring on top of international rankings, the Nordic countries (being Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) have traditionally been regarded as the global frontrunners when it comes to anti-corruption. In the Middle East, governments are working hard to decrease bribery and increase transparency in society, which ultimately complements the general promotion of civil rights. Research indicates that free speech, independent media, political dissent and an open and engaged civil society, access to information and the non-existence of censorship are the core elements preventing corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The author previously practised law in Finland, advising Finnish and Scandinavian clients, before locating to the UAE. In this article I seek to provide comparative insights on the topic of anti-corruption practices between the Middle East and the Nordic countries, in light of current developments.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>From global harmonisation of laws to local enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption on a global level is subject to several international treaties, the provisions of which are then transposed to national laws, harmonising the content thereof. The most important international treaties in this regard are the United Nations Convention Against Corruption of 2003 and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 1997. In Europe, an intergovernmental body called the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was established in 1999 by the Council of Europe to monitor its Member States’ compliance with the organisation’s anti-corruption standards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The intention of international treaties is to establish common worldwide legislative standards for anti-corruption laws through imposing obligations on the Member States to bring their legislation in line with the obligations of the treaties. As a result, the laws of different Member States should include similar provisions criminalising the different forms of bribery, which provisions are locally enforced by national authorities. Despite these developments, it goes without saying that the national anti-corruption laws are far from being harmonised and different geographic regions face different corruption related challenges.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Corruption Perceptions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Transparency International is a non-governmental watchdog promoting anti-corruption in the world. It publishes an annual Corruption Perception Index, ranking 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, predicated on information provided by experts and businesspeople.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Middle East consists of a variety of jurisdictions, many of which are far from homogenous. While some of the countries are still subject to weaker public institutions due to, e.g.; internal conflict, a number of countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Lebanon, are taking positive steps towards fighting corruption and increasing transparency and integrity in their societies. The hard work conducted by local governments in the Middle East is gradually attracting the attention of the rest of the world.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This year, the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") ranked higher on the index than ever before. The UAE reached the 21st position in the ranking being the frontrunner of the Middle East. According to Transparency International, this may be due to good and efficient management of public finances, improved public procurement and better access to public services and infrastructure in the UAE. In 2016, the UAE carried out a significant reform of its criminal laws, which may be reflected in the Index as well.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Nordic countries usually score highest in international anti-corruption rankings. According to the latest Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark was ranked the 2nd least corrupt country in the world, after New Zealand. Finland and Norway shared 3rd spot and Sweden ranked 6th. Iceland, holding 13th position, appears to be an outlier among Nordic countries.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering the rankings, one may ask whether Nordic countries are perhaps a safe-harbour from corruption. Despite the apparently excellent reputation, do corruption related risks still exist for businesses in the Nordics? Are the Nordic Countries the complete opposite to the Middle East?</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Finland: There is a snake in paradise</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Despite direct bribery being relatively rare in Finland and the rest of the Nordic jurisdictions, the existence of conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency in declaring conflicts of interest have turned out to be a common feature of the Nordic countries. This may be difficult to detect considering it is an inherently subjective evaluation. I suggest corruption does exist in Nordic countries, but that it has taken forms that are relatively difficult to detect by researchers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In the aftermath of its evaluation round in September 2017, GRECO issued recommendations to Finland aimed at improving its anti-corruption regime, such recommendations being published in March 2018. Six of the recommendations issued by GRECO concerned senior government officials and ministers, and eight of them law enforcement authorities. Regarding law enforcement agencies, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard develop a dedicated anti-corruption strategy or policy, compile a code of conduct and specify their guidelines for secondary employment, organise training on the prevention and combating of corruption, and reinforce ethical practices in their career-related processes. In addition, it is recommended that the police enhance their risk management, internal oversight, and procedures to be followed by their officials when taking up secondary employment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">When it comes to whistleblower protection, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard be obliged to report suspicions of corruption and that protection of the whistleblowers be enhanced. At the moment, Finnish law does not include all-encompassing provisions protecting whistleblowers, applicable across different industries and, as a result, whistleblowers are practically protected only by the provisions in the Employment Act regulating grounds for dismissal. When it comes to the GRECO anti-corruption recommendations with regards to judges, public prosecutors and Members of Parliament, the Finnish Ministry of Justice announced in May 2018 that it has duly implemented all the recommendations. Also, the current Minister of Labour is strongly promoting enhancing whistleblower protection in Finland according to his political agenda.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Sweden: a recent extraterritoriality exercise in the telecommunications sector</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finland is not the only Nordic jurisdiction that has recently encountered serious corruption allegations. In Sweden, a local leading telecommunications company and its Uzbek subsidiary admitted paying (on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2010) more than USD 331 million in bribes to an Uzbek government official, who was a close relative of a high-ranking government official and had influence over the Uzbek governmental body that regulated the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications operator, which used to be a listed company in New York, used US bank accounts to move the bribery related assets, which triggered the involvement of the US authorities.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2017, the company reached a settlement involving the anti-corruption authorities of the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden. In the United States, the company entered a deferred prosecution agreement agreeing to pay the fine, implement rigorous internal controls and cooperate fully with the Department’s ongoing investigation, including its investigation of individuals. The U.S. authorities agreed to credit any disgorged profits paid to the Swedish and Dutch authorities as a result of related national proceedings in Sweden and in the Netherlands.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to the criminal proceedings faced by the company, the individual directors involved are now being prosecuted in Sweden for bribery. According to the prosecutor, the company paid the authorities to make a preferred decision when considering its operational licenses in Uzbekistan and the prosecuted directors in question were aware of the bribery or even took initiative in the matter.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The loopholes relating to gifts and hospitality in the Middle East</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In Europe and in the United States, there is a common trend of companies becoming extremely cautious when it comes to hospitality and gifts, including business to business relationships. Public officials aside, one of the most common corruption related issues that businesses often struggle with is to understand where to draw the line between illegitimate and legitimate, or sometimes even expected, provision of business gifts and hospitality in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There are different legislative approaches to private sector bribery in the Middle East. For example, the UAE has explicitly criminalised bribery in business in Article 236 bis of the Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 as amended by the Federal Decree Law No. 7 of 2016 (\"UAE Penal Code\"). Another example can be found in Qatar where passive bribery i.e. accepting illegitimate benefits in the private sector has been criminalised in Article 146 of the Law Number 11 of 2004 (\"Qatar Penal Code\")..</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In light of the above, and importantly for companies doing business in the Middle East, it is highly recommended to adopt restrictive hospitality policies in order to avoid bribery risks in relation to both the public and the private sector. It should be noted that the anti-bribery laws in the Middle East do not usually include exceptions when it comes to gifts of only nominal value, if the corrupt intent can be proven. Also, the definition of a public official tends to be relatively broad resulting e.g. employees of many companies subject to (partial) government ownership being regarded as public officials.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key take home for global businesses: global vigilance</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The above examples indicate that regardless of the jurisdiction - whether the Middle East, the high ranking Nordic countries or elsewhere in the world, no business is entirely safe from corruption related risks. International rankings aside, businesses should pay attention to corruption risks and implement strict compliance policies. As demonstrated above, there is no safe-harbour when it comes to corruption risk management.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Adopting an anti-bribery policy is always advisable irrespective of whether the law so obliges. The policy should be embedded in the business procedures of the company, accompanied by quality training of the personnel at regular intervals to identify and avoid compliance risks.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Similarly to compliance policies, legislators have adopted different approaches to whistleblowing regulations. Businesses should not hesitate to go beyond the statutory requirements and implement independent whistleblowing channels to help foster a compliance culture in their organisations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is important to note that bribery is only one aspect of corruption. As demonstrated above, corruption can take many forms. Detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest in business operations can work against presuming corrupt intent, due to which businesses are advised to include relevant provisions on excluding conflicted employees from decision making in order to manage corruption risks. Even though the examples set out above include significant intentional bribery, in many jurisdictions bribery offences are criminalised even if the offence is not intentionally committed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to local laws and local law enforcement, the extraterritorial effect of certain foreign anti-corruption laws should be observed. For example, US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (\"FCPA\") is widely known to be enforced also in respect of corruption offences taking place outside the United States. Transacting in US Dollars or employing US citizens may trigger the application of the FCPA and enforcement thereof by US authorities irrespective of the location of the business or any potential bribery activity, including in the Middle East. Businesses are recommended to adopt anti-corruption policies and accounting standards that meet the requirements of all the statutes potentially applicable to their operations. It seems that national authorities are working closely together to resolve cross-border bribery matters making it more difficult for the offenders to escape the jurisdiction of national authorities in an international context.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It seems that the Nordics can no longer take their high ranking in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for granted. This is partly due not only to international watchdogs, but also legislators and law enforcement authorities realising that the roots of corruption are embedded in conflict of interest which is a prevalent issue in the Nordic countries. At the same time, other countries are also working hard towards efficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws which makes competition at the top level fiercer than ever.</p>\r\nAs Transparency International and intergovernmental bodies, such as the United Nations, do not solely consider the content of laws and enforcement statistics, making general changes in improving transparency and integrity in the public sector may also yield a positive effect on anti-corruption. Importantly for businesses, it should be noted that bribery is widely criminalised in the Middle East and bribery laws actively enforced. The efforts made by the governments in the Middle East are gradually being recognised in the international domain.|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8015\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"4573\" height=\"1322\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption is a hot topic across the globe. Scoring on top of international rankings, the Nordic countries (being Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) have traditionally been regarded as the global frontrunners when it comes to anti-corruption. In the Middle East, governments are working hard to decrease bribery and increase transparency in society, which ultimately complements the general promotion of civil rights. Research indicates that free speech, independent media, political dissent and an open and engaged civil society, access to information and the non-existence of censorship are the core elements preventing corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The author previously practised law in Finland, advising Finnish and Scandinavian clients, before locating to the UAE. In this article I seek to provide comparative insights on the topic of anti-corruption practices between the Middle East and the Nordic countries, in light of current developments.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>From global harmonisation of laws to local enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption on a global level is subject to several international treaties, the provisions of which are then transposed to national laws, harmonising the content thereof. The most important international treaties in this regard are the United Nations Convention Against Corruption of 2003 and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 1997. In Europe, an intergovernmental body called the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was established in 1999 by the Council of Europe to monitor its Member States’ compliance with the organisation’s anti-corruption standards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The intention of international treaties is to establish common worldwide legislative standards for anti-corruption laws through imposing obligations on the Member States to bring their legislation in line with the obligations of the treaties. As a result, the laws of different Member States should include similar provisions criminalising the different forms of bribery, which provisions are locally enforced by national authorities. Despite these developments, it goes without saying that the national anti-corruption laws are far from being harmonised and different geographic regions face different corruption related challenges.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Corruption Perceptions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Transparency International is a non-governmental watchdog promoting anti-corruption in the world. It publishes an annual Corruption Perception Index, ranking 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, predicated on information provided by experts and businesspeople.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Middle East consists of a variety of jurisdictions, many of which are far from homogenous. While some of the countries are still subject to weaker public institutions due to, e.g.; internal conflict, a number of countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Lebanon, are taking positive steps towards fighting corruption and increasing transparency and integrity in their societies. The hard work conducted by local governments in the Middle East is gradually attracting the attention of the rest of the world.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This year, the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") ranked higher on the index than ever before. The UAE reached the 21st position in the ranking being the frontrunner of the Middle East. According to Transparency International, this may be due to good and efficient management of public finances, improved public procurement and better access to public services and infrastructure in the UAE. In 2016, the UAE carried out a significant reform of its criminal laws, which may be reflected in the Index as well.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Nordic countries usually score highest in international anti-corruption rankings. According to the latest Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark was ranked the 2nd least corrupt country in the world, after New Zealand. Finland and Norway shared 3rd spot and Sweden ranked 6th. Iceland, holding 13th position, appears to be an outlier among Nordic countries.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering the rankings, one may ask whether Nordic countries are perhaps a safe-harbour from corruption. Despite the apparently excellent reputation, do corruption related risks still exist for businesses in the Nordics? Are the Nordic Countries the complete opposite to the Middle East?</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignleft  wp-image-8083\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/20-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"737\" height=\"492\" />Finland: There is a snake in paradise</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Despite direct bribery being relatively rare in Finland and the rest of the Nordic jurisdictions, the existence of conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency in declaring conflicts of interest have turned out to be a common feature of the Nordic countries. This may be difficult to detect considering it is an inherently subjective evaluation. I suggest corruption does exist in Nordic countries, but that it has taken forms that are relatively difficult to detect by researchers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In the aftermath of its evaluation round in September 2017, GRECO issued recommendations to Finland aimed at improving its anti-corruption regime, such recommendations being published in March 2018. Six of the recommendations issued by GRECO concerned senior government officials and ministers, and eight of them law enforcement authorities. Regarding law enforcement agencies, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard develop a dedicated anti-corruption strategy or policy, compile a code of conduct and specify their guidelines for secondary employment, organise training on the prevention and combating of corruption, and reinforce ethical practices in their career-related processes. In addition, it is recommended that the police enhance their risk management, internal oversight, and procedures to be followed by their officials when taking up secondary employment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">When it comes to whistleblower protection, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard be obliged to report suspicions of corruption and that protection of the whistleblowers be enhanced. At the moment, Finnish law does not include all-encompassing provisions protecting whistleblowers, applicable across different industries and, as a result, whistleblowers are practically protected only by the provisions in the Employment Act regulating grounds for dismissal. When it comes to the GRECO anti-corruption recommendations with regards to judges, public prosecutors and Members of Parliament, the Finnish Ministry of Justice announced in May 2018 that it has duly implemented all the recommendations. Also, the current Minister of Labour is strongly promoting enhancing whistleblower protection in Finland according to his political agenda.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Sweden: a recent extraterritoriality exercise in the telecommunications sector</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finland is not the only Nordic jurisdiction that has recently encountered serious corruption allegations. In Sweden, a local leading telecommunications company and its Uzbek subsidiary admitted paying (on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2010) more than USD 331 million in bribes to an Uzbek government official, who was a close relative of a high-ranking government official and had influence over the Uzbek governmental body that regulated the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications operator, which used to be a listed company in New York, used US bank accounts to move the bribery related assets, which triggered the involvement of the US authorities.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2017, the company reached a settlement involving the anti-corruption authorities of the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden. In the United States, the company entered a deferred prosecution agreement agreeing to pay the fine, implement rigorous internal controls and cooperate fully with the Department’s ongoing investigation, including its investigation of individuals. The U.S. authorities agreed to credit any disgorged profits paid to the Swedish and Dutch authorities as a result of related national proceedings in Sweden and in the Netherlands.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to the criminal proceedings faced by the company, the individual directors involved are now being prosecuted in Sweden for bribery. According to the prosecutor, the company paid the authorities to make a preferred decision when considering its operational licenses in Uzbekistan and the prosecuted directors in question were aware of the bribery or even took initiative in the matter.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The loopholes relating to gifts and hospitality in the Middle East</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In Europe and in the United States, there is a common trend of companies becoming extremely cautious when it comes to hospitality and gifts, including business to business relationships. Public officials aside, one of the most common corruption related issues that businesses often struggle with is to understand where to draw the line between illegitimate and legitimate, or sometimes even expected, provision of business gifts and hospitality in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There are different legislative approaches to private sector bribery in the Middle East. For example, the UAE has explicitly criminalised bribery in business in Article 236 bis of the Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 as amended by the Federal Decree Law No. 7 of 2016 (\"UAE Penal Code\"). Another example can be found in Qatar where passive bribery i.e. accepting illegitimate benefits in the private sector has been criminalised in Article 146 of the Law Number 11 of 2004 (\"Qatar Penal Code\")..</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In light of the above, and importantly for companies doing business in the Middle East, it is highly recommended to adopt restrictive hospitality policies in order to avoid bribery risks in relation to both the public and the private sector. It should be noted that the anti-bribery laws in the Middle East do not usually include exceptions when it comes to gifts of only nominal value, if the corrupt intent can be proven. Also, the definition of a public official tends to be relatively broad resulting e.g. employees of many companies subject to (partial) government ownership being regarded as public officials.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key take home for global businesses: global vigilance</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The above examples indicate that regardless of the jurisdiction - whether the Middle East, the high ranking Nordic countries or elsewhere in the world, no business is entirely safe from corruption related risks. International rankings aside, businesses should pay attention to corruption risks and implement strict compliance policies. As demonstrated above, there is no safe-harbour when it comes to corruption risk management.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Adopting an anti-bribery policy is always advisable irrespective of whether the law so obliges. The policy should be embedded in the business procedures of the company, accompanied by quality training of the personnel at regular intervals to identify and avoid compliance risks.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Similarly to compliance policies, legislators have adopted different approaches to whistleblowing regulations. Businesses should not hesitate to go beyond the statutory requirements and implement independent whistleblowing channels to help foster a compliance culture in their organisations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is important to note that bribery is only one aspect of corruption. As demonstrated above, corruption can take many forms. Detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest in business operations can work against presuming corrupt intent, due to which businesses are advised to include relevant provisions on excluding conflicted employees from decision making in order to manage corruption risks. Even though the examples set out above include significant intentional bribery, in many jurisdictions bribery offences are criminalised even if the offence is not intentionally committed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to local laws and local law enforcement, the extraterritorial effect of certain foreign anti-corruption laws should be observed. For example, US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (\"FCPA\") is widely known to be enforced also in respect of corruption offences taking place outside the United States. Transacting in US Dollars or employing US citizens may trigger the application of the FCPA and enforcement thereof by US authorities irrespective of the location of the business or any potential bribery activity, including in the Middle East. Businesses are recommended to adopt anti-corruption policies and accounting standards that meet the requirements of all the statutes potentially applicable to their operations. It seems that national authorities are working closely together to resolve cross-border bribery matters making it more difficult for the offenders to escape the jurisdiction of national authorities in an international context.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It seems that the Nordics can no longer take their high ranking in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for granted. This is partly due not only to international watchdogs, but also legislators and law enforcement authorities realising that the roots of corruption are embedded in conflict of interest which is a prevalent issue in the Nordic countries. At the same time, other countries are also working hard towards efficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws which makes competition at the top level fiercer than ever.</p>\r\nAs Transparency International and intergovernmental bodies, such as the United Nations, do not solely consider the content of laws and enforcement statistics, making general changes in improving transparency and integrity in the public sector may also yield a positive effect on anti-corruption. Importantly for businesses, it should be noted that bribery is widely criminalised in the Middle East and bribery laws actively enforced. The efforts made by the governments in the Middle East are gradually being recognised in the international domain.'),
	(265196,25664,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265197,25664,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265198,25664,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265199,25664,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265200,25665,'PostID','7941'),
	(265201,25665,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265202,25665,'PostTitle','Arabian Nights or Northern Lights: Observing Global Anti-Corruption Practices in Full Daylight'),
	(265203,25665,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265204,25665,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:40:48'),
	(265205,25665,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/arabian-nights-or-northern-lights-observing-global-anti-corruption-practices-in-full-daylight/'),
	(265206,25665,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7941&amp;action=edit'),
	(265207,25665,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265208,25665,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265209,25665,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265210,25665,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265211,25666,'PostID','7941'),
	(265212,25666,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265213,25666,'PostTitle','Arabian Nights or Northern Lights: Observing Global Anti-Corruption Practices in Full Daylight'),
	(265214,25666,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265215,25666,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:40:48'),
	(265216,25666,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/arabian-nights-or-northern-lights-observing-global-anti-corruption-practices-in-full-daylight/'),
	(265217,25666,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7941&amp;action=edit'),
	(265218,25666,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265219,25666,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265220,25666,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265221,25666,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265222,25667,'PostID','7941'),
	(265223,25667,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265224,25667,'PostTitle','Arabian Nights or Northern Lights: Observing Global Anti-Corruption Practices in Full Daylight'),
	(265225,25667,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265226,25667,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:40:48'),
	(265227,25667,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/arabian-nights-or-northern-lights-observing-global-anti-corruption-practices-in-full-daylight/'),
	(265228,25667,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7941&amp;action=edit'),
	(265229,25667,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265230,25667,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265231,25667,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265232,25667,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265233,25668,'PostID','7941'),
	(265234,25668,'PostTitle','Arabian Nights or Northern Lights: Observing Global Anti-Corruption Practices in Full Daylight'),
	(265235,25668,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265236,25668,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265237,25668,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:40:48'),
	(265238,25668,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/arabian-nights-or-northern-lights-observing-global-anti-corruption-practices-in-full-daylight/'),
	(265239,25668,'MetaID','223362'),
	(265240,25668,'MetaKey','content'),
	(265241,25668,'MetaValueNew','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8015\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"4573\" height=\"1322\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption is a hot topic across the globe. Scoring on top of international rankings, the Nordic countries (being Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) have traditionally been regarded as the global frontrunners when it comes to anti-corruption. In the Middle East, governments are working hard to decrease bribery and increase transparency in society, which ultimately complements the general promotion of civil rights. Research indicates that free speech, independent media, political dissent and an open and engaged civil society, access to information and the non-existence of censorship are the core elements preventing corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The author previously practised law in Finland, advising Finnish and Scandinavian clients, before locating to the UAE. In this article I seek to provide comparative insights on the topic of anti-corruption practices between the Middle East and the Nordic countries, in light of current developments.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>From global harmonisation of laws to local enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption on a global level is subject to several international treaties, the provisions of which are then transposed to national laws, harmonising the content thereof. The most important international treaties in this regard are the United Nations Convention Against Corruption of 2003 and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 1997. In Europe, an intergovernmental body called the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was established in 1999 by the Council of Europe to monitor its Member States’ compliance with the organisation’s anti-corruption standards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The intention of international treaties is to establish common worldwide legislative standards for anti-corruption laws through imposing obligations on the Member States to bring their legislation in line with the obligations of the treaties. As a result, the laws of different Member States should include similar provisions criminalising the different forms of bribery, which provisions are locally enforced by national authorities. Despite these developments, it goes without saying that the national anti-corruption laws are far from being harmonised and different geographic regions face different corruption related challenges.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Corruption Perceptions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Transparency International is a non-governmental watchdog promoting anti-corruption in the world. It publishes an annual Corruption Perception Index, ranking 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, predicated on information provided by experts and businesspeople.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Middle East consists of a variety of jurisdictions, many of which are far from homogenous. While some of the countries are still subject to weaker public institutions due to, e.g.; internal conflict, a number of countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Lebanon, are taking positive steps towards fighting corruption and increasing transparency and integrity in their societies. The hard work conducted by local governments in the Middle East is gradually attracting the attention of the rest of the world.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This year, the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") ranked higher on the index than ever before. The UAE reached the 21st position in the ranking being the frontrunner of the Middle East. According to Transparency International, this may be due to good and efficient management of public finances, improved public procurement and better access to public services and infrastructure in the UAE. In 2016, the UAE carried out a significant reform of its criminal laws, which may be reflected in the Index as well.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Nordic countries usually score highest in international anti-corruption rankings. According to the latest Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark was ranked the 2nd least corrupt country in the world, after New Zealand. Finland and Norway shared 3rd spot and Sweden ranked 6th. Iceland, holding 13th position, appears to be an outlier among Nordic countries.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering the rankings, one may ask whether Nordic countries are perhaps a safe-harbour from corruption. Despite the apparently excellent reputation, do corruption related risks still exist for businesses in the Nordics? Are the Nordic Countries the complete opposite to the Middle East?</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignleft wp-image-8083\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/20-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"484\" height=\"323\" />Finland: There is a snake in paradise</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Despite direct bribery being relatively rare in Finland and the rest of the Nordic jurisdictions, the existence of conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency in declaring conflicts of interest have turned out to be a common feature of the Nordic countries. This may be difficult to detect considering it is an inherently subjective evaluation. I suggest corruption does exist in Nordic countries, but that it has taken forms that are relatively difficult to detect by researchers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In the aftermath of its evaluation round in September 2017, GRECO issued recommendations to Finland aimed at improving its anti-corruption regime, such recommendations being published in March 2018. Six of the recommendations issued by GRECO concerned senior government officials and ministers, and eight of them law enforcement authorities. Regarding law enforcement agencies, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard develop a dedicated anti-corruption strategy or policy, compile a code of conduct and specify their guidelines for secondary employment, organise training on the prevention and combating of corruption, and reinforce ethical practices in their career-related processes. In addition, it is recommended that the police enhance their risk management, internal oversight, and procedures to be followed by their officials when taking up secondary employment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">When it comes to whistleblower protection, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard be obliged to report suspicions of corruption and that protection of the whistleblowers be enhanced. At the moment, Finnish law does not include all-encompassing provisions protecting whistleblowers, applicable across different industries and, as a result, whistleblowers are practically protected only by the provisions in the Employment Act regulating grounds for dismissal. When it comes to the GRECO anti-corruption recommendations with regards to judges, public prosecutors and Members of Parliament, the Finnish Ministry of Justice announced in May 2018 that it has duly implemented all the recommendations. Also, the current Minister of Labour is strongly promoting enhancing whistleblower protection in Finland according to his political agenda.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Sweden: a recent extraterritoriality exercise in the telecommunications sector</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finland is not the only Nordic jurisdiction that has recently encountered serious corruption allegations. In Sweden, a local leading telecommunications company and its Uzbek subsidiary admitted paying (on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2010) more than USD 331 million in bribes to an Uzbek government official, who was a close relative of a high-ranking government official and had influence over the Uzbek governmental body that regulated the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications operator, which used to be a listed company in New York, used US bank accounts to move the bribery related assets, which triggered the involvement of the US authorities.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2017, the company reached a settlement involving the anti-corruption authorities of the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden. In the United States, the company entered a deferred prosecution agreement agreeing to pay the fine, implement rigorous internal controls and cooperate fully with the Department’s ongoing investigation, including its investigation of individuals. The U.S. authorities agreed to credit any disgorged profits paid to the Swedish and Dutch authorities as a result of related national proceedings in Sweden and in the Netherlands.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to the criminal proceedings faced by the company, the individual directors involved are now being prosecuted in Sweden for bribery. According to the prosecutor, the company paid the authorities to make a preferred decision when considering its operational licenses in Uzbekistan and the prosecuted directors in question were aware of the bribery or even took initiative in the matter.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The loopholes relating to gifts and hospitality in the Middle East</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In Europe and in the United States, there is a common trend of companies becoming extremely cautious when it comes to hospitality and gifts, including business to business relationships. Public officials aside, one of the most common corruption related issues that businesses often struggle with is to understand where to draw the line between illegitimate and legitimate, or sometimes even expected, provision of business gifts and hospitality in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There are different legislative approaches to private sector bribery in the Middle East. For example, the UAE has explicitly criminalised bribery in business in Article 236 bis of the Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 as amended by the Federal Decree Law No. 7 of 2016 (\"UAE Penal Code\"). Another example can be found in Qatar where passive bribery i.e. accepting illegitimate benefits in the private sector has been criminalised in Article 146 of the Law Number 11 of 2004 (\"Qatar Penal Code\")..</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In light of the above, and importantly for companies doing business in the Middle East, it is highly recommended to adopt restrictive hospitality policies in order to avoid bribery risks in relation to both the public and the private sector. It should be noted that the anti-bribery laws in the Middle East do not usually include exceptions when it comes to gifts of only nominal value, if the corrupt intent can be proven. Also, the definition of a public official tends to be relatively broad resulting e.g. employees of many companies subject to (partial) government ownership being regarded as public officials.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key take home for global businesses: global vigilance</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The above examples indicate that regardless of the jurisdiction - whether the Middle East, the high ranking Nordic countries or elsewhere in the world, no business is entirely safe from corruption related risks. International rankings aside, businesses should pay attention to corruption risks and implement strict compliance policies. As demonstrated above, there is no safe-harbour when it comes to corruption risk management.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Adopting an anti-bribery policy is always advisable irrespective of whether the law so obliges. The policy should be embedded in the business procedures of the company, accompanied by quality training of the personnel at regular intervals to identify and avoid compliance risks.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Similarly to compliance policies, legislators have adopted different approaches to whistleblowing regulations. Businesses should not hesitate to go beyond the statutory requirements and implement independent whistleblowing channels to help foster a compliance culture in their organisations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is important to note that bribery is only one aspect of corruption. As demonstrated above, corruption can take many forms. Detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest in business operations can work against presuming corrupt intent, due to which businesses are advised to include relevant provisions on excluding conflicted employees from decision making in order to manage corruption risks. Even though the examples set out above include significant intentional bribery, in many jurisdictions bribery offences are criminalised even if the offence is not intentionally committed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to local laws and local law enforcement, the extraterritorial effect of certain foreign anti-corruption laws should be observed. For example, US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (\"FCPA\") is widely known to be enforced also in respect of corruption offences taking place outside the United States. Transacting in US Dollars or employing US citizens may trigger the application of the FCPA and enforcement thereof by US authorities irrespective of the location of the business or any potential bribery activity, including in the Middle East. Businesses are recommended to adopt anti-corruption policies and accounting standards that meet the requirements of all the statutes potentially applicable to their operations. It seems that national authorities are working closely together to resolve cross-border bribery matters making it more difficult for the offenders to escape the jurisdiction of national authorities in an international context.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It seems that the Nordics can no longer take their high ranking in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for granted. This is partly due not only to international watchdogs, but also legislators and law enforcement authorities realising that the roots of corruption are embedded in conflict of interest which is a prevalent issue in the Nordic countries. At the same time, other countries are also working hard towards efficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws which makes competition at the top level fiercer than ever.</p>\r\nAs Transparency International and intergovernmental bodies, such as the United Nations, do not solely consider the content of laws and enforcement statistics, making general changes in improving transparency and integrity in the public sector may also yield a positive effect on anti-corruption. Importantly for businesses, it should be noted that bribery is widely criminalised in the Middle East and bribery laws actively enforced. The efforts made by the governments in the Middle East are gradually being recognised in the international domain.'),
	(265242,25668,'MetaValueOld','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8015\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"4573\" height=\"1322\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption is a hot topic across the globe. Scoring on top of international rankings, the Nordic countries (being Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) have traditionally been regarded as the global frontrunners when it comes to anti-corruption. In the Middle East, governments are working hard to decrease bribery and increase transparency in society, which ultimately complements the general promotion of civil rights. Research indicates that free speech, independent media, political dissent and an open and engaged civil society, access to information and the non-existence of censorship are the core elements preventing corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The author previously practised law in Finland, advising Finnish and Scandinavian clients, before locating to the UAE. In this article I seek to provide comparative insights on the topic of anti-corruption practices between the Middle East and the Nordic countries, in light of current developments.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>From global harmonisation of laws to local enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption on a global level is subject to several international treaties, the provisions of which are then transposed to national laws, harmonising the content thereof. The most important international treaties in this regard are the United Nations Convention Against Corruption of 2003 and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 1997. In Europe, an intergovernmental body called the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was established in 1999 by the Council of Europe to monitor its Member States’ compliance with the organisation’s anti-corruption standards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The intention of international treaties is to establish common worldwide legislative standards for anti-corruption laws through imposing obligations on the Member States to bring their legislation in line with the obligations of the treaties. As a result, the laws of different Member States should include similar provisions criminalising the different forms of bribery, which provisions are locally enforced by national authorities. Despite these developments, it goes without saying that the national anti-corruption laws are far from being harmonised and different geographic regions face different corruption related challenges.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Corruption Perceptions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Transparency International is a non-governmental watchdog promoting anti-corruption in the world. It publishes an annual Corruption Perception Index, ranking 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, predicated on information provided by experts and businesspeople.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Middle East consists of a variety of jurisdictions, many of which are far from homogenous. While some of the countries are still subject to weaker public institutions due to, e.g.; internal conflict, a number of countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Lebanon, are taking positive steps towards fighting corruption and increasing transparency and integrity in their societies. The hard work conducted by local governments in the Middle East is gradually attracting the attention of the rest of the world.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This year, the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") ranked higher on the index than ever before. The UAE reached the 21st position in the ranking being the frontrunner of the Middle East. According to Transparency International, this may be due to good and efficient management of public finances, improved public procurement and better access to public services and infrastructure in the UAE. In 2016, the UAE carried out a significant reform of its criminal laws, which may be reflected in the Index as well.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Nordic countries usually score highest in international anti-corruption rankings. According to the latest Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark was ranked the 2nd least corrupt country in the world, after New Zealand. Finland and Norway shared 3rd spot and Sweden ranked 6th. Iceland, holding 13th position, appears to be an outlier among Nordic countries.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering the rankings, one may ask whether Nordic countries are perhaps a safe-harbour from corruption. Despite the apparently excellent reputation, do corruption related risks still exist for businesses in the Nordics? Are the Nordic Countries the complete opposite to the Middle East?</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignleft  wp-image-8083\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/20-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"737\" height=\"492\" />Finland: There is a snake in paradise</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Despite direct bribery being relatively rare in Finland and the rest of the Nordic jurisdictions, the existence of conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency in declaring conflicts of interest have turned out to be a common feature of the Nordic countries. This may be difficult to detect considering it is an inherently subjective evaluation. I suggest corruption does exist in Nordic countries, but that it has taken forms that are relatively difficult to detect by researchers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In the aftermath of its evaluation round in September 2017, GRECO issued recommendations to Finland aimed at improving its anti-corruption regime, such recommendations being published in March 2018. Six of the recommendations issued by GRECO concerned senior government officials and ministers, and eight of them law enforcement authorities. Regarding law enforcement agencies, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard develop a dedicated anti-corruption strategy or policy, compile a code of conduct and specify their guidelines for secondary employment, organise training on the prevention and combating of corruption, and reinforce ethical practices in their career-related processes. In addition, it is recommended that the police enhance their risk management, internal oversight, and procedures to be followed by their officials when taking up secondary employment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">When it comes to whistleblower protection, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard be obliged to report suspicions of corruption and that protection of the whistleblowers be enhanced. At the moment, Finnish law does not include all-encompassing provisions protecting whistleblowers, applicable across different industries and, as a result, whistleblowers are practically protected only by the provisions in the Employment Act regulating grounds for dismissal. When it comes to the GRECO anti-corruption recommendations with regards to judges, public prosecutors and Members of Parliament, the Finnish Ministry of Justice announced in May 2018 that it has duly implemented all the recommendations. Also, the current Minister of Labour is strongly promoting enhancing whistleblower protection in Finland according to his political agenda.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Sweden: a recent extraterritoriality exercise in the telecommunications sector</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finland is not the only Nordic jurisdiction that has recently encountered serious corruption allegations. In Sweden, a local leading telecommunications company and its Uzbek subsidiary admitted paying (on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2010) more than USD 331 million in bribes to an Uzbek government official, who was a close relative of a high-ranking government official and had influence over the Uzbek governmental body that regulated the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications operator, which used to be a listed company in New York, used US bank accounts to move the bribery related assets, which triggered the involvement of the US authorities.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2017, the company reached a settlement involving the anti-corruption authorities of the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden. In the United States, the company entered a deferred prosecution agreement agreeing to pay the fine, implement rigorous internal controls and cooperate fully with the Department’s ongoing investigation, including its investigation of individuals. The U.S. authorities agreed to credit any disgorged profits paid to the Swedish and Dutch authorities as a result of related national proceedings in Sweden and in the Netherlands.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to the criminal proceedings faced by the company, the individual directors involved are now being prosecuted in Sweden for bribery. According to the prosecutor, the company paid the authorities to make a preferred decision when considering its operational licenses in Uzbekistan and the prosecuted directors in question were aware of the bribery or even took initiative in the matter.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The loopholes relating to gifts and hospitality in the Middle East</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In Europe and in the United States, there is a common trend of companies becoming extremely cautious when it comes to hospitality and gifts, including business to business relationships. Public officials aside, one of the most common corruption related issues that businesses often struggle with is to understand where to draw the line between illegitimate and legitimate, or sometimes even expected, provision of business gifts and hospitality in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There are different legislative approaches to private sector bribery in the Middle East. For example, the UAE has explicitly criminalised bribery in business in Article 236 bis of the Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 as amended by the Federal Decree Law No. 7 of 2016 (\"UAE Penal Code\"). Another example can be found in Qatar where passive bribery i.e. accepting illegitimate benefits in the private sector has been criminalised in Article 146 of the Law Number 11 of 2004 (\"Qatar Penal Code\")..</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In light of the above, and importantly for companies doing business in the Middle East, it is highly recommended to adopt restrictive hospitality policies in order to avoid bribery risks in relation to both the public and the private sector. It should be noted that the anti-bribery laws in the Middle East do not usually include exceptions when it comes to gifts of only nominal value, if the corrupt intent can be proven. Also, the definition of a public official tends to be relatively broad resulting e.g. employees of many companies subject to (partial) government ownership being regarded as public officials.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key take home for global businesses: global vigilance</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The above examples indicate that regardless of the jurisdiction - whether the Middle East, the high ranking Nordic countries or elsewhere in the world, no business is entirely safe from corruption related risks. International rankings aside, businesses should pay attention to corruption risks and implement strict compliance policies. As demonstrated above, there is no safe-harbour when it comes to corruption risk management.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Adopting an anti-bribery policy is always advisable irrespective of whether the law so obliges. The policy should be embedded in the business procedures of the company, accompanied by quality training of the personnel at regular intervals to identify and avoid compliance risks.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Similarly to compliance policies, legislators have adopted different approaches to whistleblowing regulations. Businesses should not hesitate to go beyond the statutory requirements and implement independent whistleblowing channels to help foster a compliance culture in their organisations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is important to note that bribery is only one aspect of corruption. As demonstrated above, corruption can take many forms. Detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest in business operations can work against presuming corrupt intent, due to which businesses are advised to include relevant provisions on excluding conflicted employees from decision making in order to manage corruption risks. Even though the examples set out above include significant intentional bribery, in many jurisdictions bribery offences are criminalised even if the offence is not intentionally committed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to local laws and local law enforcement, the extraterritorial effect of certain foreign anti-corruption laws should be observed. For example, US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (\"FCPA\") is widely known to be enforced also in respect of corruption offences taking place outside the United States. Transacting in US Dollars or employing US citizens may trigger the application of the FCPA and enforcement thereof by US authorities irrespective of the location of the business or any potential bribery activity, including in the Middle East. Businesses are recommended to adopt anti-corruption policies and accounting standards that meet the requirements of all the statutes potentially applicable to their operations. It seems that national authorities are working closely together to resolve cross-border bribery matters making it more difficult for the offenders to escape the jurisdiction of national authorities in an international context.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It seems that the Nordics can no longer take their high ranking in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for granted. This is partly due not only to international watchdogs, but also legislators and law enforcement authorities realising that the roots of corruption are embedded in conflict of interest which is a prevalent issue in the Nordic countries. At the same time, other countries are also working hard towards efficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws which makes competition at the top level fiercer than ever.</p>\r\nAs Transparency International and intergovernmental bodies, such as the United Nations, do not solely consider the content of laws and enforcement statistics, making general changes in improving transparency and integrity in the public sector may also yield a positive effect on anti-corruption. Importantly for businesses, it should be noted that bribery is widely criminalised in the Middle East and bribery laws actively enforced. The efforts made by the governments in the Middle East are gradually being recognised in the international domain.'),
	(265243,25668,'MetaLink','content'),
	(265244,25668,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7941&amp;action=edit'),
	(265245,25668,'ReportText','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8015\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"4573\" height=\"1322\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption is a hot topic across the globe. Scoring on top of international rankings, the Nordic countries (being Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) have traditionally been regarded as the global frontrunners when it comes to anti-corruption. In the Middle East, governments are working hard to decrease bribery and increase transparency in society, which ultimately complements the general promotion of civil rights. Research indicates that free speech, independent media, political dissent and an open and engaged civil society, access to information and the non-existence of censorship are the core elements preventing corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The author previously practised law in Finland, advising Finnish and Scandinavian clients, before locating to the UAE. In this article I seek to provide comparative insights on the topic of anti-corruption practices between the Middle East and the Nordic countries, in light of current developments.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>From global harmonisation of laws to local enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption on a global level is subject to several international treaties, the provisions of which are then transposed to national laws, harmonising the content thereof. The most important international treaties in this regard are the United Nations Convention Against Corruption of 2003 and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 1997. In Europe, an intergovernmental body called the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was established in 1999 by the Council of Europe to monitor its Member States’ compliance with the organisation’s anti-corruption standards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The intention of international treaties is to establish common worldwide legislative standards for anti-corruption laws through imposing obligations on the Member States to bring their legislation in line with the obligations of the treaties. As a result, the laws of different Member States should include similar provisions criminalising the different forms of bribery, which provisions are locally enforced by national authorities. Despite these developments, it goes without saying that the national anti-corruption laws are far from being harmonised and different geographic regions face different corruption related challenges.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Corruption Perceptions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Transparency International is a non-governmental watchdog promoting anti-corruption in the world. It publishes an annual Corruption Perception Index, ranking 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, predicated on information provided by experts and businesspeople.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Middle East consists of a variety of jurisdictions, many of which are far from homogenous. While some of the countries are still subject to weaker public institutions due to, e.g.; internal conflict, a number of countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Lebanon, are taking positive steps towards fighting corruption and increasing transparency and integrity in their societies. The hard work conducted by local governments in the Middle East is gradually attracting the attention of the rest of the world.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This year, the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") ranked higher on the index than ever before. The UAE reached the 21st position in the ranking being the frontrunner of the Middle East. According to Transparency International, this may be due to good and efficient management of public finances, improved public procurement and better access to public services and infrastructure in the UAE. In 2016, the UAE carried out a significant reform of its criminal laws, which may be reflected in the Index as well.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Nordic countries usually score highest in international anti-corruption rankings. According to the latest Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark was ranked the 2nd least corrupt country in the world, after New Zealand. Finland and Norway shared 3rd spot and Sweden ranked 6th. Iceland, holding 13th position, appears to be an outlier among Nordic countries.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering the rankings, one may ask whether Nordic countries are perhaps a safe-harbour from corruption. Despite the apparently excellent reputation, do corruption related risks still exist for businesses in the Nordics? Are the Nordic Countries the complete opposite to the Middle East?</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignleft  wp-image-8083\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/20-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"737\" height=\"492\" />Finland: There is a snake in paradise</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Despite direct bribery being relatively rare in Finland and the rest of the Nordic jurisdictions, the existence of conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency in declaring conflicts of interest have turned out to be a common feature of the Nordic countries. This may be difficult to detect considering it is an inherently subjective evaluation. I suggest corruption does exist in Nordic countries, but that it has taken forms that are relatively difficult to detect by researchers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In the aftermath of its evaluation round in September 2017, GRECO issued recommendations to Finland aimed at improving its anti-corruption regime, such recommendations being published in March 2018. Six of the recommendations issued by GRECO concerned senior government officials and ministers, and eight of them law enforcement authorities. Regarding law enforcement agencies, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard develop a dedicated anti-corruption strategy or policy, compile a code of conduct and specify their guidelines for secondary employment, organise training on the prevention and combating of corruption, and reinforce ethical practices in their career-related processes. In addition, it is recommended that the police enhance their risk management, internal oversight, and procedures to be followed by their officials when taking up secondary employment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">When it comes to whistleblower protection, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard be obliged to report suspicions of corruption and that protection of the whistleblowers be enhanced. At the moment, Finnish law does not include all-encompassing provisions protecting whistleblowers, applicable across different industries and, as a result, whistleblowers are practically protected only by the provisions in the Employment Act regulating grounds for dismissal. When it comes to the GRECO anti-corruption recommendations with regards to judges, public prosecutors and Members of Parliament, the Finnish Ministry of Justice announced in May 2018 that it has duly implemented all the recommendations. Also, the current Minister of Labour is strongly promoting enhancing whistleblower protection in Finland according to his political agenda.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Sweden: a recent extraterritoriality exercise in the telecommunications sector</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finland is not the only Nordic jurisdiction that has recently encountered serious corruption allegations. In Sweden, a local leading telecommunications company and its Uzbek subsidiary admitted paying (on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2010) more than USD 331 million in bribes to an Uzbek government official, who was a close relative of a high-ranking government official and had influence over the Uzbek governmental body that regulated the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications operator, which used to be a listed company in New York, used US bank accounts to move the bribery related assets, which triggered the involvement of the US authorities.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2017, the company reached a settlement involving the anti-corruption authorities of the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden. In the United States, the company entered a deferred prosecution agreement agreeing to pay the fine, implement rigorous internal controls and cooperate fully with the Department’s ongoing investigation, including its investigation of individuals. The U.S. authorities agreed to credit any disgorged profits paid to the Swedish and Dutch authorities as a result of related national proceedings in Sweden and in the Netherlands.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to the criminal proceedings faced by the company, the individual directors involved are now being prosecuted in Sweden for bribery. According to the prosecutor, the company paid the authorities to make a preferred decision when considering its operational licenses in Uzbekistan and the prosecuted directors in question were aware of the bribery or even took initiative in the matter.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The loopholes relating to gifts and hospitality in the Middle East</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In Europe and in the United States, there is a common trend of companies becoming extremely cautious when it comes to hospitality and gifts, including business to business relationships. Public officials aside, one of the most common corruption related issues that businesses often struggle with is to understand where to draw the line between illegitimate and legitimate, or sometimes even expected, provision of business gifts and hospitality in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There are different legislative approaches to private sector bribery in the Middle East. For example, the UAE has explicitly criminalised bribery in business in Article 236 bis of the Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 as amended by the Federal Decree Law No. 7 of 2016 (\"UAE Penal Code\"). Another example can be found in Qatar where passive bribery i.e. accepting illegitimate benefits in the private sector has been criminalised in Article 146 of the Law Number 11 of 2004 (\"Qatar Penal Code\")..</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In light of the above, and importantly for companies doing business in the Middle East, it is highly recommended to adopt restrictive hospitality policies in order to avoid bribery risks in relation to both the public and the private sector. It should be noted that the anti-bribery laws in the Middle East do not usually include exceptions when it comes to gifts of only nominal value, if the corrupt intent can be proven. Also, the definition of a public official tends to be relatively broad resulting e.g. employees of many companies subject to (partial) government ownership being regarded as public officials.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key take home for global businesses: global vigilance</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The above examples indicate that regardless of the jurisdiction - whether the Middle East, the high ranking Nordic countries or elsewhere in the world, no business is entirely safe from corruption related risks. International rankings aside, businesses should pay attention to corruption risks and implement strict compliance policies. As demonstrated above, there is no safe-harbour when it comes to corruption risk management.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Adopting an anti-bribery policy is always advisable irrespective of whether the law so obliges. The policy should be embedded in the business procedures of the company, accompanied by quality training of the personnel at regular intervals to identify and avoid compliance risks.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Similarly to compliance policies, legislators have adopted different approaches to whistleblowing regulations. Businesses should not hesitate to go beyond the statutory requirements and implement independent whistleblowing channels to help foster a compliance culture in their organisations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is important to note that bribery is only one aspect of corruption. As demonstrated above, corruption can take many forms. Detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest in business operations can work against presuming corrupt intent, due to which businesses are advised to include relevant provisions on excluding conflicted employees from decision making in order to manage corruption risks. Even though the examples set out above include significant intentional bribery, in many jurisdictions bribery offences are criminalised even if the offence is not intentionally committed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to local laws and local law enforcement, the extraterritorial effect of certain foreign anti-corruption laws should be observed. For example, US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (\"FCPA\") is widely known to be enforced also in respect of corruption offences taking place outside the United States. Transacting in US Dollars or employing US citizens may trigger the application of the FCPA and enforcement thereof by US authorities irrespective of the location of the business or any potential bribery activity, including in the Middle East. Businesses are recommended to adopt anti-corruption policies and accounting standards that meet the requirements of all the statutes potentially applicable to their operations. It seems that national authorities are working closely together to resolve cross-border bribery matters making it more difficult for the offenders to escape the jurisdiction of national authorities in an international context.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It seems that the Nordics can no longer take their high ranking in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for granted. This is partly due not only to international watchdogs, but also legislators and law enforcement authorities realising that the roots of corruption are embedded in conflict of interest which is a prevalent issue in the Nordic countries. At the same time, other countries are also working hard towards efficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws which makes competition at the top level fiercer than ever.</p>\r\nAs Transparency International and intergovernmental bodies, such as the United Nations, do not solely consider the content of laws and enforcement statistics, making general changes in improving transparency and integrity in the public sector may also yield a positive effect on anti-corruption. Importantly for businesses, it should be noted that bribery is widely criminalised in the Middle East and bribery laws actively enforced. The efforts made by the governments in the Middle East are gradually being recognised in the international domain.|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8015\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"4573\" height=\"1322\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption is a hot topic across the globe. Scoring on top of international rankings, the Nordic countries (being Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) have traditionally been regarded as the global frontrunners when it comes to anti-corruption. In the Middle East, governments are working hard to decrease bribery and increase transparency in society, which ultimately complements the general promotion of civil rights. Research indicates that free speech, independent media, political dissent and an open and engaged civil society, access to information and the non-existence of censorship are the core elements preventing corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The author previously practised law in Finland, advising Finnish and Scandinavian clients, before locating to the UAE. In this article I seek to provide comparative insights on the topic of anti-corruption practices between the Middle East and the Nordic countries, in light of current developments.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>From global harmonisation of laws to local enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption on a global level is subject to several international treaties, the provisions of which are then transposed to national laws, harmonising the content thereof. The most important international treaties in this regard are the United Nations Convention Against Corruption of 2003 and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 1997. In Europe, an intergovernmental body called the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was established in 1999 by the Council of Europe to monitor its Member States’ compliance with the organisation’s anti-corruption standards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The intention of international treaties is to establish common worldwide legislative standards for anti-corruption laws through imposing obligations on the Member States to bring their legislation in line with the obligations of the treaties. As a result, the laws of different Member States should include similar provisions criminalising the different forms of bribery, which provisions are locally enforced by national authorities. Despite these developments, it goes without saying that the national anti-corruption laws are far from being harmonised and different geographic regions face different corruption related challenges.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Corruption Perceptions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Transparency International is a non-governmental watchdog promoting anti-corruption in the world. It publishes an annual Corruption Perception Index, ranking 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, predicated on information provided by experts and businesspeople.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Middle East consists of a variety of jurisdictions, many of which are far from homogenous. While some of the countries are still subject to weaker public institutions due to, e.g.; internal conflict, a number of countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Lebanon, are taking positive steps towards fighting corruption and increasing transparency and integrity in their societies. The hard work conducted by local governments in the Middle East is gradually attracting the attention of the rest of the world.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This year, the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") ranked higher on the index than ever before. The UAE reached the 21st position in the ranking being the frontrunner of the Middle East. According to Transparency International, this may be due to good and efficient management of public finances, improved public procurement and better access to public services and infrastructure in the UAE. In 2016, the UAE carried out a significant reform of its criminal laws, which may be reflected in the Index as well.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Nordic countries usually score highest in international anti-corruption rankings. According to the latest Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark was ranked the 2nd least corrupt country in the world, after New Zealand. Finland and Norway shared 3rd spot and Sweden ranked 6th. Iceland, holding 13th position, appears to be an outlier among Nordic countries.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering the rankings, one may ask whether Nordic countries are perhaps a safe-harbour from corruption. Despite the apparently excellent reputation, do corruption related risks still exist for businesses in the Nordics? Are the Nordic Countries the complete opposite to the Middle East?</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignleft wp-image-8083\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/20-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"484\" height=\"323\" />Finland: There is a snake in paradise</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Despite direct bribery being relatively rare in Finland and the rest of the Nordic jurisdictions, the existence of conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency in declaring conflicts of interest have turned out to be a common feature of the Nordic countries. This may be difficult to detect considering it is an inherently subjective evaluation. I suggest corruption does exist in Nordic countries, but that it has taken forms that are relatively difficult to detect by researchers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In the aftermath of its evaluation round in September 2017, GRECO issued recommendations to Finland aimed at improving its anti-corruption regime, such recommendations being published in March 2018. Six of the recommendations issued by GRECO concerned senior government officials and ministers, and eight of them law enforcement authorities. Regarding law enforcement agencies, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard develop a dedicated anti-corruption strategy or policy, compile a code of conduct and specify their guidelines for secondary employment, organise training on the prevention and combating of corruption, and reinforce ethical practices in their career-related processes. In addition, it is recommended that the police enhance their risk management, internal oversight, and procedures to be followed by their officials when taking up secondary employment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">When it comes to whistleblower protection, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard be obliged to report suspicions of corruption and that protection of the whistleblowers be enhanced. At the moment, Finnish law does not include all-encompassing provisions protecting whistleblowers, applicable across different industries and, as a result, whistleblowers are practically protected only by the provisions in the Employment Act regulating grounds for dismissal. When it comes to the GRECO anti-corruption recommendations with regards to judges, public prosecutors and Members of Parliament, the Finnish Ministry of Justice announced in May 2018 that it has duly implemented all the recommendations. Also, the current Minister of Labour is strongly promoting enhancing whistleblower protection in Finland according to his political agenda.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Sweden: a recent extraterritoriality exercise in the telecommunications sector</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finland is not the only Nordic jurisdiction that has recently encountered serious corruption allegations. In Sweden, a local leading telecommunications company and its Uzbek subsidiary admitted paying (on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2010) more than USD 331 million in bribes to an Uzbek government official, who was a close relative of a high-ranking government official and had influence over the Uzbek governmental body that regulated the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications operator, which used to be a listed company in New York, used US bank accounts to move the bribery related assets, which triggered the involvement of the US authorities.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2017, the company reached a settlement involving the anti-corruption authorities of the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden. In the United States, the company entered a deferred prosecution agreement agreeing to pay the fine, implement rigorous internal controls and cooperate fully with the Department’s ongoing investigation, including its investigation of individuals. The U.S. authorities agreed to credit any disgorged profits paid to the Swedish and Dutch authorities as a result of related national proceedings in Sweden and in the Netherlands.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to the criminal proceedings faced by the company, the individual directors involved are now being prosecuted in Sweden for bribery. According to the prosecutor, the company paid the authorities to make a preferred decision when considering its operational licenses in Uzbekistan and the prosecuted directors in question were aware of the bribery or even took initiative in the matter.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The loopholes relating to gifts and hospitality in the Middle East</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In Europe and in the United States, there is a common trend of companies becoming extremely cautious when it comes to hospitality and gifts, including business to business relationships. Public officials aside, one of the most common corruption related issues that businesses often struggle with is to understand where to draw the line between illegitimate and legitimate, or sometimes even expected, provision of business gifts and hospitality in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There are different legislative approaches to private sector bribery in the Middle East. For example, the UAE has explicitly criminalised bribery in business in Article 236 bis of the Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 as amended by the Federal Decree Law No. 7 of 2016 (\"UAE Penal Code\"). Another example can be found in Qatar where passive bribery i.e. accepting illegitimate benefits in the private sector has been criminalised in Article 146 of the Law Number 11 of 2004 (\"Qatar Penal Code\")..</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In light of the above, and importantly for companies doing business in the Middle East, it is highly recommended to adopt restrictive hospitality policies in order to avoid bribery risks in relation to both the public and the private sector. It should be noted that the anti-bribery laws in the Middle East do not usually include exceptions when it comes to gifts of only nominal value, if the corrupt intent can be proven. Also, the definition of a public official tends to be relatively broad resulting e.g. employees of many companies subject to (partial) government ownership being regarded as public officials.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key take home for global businesses: global vigilance</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The above examples indicate that regardless of the jurisdiction - whether the Middle East, the high ranking Nordic countries or elsewhere in the world, no business is entirely safe from corruption related risks. International rankings aside, businesses should pay attention to corruption risks and implement strict compliance policies. As demonstrated above, there is no safe-harbour when it comes to corruption risk management.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Adopting an anti-bribery policy is always advisable irrespective of whether the law so obliges. The policy should be embedded in the business procedures of the company, accompanied by quality training of the personnel at regular intervals to identify and avoid compliance risks.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Similarly to compliance policies, legislators have adopted different approaches to whistleblowing regulations. Businesses should not hesitate to go beyond the statutory requirements and implement independent whistleblowing channels to help foster a compliance culture in their organisations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is important to note that bribery is only one aspect of corruption. As demonstrated above, corruption can take many forms. Detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest in business operations can work against presuming corrupt intent, due to which businesses are advised to include relevant provisions on excluding conflicted employees from decision making in order to manage corruption risks. Even though the examples set out above include significant intentional bribery, in many jurisdictions bribery offences are criminalised even if the offence is not intentionally committed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to local laws and local law enforcement, the extraterritorial effect of certain foreign anti-corruption laws should be observed. For example, US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (\"FCPA\") is widely known to be enforced also in respect of corruption offences taking place outside the United States. Transacting in US Dollars or employing US citizens may trigger the application of the FCPA and enforcement thereof by US authorities irrespective of the location of the business or any potential bribery activity, including in the Middle East. Businesses are recommended to adopt anti-corruption policies and accounting standards that meet the requirements of all the statutes potentially applicable to their operations. It seems that national authorities are working closely together to resolve cross-border bribery matters making it more difficult for the offenders to escape the jurisdiction of national authorities in an international context.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It seems that the Nordics can no longer take their high ranking in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for granted. This is partly due not only to international watchdogs, but also legislators and law enforcement authorities realising that the roots of corruption are embedded in conflict of interest which is a prevalent issue in the Nordic countries. At the same time, other countries are also working hard towards efficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws which makes competition at the top level fiercer than ever.</p>\r\nAs Transparency International and intergovernmental bodies, such as the United Nations, do not solely consider the content of laws and enforcement statistics, making general changes in improving transparency and integrity in the public sector may also yield a positive effect on anti-corruption. Importantly for businesses, it should be noted that bribery is widely criminalised in the Middle East and bribery laws actively enforced. The efforts made by the governments in the Middle East are gradually being recognised in the international domain.'),
	(265246,25668,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265247,25668,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265248,25668,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265249,25668,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265250,25669,'PostID','7941'),
	(265251,25669,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265252,25669,'PostTitle','Arabian Nights or Northern Lights: Observing Global Anti-Corruption Practices in Full Daylight'),
	(265253,25669,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265254,25669,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:40:48'),
	(265255,25669,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/arabian-nights-or-northern-lights-observing-global-anti-corruption-practices-in-full-daylight/'),
	(265256,25669,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7941&amp;action=edit'),
	(265257,25669,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265258,25669,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265259,25669,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265260,25669,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265261,25670,'PostID','7941'),
	(265262,25670,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265263,25670,'PostTitle','Arabian Nights or Northern Lights: Observing Global Anti-Corruption Practices in Full Daylight'),
	(265264,25670,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265265,25670,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:40:48'),
	(265266,25670,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/arabian-nights-or-northern-lights-observing-global-anti-corruption-practices-in-full-daylight/'),
	(265267,25670,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7941&amp;action=edit'),
	(265268,25670,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265269,25670,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265270,25670,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265271,25670,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265272,25671,'AttachmentID','8084'),
	(265273,25671,'FileName','shutterstock_138713570.jpg'),
	(265274,25671,'FilePath','/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/08'),
	(265275,25671,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265276,25671,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265277,25671,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265278,25671,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265279,25672,'PostID','7941'),
	(265280,25672,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265281,25672,'PostTitle','Arabian Nights or Northern Lights: Observing Global Anti-Corruption Practices in Full Daylight'),
	(265282,25672,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265283,25672,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:40:48'),
	(265284,25672,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/arabian-nights-or-northern-lights-observing-global-anti-corruption-practices-in-full-daylight/'),
	(265285,25672,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7941&amp;action=edit'),
	(265286,25672,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(265287,25672,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(265288,25672,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(265289,25672,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(265290,25673,'PostID','7941'),
	(265291,25673,'PostTitle','Arabian Nights or Northern Lights: Observing Global Anti-Corruption Practices in Full Daylight'),
	(265292,25673,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(265293,25673,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(265294,25673,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:40:48'),
	(265295,25673,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/arabian-nights-or-northern-lights-observing-global-anti-corruption-practices-in-full-daylight/'),
	(265296,25673,'MetaID','223362'),
	(265297,25673,'MetaKey','content'),
	(265298,25673,'MetaValueNew','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8015\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"4573\" height=\"1322\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption is a hot topic across the globe. Scoring on top of international rankings, the Nordic countries (being Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) have traditionally been regarded as the global frontrunners when it comes to anti-corruption. In the Middle East, governments are working hard to decrease bribery and increase transparency in society, which ultimately complements the general promotion of civil rights. Research indicates that free speech, independent media, political dissent and an open and engaged civil society, access to information and the non-existence of censorship are the core elements preventing corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The author previously practised law in Finland, advising Finnish and Scandinavian clients, before locating to the UAE. In this article I seek to provide comparative insights on the topic of anti-corruption practices between the Middle East and the Nordic countries, in light of current developments.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>From global harmonisation of laws to local enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption on a global level is subject to several international treaties, the provisions of which are then transposed to national laws, harmonising the content thereof. The most important international treaties in this regard are the United Nations Convention Against Corruption of 2003 and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 1997. In Europe, an intergovernmental body called the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was established in 1999 by the Council of Europe to monitor its Member States’ compliance with the organisation’s anti-corruption standards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The intention of international treaties is to establish common worldwide legislative standards for anti-corruption laws through imposing obligations on the Member States to bring their legislation in line with the obligations of the treaties. As a result, the laws of different Member States should include similar provisions criminalising the different forms of bribery, which provisions are locally enforced by national authorities. Despite these developments, it goes without saying that the national anti-corruption laws are far from being harmonised and different geographic regions face different corruption related challenges.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Corruption Perceptions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Transparency International is a non-governmental watchdog promoting anti-corruption in the world. It publishes an annual Corruption Perception Index, ranking 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, predicated on information provided by experts and businesspeople.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Middle East consists of a variety of jurisdictions, many of which are far from homogenous. While some of the countries are still subject to weaker public institutions due to, e.g.; internal conflict, a number of countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Lebanon, are taking positive steps towards fighting corruption and increasing transparency and integrity in their societies. The hard work conducted by local governments in the Middle East is gradually attracting the attention of the rest of the world.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This year, the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") ranked higher on the index than ever before. The UAE reached the 21st position in the ranking being the frontrunner of the Middle East. According to Transparency International, this may be due to good and efficient management of public finances, improved public procurement and better access to public services and infrastructure in the UAE. In 2016, the UAE carried out a significant reform of its criminal laws, which may be reflected in the Index as well.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Nordic countries usually score highest in international anti-corruption rankings. According to the latest Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark was ranked the 2nd least corrupt country in the world, after New Zealand. Finland and Norway shared 3rd spot and Sweden ranked 6th. Iceland, holding 13th position, appears to be an outlier among Nordic countries.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering the rankings, one may ask whether Nordic countries are perhaps a safe-harbour from corruption. Despite the apparently excellent reputation, do corruption related risks still exist for businesses in the Nordics? Are the Nordic Countries the complete opposite to the Middle East?</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Finland: There is a snake in paradise</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Despite direct bribery being relatively rare in Finland and the rest of the Nordic jurisdictions, the existence of conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency in declaring conflicts of interest have turned out to be a common feature of the Nordic countries. This may be difficult to detect considering it is an inherently subjective evaluation. I suggest corruption does exist in Nordic countries, but that it has taken forms that are relatively difficult to detect by researchers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In the aftermath of its evaluation round in September 2017, GRECO issued recommendations to Finland aimed at improving its anti-corruption regime, such recommendations being published in March 2018. Six of the recommendations issued by GRECO concerned senior government officials and ministers, and eight of them law enforcement authorities. Regarding law enforcement agencies, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard develop a dedicated anti-corruption strategy or policy, compile a code of conduct and specify their guidelines for secondary employment, organise training on the prevention and combating of corruption, and reinforce ethical practices in their career-related processes. In addition, it is recommended that the police enhance their risk management, internal oversight, and procedures to be followed by their officials when taking up secondary employment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">When it comes to whistleblower protection, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard be obliged to report suspicions of corruption and that protection of the whistleblowers be enhanced. At the moment, Finnish law does not include all-encompassing provisions protecting whistleblowers, applicable across different industries and, as a result, whistleblowers are practically protected only by the provisions in the Employment Act regulating grounds for dismissal. When it comes to the GRECO anti-corruption recommendations with regards to judges, public prosecutors and Members of Parliament, the Finnish Ministry of Justice announced in May 2018 that it has duly implemented all the recommendations. Also, the current Minister of Labour is strongly promoting enhancing whistleblower protection in Finland according to his political agenda.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright size-large wp-image-8084\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/shutterstock_138713570-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"640\" height=\"427\" />Sweden: a recent extraterritoriality exercise in the telecommunications sector</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finland is not the only Nordic jurisdiction that has recently encountered serious corruption allegations. In Sweden, a local leading telecommunications company and its Uzbek subsidiary admitted paying (on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2010) more than USD 331 million in bribes to an Uzbek government official, who was a close relative of a high-ranking government official and had influence over the Uzbek governmental body that regulated the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications operator, which used to be a listed company in New York, used US bank accounts to move the bribery related assets, which triggered the involvement of the US authorities.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2017, the company reached a settlement involving the anti-corruption authorities of the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden. In the United States, the company entered a deferred prosecution agreement agreeing to pay the fine, implement rigorous internal controls and cooperate fully with the Department’s ongoing investigation, including its investigation of individuals. The U.S. authorities agreed to credit any disgorged profits paid to the Swedish and Dutch authorities as a result of related national proceedings in Sweden and in the Netherlands.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to the criminal proceedings faced by the company, the individual directors involved are now being prosecuted in Sweden for bribery. According to the prosecutor, the company paid the authorities to make a preferred decision when considering its operational licenses in Uzbekistan and the prosecuted directors in question were aware of the bribery or even took initiative in the matter.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The loopholes relating to gifts and hospitality in the Middle East</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In Europe and in the United States, there is a common trend of companies becoming extremely cautious when it comes to hospitality and gifts, including business to business relationships. Public officials aside, one of the most common corruption related issues that businesses often struggle with is to understand where to draw the line between illegitimate and legitimate, or sometimes even expected, provision of business gifts and hospitality in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There are different legislative approaches to private sector bribery in the Middle East. For example, the UAE has explicitly criminalised bribery in business in Article 236 bis of the Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 as amended by the Federal Decree Law No. 7 of 2016 (\"UAE Penal Code\"). Another example can be found in Qatar where passive bribery i.e. accepting illegitimate benefits in the private sector has been criminalised in Article 146 of the Law Number 11 of 2004 (\"Qatar Penal Code\")..</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In light of the above, and importantly for companies doing business in the Middle East, it is highly recommended to adopt restrictive hospitality policies in order to avoid bribery risks in relation to both the public and the private sector. It should be noted that the anti-bribery laws in the Middle East do not usually include exceptions when it comes to gifts of only nominal value, if the corrupt intent can be proven. Also, the definition of a public official tends to be relatively broad resulting e.g. employees of many companies subject to (partial) government ownership being regarded as public officials.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignleft size-large wp-image-8083\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/20-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"640\" height=\"427\" />Key take home for global businesses: global vigilance</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The above examples indicate that regardless of the jurisdiction - whether the Middle East, the high ranking Nordic countries or elsewhere in the world, no business is entirely safe from corruption related risks. International rankings aside, businesses should pay attention to corruption risks and implement strict compliance policies. As demonstrated above, there is no safe-harbour when it comes to corruption risk management.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Adopting an anti-bribery policy is always advisable irrespective of whether the law so obliges. The policy should be embedded in the business procedures of the company, accompanied by quality training of the personnel at regular intervals to identify and avoid compliance risks.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Similarly to compliance policies, legislators have adopted different approaches to whistleblowing regulations. Businesses should not hesitate to go beyond the statutory requirements and implement independent whistleblowing channels to help foster a compliance culture in their organisations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is important to note that bribery is only one aspect of corruption. As demonstrated above, corruption can take many forms. Detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest in business operations can work against presuming corrupt intent, due to which businesses are advised to include relevant provisions on excluding conflicted employees from decision making in order to manage corruption risks. Even though the examples set out above include significant intentional bribery, in many jurisdictions bribery offences are criminalised even if the offence is not intentionally committed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to local laws and local law enforcement, the extraterritorial effect of certain foreign anti-corruption laws should be observed. For example, US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (\"FCPA\") is widely known to be enforced also in respect of corruption offences taking place outside the United States. Transacting in US Dollars or employing US citizens may trigger the application of the FCPA and enforcement thereof by US authorities irrespective of the location of the business or any potential bribery activity, including in the Middle East. Businesses are recommended to adopt anti-corruption policies and accounting standards that meet the requirements of all the statutes potentially applicable to their operations. It seems that national authorities are working closely together to resolve cross-border bribery matters making it more difficult for the offenders to escape the jurisdiction of national authorities in an international context.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It seems that the Nordics can no longer take their high ranking in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for granted. This is partly due not only to international watchdogs, but also legislators and law enforcement authorities realising that the roots of corruption are embedded in conflict of interest which is a prevalent issue in the Nordic countries. At the same time, other countries are also working hard towards efficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws which makes competition at the top level fiercer than ever.</p>\r\nAs Transparency International and intergovernmental bodies, such as the United Nations, do not solely consider the content of laws and enforcement statistics, making general changes in improving transparency and integrity in the public sector may also yield a positive effect on anti-corruption. Importantly for businesses, it should be noted that bribery is widely criminalised in the Middle East and bribery laws actively enforced. The efforts made by the governments in the Middle East are gradually being recognised in the international domain.'),
	(265299,25673,'MetaValueOld','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-8015\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"4573\" height=\"1322\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption is a hot topic across the globe. Scoring on top of international rankings, the Nordic countries (being Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) have traditionally been regarded as the global frontrunners when it comes to anti-corruption. In the Middle East, governments are working hard to decrease bribery and increase transparency in society, which ultimately complements the general promotion of civil rights. Research indicates that free speech, independent media, political dissent and an open and engaged civil society, access to information and the non-existence of censorship are the core elements preventing corruption.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The author previously practised law in Finland, advising Finnish and Scandinavian clients, before locating to the UAE. In this article I seek to provide comparative insights on the topic of anti-corruption practices between the Middle East and the Nordic countries, in light of current developments.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>From global harmonisation of laws to local enforcement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Combating corruption on a global level is subject to several international treaties, the provisions of which are then transposed to national laws, harmonising the content thereof. The most important international treaties in this regard are the United Nations Convention Against Corruption of 2003 and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 1997. In Europe, an intergovernmental body called the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was established in 1999 by the Council of Europe to monitor its Member States’ compliance with the organisation’s anti-corruption standards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The intention of international treaties is to establish common worldwide legislative standards for anti-corruption laws through imposing obligations on the Member States to bring their legislation in line with the obligations of the treaties. As a result, the laws of different Member States should include similar provisions criminalising the different forms of bribery, which provisions are locally enforced by national authorities. Despite these developments, it goes without saying that the national anti-corruption laws are far from being harmonised and different geographic regions face different corruption related challenges.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Corruption Perceptions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Transparency International is a non-governmental watchdog promoting anti-corruption in the world. It publishes an annual Corruption Perception Index, ranking 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, predicated on information provided by experts and businesspeople.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Middle East consists of a variety of jurisdictions, many of which are far from homogenous. While some of the countries are still subject to weaker public institutions due to, e.g.; internal conflict, a number of countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Lebanon, are taking positive steps towards fighting corruption and increasing transparency and integrity in their societies. The hard work conducted by local governments in the Middle East is gradually attracting the attention of the rest of the world.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This year, the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") ranked higher on the index than ever before. The UAE reached the 21st position in the ranking being the frontrunner of the Middle East. According to Transparency International, this may be due to good and efficient management of public finances, improved public procurement and better access to public services and infrastructure in the UAE. In 2016, the UAE carried out a significant reform of its criminal laws, which may be reflected in the Index as well.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Nordic countries usually score highest in international anti-corruption rankings. According to the latest Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark was ranked the 2nd least corrupt country in the world, after New Zealand. Finland and Norway shared 3rd spot and Sweden ranked 6th. Iceland, holding 13th position, appears to be an outlier among Nordic countries.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering the rankings, one may ask whether Nordic countries are perhaps a safe-harbour from corruption. Despite the apparently excellent reputation, do corruption related risks still exist for businesses in the Nordics? Are the Nordic Countries the complete opposite to the Middle East?</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignleft wp-image-8083\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/20-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"484\" height=\"323\" />Finland: There is a snake in paradise</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Despite direct bribery being relatively rare in Finland and the rest of the Nordic jurisdictions, the existence of conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency in declaring conflicts of interest have turned out to be a common feature of the Nordic countries. This may be difficult to detect considering it is an inherently subjective evaluation. I suggest corruption does exist in Nordic countries, but that it has taken forms that are relatively difficult to detect by researchers.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In the aftermath of its evaluation round in September 2017, GRECO issued recommendations to Finland aimed at improving its anti-corruption regime, such recommendations being published in March 2018. Six of the recommendations issued by GRECO concerned senior government officials and ministers, and eight of them law enforcement authorities. Regarding law enforcement agencies, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard develop a dedicated anti-corruption strategy or policy, compile a code of conduct and specify their guidelines for secondary employment, organise training on the prevention and combating of corruption, and reinforce ethical practices in their career-related processes. In addition, it is recommended that the police enhance their risk management, internal oversight, and procedures to be followed by their officials when taking up secondary employment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">When it comes to whistleblower protection, GRECO recommends that the Police and the Border Guard be obliged to report suspicions of corruption and that protection of the whistleblowers be enhanced. At the moment, Finnish law does not include all-encompassing provisions protecting whistleblowers, applicable across different industries and, as a result, whistleblowers are practically protected only by the provisions in the Employment Act regulating grounds for dismissal. When it comes to the GRECO anti-corruption recommendations with regards to judges, public prosecutors and Members of Parliament, the Finnish Ministry of Justice announced in May 2018 that it has duly implemented all the recommendations. Also, the current Minister of Labour is strongly promoting enhancing whistleblower protection in Finland according to his political agenda.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Sweden: a recent extraterritoriality exercise in the telecommunications sector</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finland is not the only Nordic jurisdiction that has recently encountered serious corruption allegations. In Sweden, a local leading telecommunications company and its Uzbek subsidiary admitted paying (on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2010) more than USD 331 million in bribes to an Uzbek government official, who was a close relative of a high-ranking government official and had influence over the Uzbek governmental body that regulated the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications operator, which used to be a listed company in New York, used US bank accounts to move the bribery related assets, which triggered the involvement of the US authorities.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2017, the company reached a settlement involving the anti-corruption authorities of the United States, the Netherlands and Sweden. In the United States, the company entered a deferred prosecution agreement agreeing to pay the fine, implement rigorous internal controls and cooperate fully with the Department’s ongoing investigation, including its investigation of individuals. The U.S. authorities agreed to credit any disgorged profits paid to the Swedish and Dutch authorities as a result of related national proceedings in Sweden and in the Netherlands.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to the criminal proceedings faced by the company, the individual directors involved are now being prosecuted in Sweden for bribery. According to the prosecutor, the company paid the authorities to make a preferred decision when considering its operational licenses in Uzbekistan and the prosecuted directors in question were aware of the bribery or even took initiative in the matter.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The loopholes relating to gifts and hospitality in the Middle East</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In Europe and in the United States, there is a common trend of companies becoming extremely cautious when it comes to hospitality and gifts, including business to business relationships. Public officials aside, one of the most common corruption related issues that businesses often struggle with is to understand where to draw the line between illegitimate and legitimate, or sometimes even expected, provision of business gifts and hospitality in the Middle East.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">There are different legislative approaches to private sector bribery in the Middle East. For example, the UAE has explicitly criminalised bribery in business in Article 236 bis of the Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 as amended by the Federal Decree Law No. 7 of 2016 (\"UAE Penal Code\"). Another example can be found in Qatar where passive bribery i.e. accepting illegitimate benefits in the private sector has been criminalised in Article 146 of the Law Number 11 of 2004 (\"Qatar Penal Code\")..</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In light of the above, and importantly for companies doing business in the Middle East, it is highly recommended to adopt restrictive hospitality policies in order to avoid bribery risks in relation to both the public and the private sector. It should be noted that the anti-bribery laws in the Middle East do not usually include exceptions when it comes to gifts of only nominal value, if the corrupt intent can be proven. Also, the definition of a public official tends to be relatively broad resulting e.g. employees of many companies subject to (partial) government ownership being regarded as public officials.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key take home for global businesses: global vigilance</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The above examples indicate that regardless of the jurisdiction - whether the Middle East, the high ranking Nordic countries or elsewhere in the world, no business is entirely safe from corruption related risks. International rankings aside, businesses should pay attention to corruption risks and implement strict compliance policies. As demonstrated above, there is no safe-harbour when it comes to corruption risk management.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Adopting an anti-bribery policy is always advisable irrespective of whether the law so obliges. The policy should be embedded in the business procedures of the company, accompanied by quality training of the personnel at regular intervals to identify and avoid compliance risks.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Similarly to compliance policies, legislators have adopted different approaches to whistleblowing regulations. Businesses should not hesitate to go beyond the statutory requirements and implement independent whistleblowing channels to help foster a compliance culture in their organisations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is important to note that bribery is only one aspect of corruption. As demonstrated above, corruption can take many forms. Detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest in business operations can work against presuming corrupt intent, due to which businesses are advised to include relevant provisions on excluding conflicted employees from decision making in order to manage corruption risks. Even though the examples set out above include significant intentional bribery, in many jurisdictions bribery offences are criminalised even if the offence is not intentionally committed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In addition to local laws and local law enforcement, the extraterritorial effect of certain foreign anti-corruption laws should be observed. For example, US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (\"FCPA\") is widely known to be enforced also in respect of corruption offences taking place outside the United States. Transacting in US Dollars or employing US citizens may trigger the application of the FCPA and enforcement thereof by US authorities irrespective of the location of the business or any potential bribery activity, including in the Middle East. Businesses are recommended to adopt anti-corruption policies and accounting standards that meet the requirements of all the statutes potentially applicable to their operations. It seems that national authorities are working closely together to resolve cross-border bribery matters making it more difficult for the offenders to escape the jurisdiction of national authorities in an international context.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It seems that the Nordics can no longer take their high ranking in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for granted. This is partly due not only to international watchdogs, but also legislators and law enforcement authorities realising that the roots of corruption are embedded in conflict of interest which is a prevalent issue in the Nordic countries. At the same time, other countries are also working hard towards efficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws which makes competition at the top level fiercer than ever.</p>\r\nAs Transparency International and intergovernmental bodies, such as the United Nations, do not solely consider the content of laws and enforcement statistics, making general changes in improving transparency and integrity in the public sector may also yield a positive effect on anti-corruption. Importantly for businesses, it should be noted that bribery is widely criminalised in the Middle East and bribery laws actively enforced. The efforts made by the governments in the Middle East are gradually being recognised in the international domain.'),
